DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/31/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Application
Claims 39-44 and 53-56 are pending and are under current examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 39-44 and 53-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention (see M.P.E.P 608.01 (k)).
Claims 39-44 and 53-56 indefinite because:
Claim 39 recites “chitosan containing solution is free of compounds that form insoluble complexes with chitosan-----precipitation of chitosan”, which renders the claim indefinite. This is because, the specification is silent about list of any such compounds that may form insoluble complex with chitosan or induce precipitation of chitosan and thus scope of the claims is unclear with respect to what compounds/component may be included or excluded from the composition. Further, chitosan is insoluble or precipitates in water and water is an essential component in the composition of the instant claims. Thus, making scope of claims unclear.
Since the dependent claims doesn’t cure the above deficiency, these claims are also indefinite.
Appropriate correction/explanation required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 39-43, and 55-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (WO2014/126370 A1; as provided by the applicant on IDS dated 08/03/2022) as evidenced by Pubmed (pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/tyrothricin, downloaded 03/24/2026) and Rautenbach (Biochimie, 130, 2016, 122-131).
Kim discloses a method of treating wound or promoting wound healing, such as burn wound, abrasion wound, closed wound etc. on any area with example of skin area using an antimicrobial and/or anti-inflammatory composition in form of liquid, ointment or a gel applied directly to affected area with several examples comprising chitosan 0.4-20wt% with respect to total weight of the composition (which can be obtained from crustaceans) with % of deacetylation as 80%, 82%, 84%, 86%, 90% or higher (thus reads on limitation of 70-100%) (paragraph 37), purified water, lactic acid 0.2-20wt% with respect to total weight of the composition (encompasses 40-100% of the weight of the chitosan); optionally may have preservative such as benzyl alcohol and optionally may contain plasticizer such as propylene glycol; polyol, such as propylene glycol, glycerin (92g/mol), polyethylene glycol PEG (with molecular weight of at least 90g/mol); essential oils, such as olive oil (extracted from plant material); iodophore (for example povidone-iodine (same compound and iodophore as described in the instant specification), wherein the composition is applied topically thereby forming a film on affected area (paragraphs 17, 23, 26, 29, 30-34, 37, 42-44, 55-61, claims and Examples, paragraphs 66 -104). The cited prior art further discloses MW of chitosan as 100,000D or less or 100,000D-2,000,000 D or less (paragraphs 70-71).
PNG
media_image1.png
532
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
773
771
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examples 1-4 and 6-20 (paragraphs 66 -92) discloses % by weight of chitosan based on the weight of the formulation as 10% (example 4), 10% (example 0.5% (example 7), 3% (example 13), 2% (examples 9, 11, 12 and 14), 4% (examples 1-3, 6, 10, 15-19), 1% (example 8, 20) along with water (at least 80wt% of the formulation in examples (7-10) and lactic acid.
For example (pages 13-14, paragraphs 64-69), example 1 consists: Chitosan 4g, lactic acid 2 g and water 100g-6g-(2.5-0.1-1-0.05-1=4.65g) =89.35g were dissolved making a composition. Thus chitosan 4/95.35 (89.35+2g+4g=95.35g) x100=4.19 % (example 1) and acid 2/4x100=50% of chitosan. As evidenced by Pubmed and Rautenbach, tyrothricin has antifungal activity.
PNG
media_image3.png
537
745
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Importantly, examples 17 and 20 (pages 17-18, paragraphs 89-92). For instance, example 17 comprises no antibiotic or any of the negative limitations of the claims: Chitosan 4g (MW 100,000-2,000,000 or less), lactic acid 2 g, 1g Centella asiatica extract (anti-inflammatory, antioxidant), 5 g polysorbate 80 (stabilizer), 0.05 g cetylpyridinium chloride (preservative), +additional components (5g+5g+1g=11g) and water 100g-(4+2+1+5+0.05=12.05g +additional components 11g) =76.95g. Thus, chitosan 4/96 x100=4.16 % of total composition; and acid 2/4x100=50% of chitosan (reads on all limitations of the instant claims).
