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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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 factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Starshop (provided with English translation in IDS 07/23/25, the examiner has confirmed that the Chinese version of this document was available via wayback machine 12/16/21 and as such Starshop qualifies as prior art, the examiner has cited specific portions from the translation provided by applicants in the most recent IDS), in view of Raimundo et al. (WO2020008000A1), Stöcker et al. (J. of Polymer Sci., Poly. Physics., 2012, 50, 976-983), and as evidenced by Sun et al. (J. Am. Acad. Derm., 2020, 83(6), 1755-1757).
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Starshop teaches that compositions comprising aqueous dispersions of PEDOT:PSS were known to be effective against coronavirus infections (e.g. for treating coronavirus infections), specifically the claimed SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 (greater than 99.99% inhibitory effect), wherein therapeutically effective amounts (1-2 pumps/sprays) are used on the skin (see entire document; 3/22-5/22, 9/22, 13/22). Starshop also teaches wherein the positive and negative electrodes of the PEDOT:PSS are used to neutralize the charges on the surfaces of viruses and bacteria (pg. 3/22). Regarding the step of administering a therapeutically effective amount of antiviral composition comprising PEDOT:PSS aqueous dispersions, Starshop teaches administering 1-2 pumps/sprays of their PEDOT:PSS aqueous composition to the skin/e.g. skin cells and as evidenced by Sun skin cells are/can be host cells for coronaviruses/SARS-CoV-2 (see entire document; 13/22, 9/22, 5/22; see Sun: pg. 1755, left col. 1st paragraph; 1755, right col. 2nd-3rd full paragraphs).
Regarding claim 7, Starshop does not specifically teach wherein their antiviral composition is used to inhibit binding of spike protein of the coronavirus to host cells with ACE2 on the surface of the cells. However, this is a property of the PEDOT:PSS being administered and as such would obviously be occurring with the administration of effective amounts of the PEDOT:PSS composition of Starshop since as evidenced by Sun, the skin cells, which are being treated with the PEDOT:PSS aqueous dispersion containing composition of Starshop in Starshop’s method of using, are known to be host cells for coronaviruses/SARS-CoV-2 (title; see entire document; pg. 1755, left col. 1st paragraph of letter/article; pg. 1755, right col. 2nd-3rd full paragraphs this column).
Ascertainment of the difference between prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Regarding claims 1, 7, 9, Starshop does not teach the claimed molar ratios of PEDOT to PSS instantly claimed. However, this deficiency in Starshop is addressed by Stöcker and Raimundo.
Stöcker et al. teach that conductive polymers having a PEDOT:PSS ratio range from 1:2.5 to 1:20 and result in conductivities from 1 to 10^-5 S/cm which correspond to resistivities of 1 to 100,000 Ω/cm which read on/overlap with the disclosed 100 Ω/sq to 5x10^7 Ω/sq (see introduction). The electrical conductivity of PEDOT:PSS can be tuned by adjusting the PSS content. Conductivity is inverse to the claimed resistivity, e.g. conductivity = 1/resistivity, e.g. 1/Siemens. Thus, resistivity can also be adjusted by adjusting the PSS content.
Raimundo teaches treating organisms such as virus and bacteria to prevent infection with a composition comprising a conductive polymer wherein the conductive polymer includes polyethylenedioxythiophene (PEDOT), (see abstract; see entire document; paragraph beginning: According to one or more embodiments relating to the polymer for use according to the second aspect, the conductive polymer structure). Raimundo also teaches that the electric charge of the conductive polymer provides biocidal activity by causing a change in the distribution of charges on the surface of the polymer and provides activation of biocidal properties (See entire document; e.g. sections cited above and claims).
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been prima facie obvious to adjust the molar ratio of the PEDOT to PSS to be in the claimed range of 1:1.5 to 1:6 to achieve the desired molar ratios of PSS to PEDOT as claimed because Stöcker teaches that adjusting the ratio of PEDOT to PSS adjusts the conductivities which is the inverse of the resistivity of the polymer complex and in order to form the most effective PEDOT:PSS combinations for controlling coronaviruses and/or Covid-19/SARS-CoV-2 as claimed because Starshop teaches that compositions comprising the claimed aqueous PEDOT:PSS were known to be very effective against Covid-19/SARS-CoV-2 and could be administered to the skin which is a host cell of coronavirus as is evidenced by Sun. Thus, the application to the Skin by Starshop would be obviously treating coronavirus infection in these skin host cells when applied to the skin as taught by Starshop. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the ratios of PEDOT:PSS as is taught by Stöcker in order to form the most effective antiviral/anti-coronavirus compositions for use in treating coronavirus in host cells as claimed. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because conductive polymers are taught in Raimundo to provide antiviral and antibacterial activity and per Starshop PEDOT:PSS was known to be effective against SARS-CoV-2 and as such optimizing the amounts of PSS to PEDOT will provide a polymers that are more effective for treating coronavirus/SARS-CoV-2 infections and have the desired resistivity. Thus, it would be obvious to optimize the ratios of PEDOT to PSS in dispersions of Starshop in order to form the most effective PEDOT:PSS complexes for treating/administering to host cells in order to provide the most effective treatment Sars-CoV-2/Covid 19 with the claimed PEDOT:PSS.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the above claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 USC 103(a).
