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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 17 February, 2026, has been entered.
It is noted that the response filed 17 February, 2026, did not include new claim amendments. Claims 10-11 and 18 were previously cancelled, and all pending claims 1-9, 12-17, and 19-21 have been fully considered.
Response to Arguments
The Applicants arguments filed 17 February, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-9, 12-17, and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
The applicant traverses the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 primarily by alleging that Weijmer et al. (“Superior antimicrobial activity of trisodium citrate over heparin for catheter locking”, Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, 2002, Vol. 17, pp. 2189-2195) teaches away from the claimed citrate salt concentration range of about 15.5%w/v to about 16.5%w/v (see response filed 17 February, 2026, at pages 5-6).
Other comments from the applicant indicate that Weijmer is “too incomplete to be a useful point of reference with respect to the nine most common bacterial strains found in catheters and tested in the pending application” (response at paragraph spanning pages 5-6). The applicant also states that data testing the antibacterial effect of solutions having a citrate concentration above the claimed range are ”completely irrelevant to the pending claims” (response at pages 6-7, especially at page 7, line 1). Additionally, the applicant appears to suggest that the citrate concentrations taught by Ash are too broad relative to the claimed range, such that finding an optimal concentration between 1.5 and 100 wt.% “isn’t routine optimization, it’s a research plan” (page 7, middle paragraph, especially lines 10-11 thereof), and the applicant notes that the most relevant embodiments of Ash include an additional component alongside the citrate salt (page 7, middle paragraph, lines 11-13 thereof).
Regarding the applicant’s primary argument that Weijmer teaches away from the claimed range, the applicant compares the below results from Fig. 1 of Weijmer, which are Time-kill curves for 7.5% and 15% trisodium citrate solutions against S. aureus, S. epidermidis, P. aeruginosa, E. coli, and C. albicans.
PNG
media_image1.png
392
950
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The applicant emphasizes that the Fig. 1 of Weijmer shows the 7.5% trisodium citrate solution being more effective in reducing E. coli (white square, solid line) populations than the 15% solution. From this, the applicant concludes that “Weijmer clearly teaches a person skilled int eh art to use the lower concentration and avoid the higher one” (page 6, lines 14-15).
In response, the examiner disagrees that Weijmer teaches away from a citrate salt concentration of 15%. The same graphs relied upon by the applicant above also show a large growth in P. aeruginosa (black square, dashed line) populations for the 7.5% trisodium citrate solution, which is not a favorable result, whereas the 15% trisodium citrate salt prevented large growth (i.e., populations exceeding 4 log cfu/mL) in the population of all the tested microorganism. Furthermore, Fig. 2 of Weijmer depicts a smaller zone of inhibition for a 7.5% trisodium citrate solution relative to a 30% trisodium citrate solution, and Fig. 3 shows zone of inhibition results for the five tested microorganisms with 7.5%, 15%, and 30% trisodium citrate solutions, with the higher concentrations clearly demonstrating greater antimicrobial effect (see Figs. 2-3 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
588
654
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it is evident that Weijmer—on the whole—shows the 7.5% trisodium citrate solution provides worse microbial inhibition than the 15% or 30% solutions, and it is therefore not reasonable to suggest that “Weijmer clearly teaches a person skilled in the art to use the lower concentration and avoid the higher one”. That is, Weijmer does not teach away from the claimed range as alleged by the applicant.
With respect to the applicant’s statement that the data of Weijmer is not a useful point of reference with respect the pending application (response at paragraph spanning pages 5-6), the examiner disagrees in that the Weijmer reference provides sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the antibacterial results of the claimed invention are not unexpected. Particularly, the applicant had previously argued (in the response filed 19 August, 2025) that: “a citrate concentration of about 16% inhibits the most common infectious agents known to infect catchers while simultaneously reducing the citrate concentration to avoid, or greatly reduce the likelihood of, hypocalcemia. Thus, the range of about 15.5% w/v to about 16.5% w/v, as recited in claim 1, is critical, and the data included in the specification fully illustrates that criticality” (response filed 19 August, 2025, at page 7). The examiner, in the final rejection mailed 25, November, 2025, cited Weijmer to demonstrate that a citrate salt solution having a concentration within the claimed range of “about 15.5% w/v to about 16.5% w/v” (which is broadened to an actual range of 13.85%-18.15% because of the term ”about”) is expected to be antimicrobial. Thus, the applicant’s results showing that a solution having a citrate salt concentration within the claimed range achieves microbial inhibition is not evidence of criticality because the result is not unexpected.