PNG
media_image4.png
629
796
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regard to limitation of viscosity of chitosan, viscosity of chitosan containing solution -since the cited prior art teaches same chitosan as in the instant claims, the chitosan of the cited prior art is also expected to possess same viscosity under same conditions as in the instant claims. This is because substances are inseparable from their physical and chemical properties.
With regard to the limitation in instant claim, “sprayable”, since the cited prior art teaches same composition as in instant claims, the composition of the prior art must be capable of being sprayable, whether or not realized by the cited prior art. Further, if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation”); Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d at 152, 88 USPQ2d at 480-81 (preamble is not a limitation where claim is directed to a product and the preamble merely recites a property inherent in an old product defined by the remainder of the claim); STX LLC. v. Brine, 211 F.3d 588, 591, 54 USPQ2d 1347, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Since the cited prior art reads on limitations of the instant claims 39-43, and 55-56, these claims are anticipated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 39-44 and 53-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO2014/126370 A1; as provided by the applicant on IDS dated 08/03/2022) as evidenced by Pubmed (pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/tyrothricin, downloaded on 03/24/2026) and Rautenbach (Biochimie, 130, 2016, 122-131).
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art
Kim discloses a method of treating wound or promoting wound healing, such as burn wound, abrasion wound, closed wound etc. on any area with example of skin area using an antimicrobial and/or anti-inflammatory composition in form of liquid, ointment or a gel applied directly to affected area with several examples comprising chitosan 0.4-20wt% with respect to total weight of the composition (which can be obtained from crustaceans) with % of deacetylation as 80%, 82%, 84%, 86%, 90% or higher (thus reads on limitation of 70-100%) (paragraph 37), purified water, lactic acid 0.2-20wt% with respect to total weight of the composition (encompasses 50% of the weight of the chitosan based on the total weight of non- water components); optionally may have preservative such as benzyl alcohol and optionally may contain plasticizer such as propylene glycol; polyol, such as propylene glycol, glycerin (92g/mol), polyethylene glycol PEG (with molecular weight of at least 90g/mol); essential oils, such as olive oil (extracted from plant material); iodophore (for example povidone-iodine (same compound and iodophore as described in the instant specification), wherein the composition is applied topically thereby forming a film on affected area (paragraphs 17, 23, 26, 29, 30-34, 37, 42-44, 55-61, claims and Examples, paragraphs 66 -104). The cited prior art further discloses MW of chitosan as 100,000D or less or 100,000D-2,000,000 D (encompass 500,000D) or less (paragraphs 70-71).
PNG
media_image1.png
532
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
773
771
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examples 1-4, 6-20 (paragraphs 66 -92) discloses % by weight of chitosan based on the weight of the formulation as 10% (example 4), 0.5% (example 7), 3% (example 13), 2% (examples 9, 11, 12 and 14), 4% (examples 1-3, 6, 10, 15-19), 1% (example 8, 20) along with water (at least 80wt% of the formulation in examples (7-10) and lactic acid.
For example (pages 13-14, paragraphs 64-69), example 1 consists: Chitosan 4g, lactic acid 2 g and water 100g-6g-(2.5-0.1-1-0.05-1=4.65g) =89.35g were dissolved making a composition. Thus chitosan 4/95.35 (89.35+2g+4g=95.35g) x100=4.19 % (example 1) and acid 2/4x100=50% of chitosan. As evidenced by Pubmed and Rautenbach, tyrothricin has antifungal activity.
PNG
media_image3.png
537
745
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Importantly, examples 17 and 20 (pages 17-18, paragraphs 89-92). For instance, example 17 comprises no antibiotic or any of the negative limitations of the claims: Chitosan 4g (MW 100,000-2,000,000 or less), lactic acid 2 g, 1g Centella asiatica extract (anti-inflammatory, antioxidant), 5 g polysorbate 80 (stabilizer), 0.05 g cetylpyridinium chloride (preservative), +additional components (5g+5g+1g=11g) and water 100g-(4+2+1+5+0.05=12.05g +additional components 11g) =76.95g. Thus, chitosan 4/96 x100=4.16 % of total composition; and acid 2/4x100=50% of chitosan (reads on all limitations of the instant claims).