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Starshop (provided with English translation on IDS 07/23/25, the Chinese version of this exact same document was available via wayback machine 12/16/21 and as such Starshop qualifies as prior art), in view of Raimundo et al. (WO2020008000A1) Stöcker et al. (J. of Polymer Sci., Poly. Physics., 2012, 50, 976-983), and as evidenced by Sun et al. (J. Am. Acad. Derm., 2020, 83(6), 1755-1757) as applied to claims 1, 7, 9 above and further in view of Anderson et al. (Infect. Dis. Ther., 2020, 9(3), 669-675).
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
The combined references together teach the method of claims 1, 7, and 9 as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Ascertainment of the difference between prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Regarding claim 11, Starshop and the combined references do not specifically teach wherein their antiviral composition/method of applying the aqueous PEDOT:PSS to kill the further comprises other antiviral chemicals. However, this deficiency in the combined references is addressed by Anderson.
Anderson teaches teaches that PVP-I is effective against SARS-CoV-2 in host cells and can be administered topically, e.g. to skin (see abstract/entire pg. 669; pg. 671,virus culture-discussion section pg. 672).
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant filing to have included an additional antiviral agent of Anderson into the composition of Starshop and the combined references, e.g. PVP-I which is known to be effective against SARS-CoV-2 in host cells and can be administered topically. One of ordinary skill in the art would want to combine the PEDOT:PSS with the PVP-I because, "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the above claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 USC 103(a).
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and newly filed IDS with English translations have prompted the new grounds of rejection presented herein. Applicant’s arguments insofar as they pertain to the new grounds of rejection are addressed herein. Applicants argue that Raimundo merely describes polymers for treating the growth and propagation of pathogenic microorganisms on the surface of implants wherein the polymer can comprise a PEDOT backbone. Applicant’s argue that it would not be obvious to use this reference to render obvious the amended claims as it makes no mention of treating coronavirus in host cells. The examiner respectfully points out that these new limitation(s) are addressed by the new prior art Starshop as evidenced by Sun. However, the examiner still respectfully points out that Raimundo does still provide teaching that it was known that the electric charge of the conductive polymer(s)/PEDOT provides biocidal activity by causing a change in the distribution of charges on the surface of the polymer and provides activation of biocidal properties. Applicants then argue that Stöcker is only directed to adjusting electrical conductivity and has nothing to do not with coronavirus infection. The examiner respectfully disagrees because Stöcker links the optimization of the ratios of PEDOT:PSS to their electrical conductivity and Raimundo teaches that the electric charge of the conductive polymer(s), e.g. comprising PEDOT, provides biocidal activity by causing a change in the distribution of charges on the surface of the polymer. Thus it would be obvious to optimize the electrical conductivity of the PEDOT:PSS in order to provide the most effectively charged complex which exhibits the highest level of biological/antiviral activity, especially since Starshop already teaches that PEDOT:PSS has activity against a variety of viruses, etc. specifically including coronavirus and more specifically against COVID-19 which is caused by SARS-CoV-2 which Starshop teaches on pg. 5/22 and 9/22 they can inhibit (new coronavirus/coronary virus).
Applicants then argue that there is no reason to combine Raimundo and Stocker because Stocker teaches that while addition of PSS brings an enhanced processability it comes at the expense of decreased electrical conductivity. The examiner respectfully points out that the claimed ratios of PEDOT:PSS were known in the art as taught by Stocker, and PEDOT:PSS were known to exhibit antiviral activity against Covid-19/SARS-CoV-2 as claimed as is taught by Starshop and discussed above in the new grounds of rejection that were prompted by applicant’s amendments. Thus, the examiner maintains that the combination of prior art is appropriate and does render the method of the instant claims obvious at this time.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin E Hirt whose telephone number is (571)270-1077. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-7:30 ET M-F.
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, Sue X Liu can be reached at 571-272-5539. 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.
/ERIN E HIRT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616