With respect to the applicant’s statement that microbial inhibition results from solutions having citrate concentration above the claimed range would be “completely irrelevant to the pending claims” (response at pages 6-7, especially at page 7, line 1), the examiner acknowledges that higher citrate concentrations are undesirable as they increase the risk of hypocalcemia, and an approximately 16% citrate salt solution was found (by the applicant) to be the minimum inhibitory concentration for most common bacteria. The examiner’s previous comments were meant to emphasize that criticality is best established when it can be shown that unexpected results occur only within a claimed range; see MPEP 2144.05(III.)(A.) regarding the requirements for showing that a range is critical. Accordingly, by including data for citrate salt solutions at concentrations exceeding the claim range, the applicant could better show the results of the claimed invention are unique to the claimed range. It is acknowledged that data showing increased hypocalcemia risk at citrate salt concentrations exceeding the claimed range would likely not be feasible to produce. Nonetheless, the examiner notes that the limited amount of data presented by the applicant which clearly compares results within and outside of the claimed range further weakens any argument that the claimed range is critical, especially in combination with the antimicrobial results of the claimed invention being expected as discussed above.
Also, the applicant’s statement with respect to the claimed range representing a “lowest concentration of citrate possible to minimize the risk of hypocalcemia while simultaneously maximizing antibacterial activity against the nine most common bacteria found in catheters” (response at page 7, lines 3-4) appears to validate the finding that the claimed range could be found by routine optimization. Particularly, Weijmer demonstrates that citrate salts (trisodium citrate) have antibacterial activity which generally increases with concentration (consider Figs. 1-3 of Weijmer, discussed above), and it was known that high concentrations of citrate salts pose a risk of hypocalcemia (see Associated Press, “FDA Issues Warning on Product Used to Clear Dialysis Machines”, April 14, 2000, published by the Washington Post, and previously cited in the final rejection mailed 25 November, 2025, which describes an incident wherein a patient was killed by the accidental injection of a 46.7 percent solution of sodium citrate due to a loss of blood calcium). Therefore, it would be well within the scope of a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a sodium citrate solutions to have a concentration which is effective against microorganisms while minimizing the risk of hypocalcemia.
With respect to the applicant’s argument directed toward the range of Ash being too broad relative the claimed range (response at page 7, middle paragraph, especially lines 10-11 thereof), it is acknowledged that MPEP 2144.05(III.)(D.) indicates that a very broad prior art range can weigh against a finding of obviousness based on optimization. However, the applicant’s suggestion that Ash teaches the entire range of 1.5-100% for the concentration of citrate salt in a solution is incorrect. The broadest range Ash teaches for the concentration of a citrate salt in solution is 1.5-50%, with preferred embodiments being between 10% and 50% ([0020]). The applicant cites Ash as indicating that “the bactericidal component includes greater than about 50wt% … of a citrate salt” ([0041]), and assumes this suggests concentrations of sodium citrate in solution up to 100%; this is incorrect. The “greater than about 50 wt.%” refers to the composition of a “bactericidal component”, not a solution. Although Ash is not clear in defining the bactericidal component, it is understood to refer only to compounds which have an active antibacterial effect, not to components of a solution which do not have an antibacterial effect, such as a water solvent. None of the embodiments of Ash which clearly refer to a solution suggest a citrate concentration exceeding 50%. Thus, when comparing the effectively claimed range of 13.95% w/v to 18.15% w/v to the preferred range of 10-50% of Ash, the examiner does not find the range of Ash to be unreasonably broad, and the examiner finds that the range of Ash does invite optimization by one of skill in the art.