PNG
media_image4.png
629
796
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regard to limitation of viscosity of chitosan, viscosity of chitosan containing solution -since the cited prior art teaches same chitosan as in the instant claims, the chitosan of the cited prior art is also expected to possess same viscosity under same conditions as in the instant claims. This is because substances are inseparable from their physical and chemical properties.
With regard to the limitation in instant claim, “sprayable”, since the cited prior art teaches same composition as in instant claims, the composition of the prior art must be capable of being sprayable, whether or not realized by the cited prior art. Further, if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation”); Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d at 152, 88 USPQ2d at 480-81 (preamble is not a limitation where claim is directed to a product and the preamble merely recites a property inherent in an old product defined by the remainder of the claim); STX LLC. v. Brine, 211 F.3d 588, 591, 54 USPQ2d 1347, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
Kim teaches a method of treating wound or promoting wound healing, such as burn wound, abrasion wound, closed wound etc. on any area with example of skin area using an antimicrobial and/or anti-inflammatory composition with several examples for wound healing comprising chitosan (which can be obtained from crustaceans) with % of deacetylation as 80%, 82%, 84%, 86%, 90% or higher with MW 100,000 or less-2,000,000 or less, purified water, lactic acid, pharmaceutically active substance, such as antibiotic, disinfectant, sanitizer, local anesthetic, wound healing accelerant, for example povidone-iodine (same compound and iodophore as described in the instant specification) with optional components preservative such as benzyl alcohol, plasticizer such as glycerin (glycerol) propylene glycol, polyethylene glycol with several benefits such as dissolution of active substances, preventing destruction of film etc. However, the cited prior art does not provide specific example of composition, wherein the composition has iodophores, chitosan is at least 50% by weight based on the total weight of the non-water components and applying comprises spraying.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
With regard to the above difference of composition with iodophore – Kim teaches that the composition may use disinfectant, sanitizer, local anesthetic, wound healing accelerant, with example povidone-iodine, Centella asiatica etc. Thus, with the guidance provided by Kim, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success that wound healing accelerant in chitosan containing compositions provided by the cited prior art may be substituted with another wound healing accelerant, such as, povidone-iodine as suggested and taught by the cited prior art for using in process of treating inflammation or microbial contamination of wound.
Further, Case law has established that it is prima facie obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. KSR Int'I Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Most importantly, the predictable result is also taught and suggested by the cited prior art.
With regards to the above difference that chitosan is at least 50% by weight based on the total weight of the non-water components- Kim teaches a method of treating wound or promoting wound healing, such as burn wound, abrasion wound, closed wound etc. on any area with example of skin area using an antimicrobial and/or anti-inflammatory composition in form of liquid, ointment or a gel applied directly to affected area with several examples comprising chitosan 0.4-20wt% with respect to total weight of the composition (which can be obtained from crustaceans) with % of deacetylation as 80%, 82%, 84%, 86%, 90% or higher (thus reads on limitation of 70-100%) (paragraph 37), purified water, lactic acid 0.2-20wt% with respect to total weight of the composition (encompasses 50% of the weight of the chitosan based on the total weight of non- water components); optionally may have preservative such as benzyl alcohol and optionally may contain plasticizer such as propylene glycol; polyol, such as propylene glycol, glycerin (92g/mol), polyethylene glycol PEG (with molecular weight of at least 90g/mol); essential oils, such as olive oil (extracted from plant material); iodophore (for example povidone-iodine (same compound and iodophore as described in the instant specification), wherein the composition is applied topically thereby forming a film on affected area. Thus, based on the teaching of Kim, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that a composition without optional components taught by Kim encompassing 50% of the weight of the chitosan based on the total weight of non- water components, may be useful in Kim’s method.