Lastly, with respect the applicant’s observation that certain embodiments of Ash include additional components in addition to citrate salt, the examiner notes that Ash has been applied as a secondary reference, and the primary reference—Mahmoodian et al. (US 2019/0091379 A1)—is clear in teaching embodiments consisting only of a citrate salt, water, and an optional acid.
In view of the above, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the previously set forth rejections of claims 1-9, 12-17, and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahmoodian et al. (US 2019/0091379 A1) in view of Ash (EP 1107807 B1) are maintained and repeated below.
Claim Interpretation
The instant specification defines the following term appearing in the claims as follows:
- “about” refers to a difference of ±10% of a value (instant specification at [0040]).
Consequently, the range of “about 15.5% w/v to about 16.5% w/v” recited in claim 1 (line 2) encompasses a range of 13.95% w/v to 18.15% w/v; all ranges recited with the term “about” are similarly broadened by the term.
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.
Claims 1-9, 12-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahmoodian et al. (US 2019/0091379 A1) and evidenced by Ash (EP 1107807 B1).
Regarding instant claim 1, claim 1 of Mahmoodian reads as follows:
1. A catheter lock solution comprising: about 3.8% w/v to about 4.2% w/v of a citrate salt; water for injection; and, optionally, an acid, wherein a pH of the catheter lock solution is between about 6.4 and about 7.5, and wherein the catheter lock solution is free of any additional components having anticoagulant or antimicrobial activity.
Claim 11 of Mahmoodian further indicates that the catheter lock solution is free of paraben, alcohol, glycerol, polyethylene glycol, citric acid, and/or polysorbate (claim 11).
It is thus evident that the instant claim 11 of Mahmoodian (which depends from claim 1 of Mahmoodian) are nearly identical except for the concentration of the citrate salt. Mahmoodian recognized the usefulness of a citrate salt solution as a catheter lock solution because trisodium citrate can prevent clotting in catheter lumens and catheter tips ([0036], [0045]) and provides other advantages over conventional heparin solutions including improved shelf life and reduced cost ([0037]). Mahmoodian teaches solutions having a citrate salt concentration of 3.8% w/v to 4.2% w/v (Tables 6-7, [0067]), but does not discredit or discourage trying solutions of different concentrations.
As per MPEP 2144.05(II.)(A.), differences in concentration generally will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of Mahmoodian and arrive at a concentration of citrate salt solution within the claimed range of about 15.5% w/v to about 16.5% w/v (i.e. about 16%) through routine optimization of the advantageous anticoagulation effects of sodium citrate.
As further evidence of this finding of obviousness, it is noted that Ash (EP 1107807 B1) teaches the use of a citrate salt solution in a catheter lock solution (title) wherein the concentration of the citrate salt is 10% to 50% by weight (claim 1), and further recognized that the density of the lock solution can be adjusted by changing the concentration of salt ([0034]) in order to achieve a density of lock solution which prevents the lock solution from diffusing out of a lumen ([0032], [0036]). Ash further recognized that citrate salt solutions can have a bactericidal effect at elevated concentrations (47% solution of citrate salts achieved a six-log kill within 1 or 3 weeks for certain varieties of bacterial spores—see [0028]). Thus, Ash provides further motivation to optimize the citrate salt concentration within the solution of Mahmoodian within a range of 10% to 50% by weight (claim 1 of Ash)—which overlaps with the claimed range of about 16%--for the benefit of achieving a desired density and viscosity that prevents the ingress of blood into the catheter (Ash at [0032], [0034]-[0036]) and for achieving a desired antibacterial effect (Ash at [0028]).
Furthermore, as discussed in the response to arguments above, there is insufficient evidence of record to demonstrate that the claimed concentration range is critical (i.e., yields an unexpected result).
Regarding claim 2, Mahmoodian evidenced by Ash teaches the antimicrobial catheter lock solution of claim 1. Mahmoodian further teaches the citrate salt is a sodium citrate salt (claim 2 of Mahmoodian).
Regarding claim 3, Mahmoodian evidenced by Ash teaches the antimicrobial catheter lock solution of claim 1. Mahmoodian further teaches the citrate salt is trisodium citrate (claim 3 of Mahmoodian).
Regarding claim 4, Mahmoodian evidenced by Ash teaches the antimicrobial catheter lock solution of claim 1. Mahmoodian further teaches the catheter lock solution comprises an acid (claim 4 of Mahmoodian).
Regarding claim 5, Mahmoodian evidenced by Ash teaches the antimicrobial catheter lock solution of claim 4. Mahmoodian further teaches the acid is a diluted acid (claim 5 of Mahmoodian).
Regarding claim 6, Mahmoodian evidenced by Ash teaches the antimicrobial catheter lock solution of claim 5. Mahmoodian further teaches the diluted acid is diluted hydrochloric acid (claim 6 of Mahmoodian).
Regarding claim 7, Mahmoodian evidenced by Ash teaches the antimicrobial catheter lock solution of claim 6. Mahmoodian further teaches the catheter lock solution comprises the acid in an amount between about 0.1% and about 0.7% v/v (claim 7 of Mahmoodian).
Regarding claim 8, Mahmoodian evidenced by Ash teaches the antimicrobial catheter lock solution of claim 1. Mahmoodian further teaches the citrate salt comprises trisodium citrate di-hydrate (claim 8 of Mahmoodian).
Regarding claim 9, Mahmoodian evidenced by Ash the antimicrobial catheter lock solution of claim 1. Mahmoodian further teaches the catheter lock solution comprises trisodium citrate, water-for-injection, and about 0.7% v/v of 10% HCl (claim 9 of Mahmoodian). As modified with respect to claim 1, the concentration of citrate salt (trisodium citrate) in the modified solution of Mahmoodian is about 16% (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 12, the claim is a method for making the solution of claim 1. Mahmoodian evidenced by Ash teaches the antimicrobial catheter lock solution of claim 1. Mahmoodian further teaches a method of making the solution consisting of steps of dissolving a citrate salt in water-for-injection (WFI) and, optionally, adding an acid until the pH of the catheter lock solution is between about 6.4 and about 7.5 (claim 12 of Mahmoodian).
Regarding claim 13, the claim is directed toward a pre-filled syringe comprising a syringe containing the antimicrobial catheter lock solution of claim 1. Mahmoodian evidenced by Ash teaches the antimicrobial catheter lock solution of claim 1. Mahmoodian further teaches incorporating the catheter lock solution into a pre-filled syringe (claim 15; [0020], [0037], [0050]-[0051]; it is noted that claim 15 of Mahmoodian refers to claim 14 of Mahmoodian, wherein claim 14 of Mahmoodian falls within the scope of claim 1 of Mahmoodian and can be modified in the same manner as described with respect to claim 1 above to arrive at the solution of instant claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, the claim is directed toward A catheter comprising a tube defining a lumen therethrough, wherein at least a portion of the lumen is infused with the antimicrobial catheter lock solution of claim 1. Mahmoodian evidenced by Ash teaches the antimicrobial catheter lock solution of claim 1. Mahmoodian further teaches a catheter comprising a tube defining a lumen therethrough, wherein at least a portion of the lumen is infused with an antimicrobial catheter lock solution (claim 16 of Mahmoodian), wherein it would be obvious to modify the catheter lock solution of Mahmoodian and arrive at the antimicrobial catheter lock solution of instant claim 1 for substantially the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is directed toward a method of using the solution of claim 1. Mahmoodian evidenced by Ash teaches the antimicrobial catheter lock solution of claim 1. Mahmoodian further teaches A method of inhibiting coagulation and microbial activity in a catheter comprising:
providing a catheter comprising a tube defining a lumen therethrough; and
infusing, into at least a portion of the lumen of the catheter, an antimicrobial catheter lock solution (claim 17 of Mahmoodian).