With regard to the above difference of “applying comprises spraying”- Although Kim is silent about spraying, Kim teaches that the composition can be in the form of liquid, gel and ointment and is applied topically directly to the affected area, wherein the solvent of the composition volatizes forming a film. Based on the guidance provided by Kim of direct topical application of the composition, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success that the chitosan containing compositions may be applied topically in any manner, such as spraying. Thus, the cited prior art meets limitation of the instant claims.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness
To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, three basic criteria must be met: (1) the prior art reference must teach or suggest all the claim limitations; (2) there must be some suggestion or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; and (3) there must be a reasonable expectation of success; and (MPEP § 2143).
In this case, Kim teaches a method of treating wound or promoting wound healing, such as burn wound, abrasion wound, closed wound etc. on any area with example of skin area using an antimicrobial and/or anti-inflammatory composition with several examples for wound healing comprising chitosan (which can be obtained from crustaceans) with % of deacetylation as 80%, 82%, 84%, 86%, 90% or higher, purified water, lactic acid, preservative such as benzyl alcohol, plasticizer such as glycerin (glycerol) propylene glycol, polyethylene glycol with several benefits such as dissolution of active substances, preventing destruction of film etc.
In KSR International Vo. V. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d (U.S. 2007), the Supreme Court particularly emphasized “the need for caution in granting a patent based on a combination of elements found in the prior art,” (Id. At 1395) and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be obvious. Importantly, the Supreme Court reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” (Id. At 1395). See MPEP 2143 - Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness [R-9].
In this case at least prong (E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success would apply.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.”KSR, 550 U.S. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, there is a reasonable expectation of success that that wound healing accelerant in chitosan containing compositions provided by the cited prior art may be substituted with another wound healing accelerant, such as, povidone-iodine as suggested and taught by the cited prior art for using in process of treating inflammation or microbial contamination of wound.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by taking the advantage of the teaching of the above cited references and to practice process with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks, affidavit and amendment, filed 10/31/2025 have been fully considered but not found persuasive.
Applicant argues over rejection under 102 and 103 with similar argument that claim 39 excludes compounds that form insoluble complexes with chitosan or induce precipitation of chitosan (e.g., ethanol), bioadhesive polymer (thickener), and polyol other than with molecular weight 90-1000g/mol (e.g., propylene glycol), which are included in Kim’s composition. Applicant argue over ethanol presence in Kim’s composition and how ethanol reduces solubility of chitosan by providing new references and declaration
PNG
media_image5.png
303
852
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
672
905
media_image6.png
Greyscale
This is not found persuasive and the instant claims are rejected under 102 and 103. This is because (1) applicant’s excluded compounds, solvents etc. that form insoluble complexes with chitosan or induce precipitation of chitosan are unclear and claim limitation is indefinite. Please see the rejection under 112b; (2) Further, applicant’s composition essential component, water, also form insoluble precipitates with chitosan. In fact, chitosan is insoluble in water (see instant specification also paragraphs 0044-0046) in absence of acid. Ethanol might be reducing solubility but so is water; (3) applicant provided new references without any IDS. If applicant intends the Examiner to consider these references, references need to be provided in a proper IDS.
With regards to applicant’s argument that polyol other than with molecular weight 90-1000g/mol (e.g., propylene glycol) are excluded in the instant claims is again not found persuasive. This is because applicant has component polyol and further may have plasticizer (see instant specification and claim 43) and according to the instant specification plasticizer examples are glycerol and polyol (paragraph 0078). Thus, plasticizer of instant claims includes polyol, such as propylene glycol and glycerol and taught by Kim.
With regards to applicant’s argument that bioadhesive polymer other than chitosan is excluded in the instant claims and is included in Kim’s composition is again not found persuasive. This is because Kim teaches composition with and without bioadhesive polymer, such as examples 4, 10 and 17-20.
Conclusion
No Claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PANCHAM BAKSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-3463. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thu 7-4.30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Milligan Adam can be reached on 571-2707674. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PANCHAM BAKSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1623