The method of Mahmoodian uses a catheter lock solution (catheter lock solution of claim 14 of Mahmoodian) which would be obvious to modify and arrive at the catheter lock solution of instant claim 1 for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, Mahmoodian teaches an antimicrobial catheter lock solution consisting of:
trisodium citrate;
water-for-injection (WFI); and
about 0.0 % v/v to about 0.7% v/v of 10% HCl, wherein the catheter lock solution has a pH of between about 6.4 and about 7.5 (claim 13 of Mahmoodian).
Mahmoodian does not teach the trisodium citrate is at a concentration of about 15.5% w/v to about 16.5% w/v. However, as substantially discussed with respect to claim 1 above, it would be obvious to arrive at a concentration within the claimed range of about 16% by way of routine optimization of the citrate salt concentration in view of the teachings of Mahmoodian and Ash (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 17, Mahmoodian teaches An antimicrobial catheter lock solution consisting of: trisodium citrate; water-for-injection (WFI); and about 0.7% v/v of 10% HCl, wherein the catheter lock solution has a pH of about 7 (claim 14). Although Mahmoodian does not teach a trisodium citrate concentration of about 16%, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrive at such a concentration in view of the teachings of Mahmoodian and Ash for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 19, the new claim is essentially equivalent to instant claim 16 except that claim 19 essentially broadens the scope of claim 16 by reciting a sufficient amount of a biocompatible acid such that the pH of the catheter lock solution is between 6.4 and 7.5, whereas claim 16 more narrowly requires a range of 0-0.7% v/v of 10% HCL and a pH between 6.4 and 7.5. Since claim 16 effectively lays within the scope of claim 16, see the rejection of claim 16 above regarding how claim 13 of Mahmoodian when modified in view of Ash teaches an antimicrobial catheter lock solution consisting of about 15.5% w/b to about 16.5% w/b of trisodium citrate, water-for-injection, and a sufficient amount of a biocompatible acid such that the pH of the catheter lock solution is between about 6.4 and 7.5.
Regarding claim 20, Mahmoodian in combination with Ash teaches the antimicrobial lock solution of claim 19, and Mahmoodian further teaches the biocompatible acid is HCL (claim 13 of Mahmoodian requires 0.0-0.7% v/v of 10% HCl in the catheter lock solution and a pH between 6.4 and 7.5).
Regarding claim 21, the claim corresponds to instant claim 13 except that it requires the pre-filled syringe contain the antimicrobial catheter lock solution of claim 19 instead of the solution of claim 1. Accordingly, see the rejections of claims 1, 13, and 19 above, regarding how Mahmoodian teaches a pre-filled syringe comprising a catheter lock solution (claim 15 of Mahmoodian), how Mahmoodian teaches a lock solution substantially identical to the lock solution of instant claim 19 (claim 13 of Mahmoodian) apart from the citrate salt concentration, how it would be obvious to modify Mahmoodian through routine optimization to a concentration value within the claimed range as evidenced by Ash (see rejection of instant claim 1), and how it would be obvious to provide the modified solution within the pre-filled syringe (see rejection instant claim 13).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9, 12-17, and 19-21 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,045,589 B2 in view of Ash (EP 1107807 B1).
The cited reference patent—US 11,045,589—corresponds to the patent issued for the Mahmoodian et al. pre-grant publication, US 2019/0091379 A1, relied upon in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 above. Although the claims of the issued patent have been amended from the claims of the pre-grant publication, the claims of the patent still disclose the core subject matter of a catheter lock solution comprising or consisting of a citrate salt (trisodium citrate), water for injection, and 0.1% to 0.7% v/v of 10% HCL (claims 1 and 7 of the reference patent), as well as a method of making the solution (claim 6), a method of using the solution (claim 10), a syringe containing the solution (claim 8), and a catheter comprising a tube defining a lumen that is infused with the solution (claim 7).
Thus, the only distinguishing feature between the instant claims and the claims of the reference patent is the concentration of citrate salt included in the solution. The reference patent includes the citrate salt at a concentration of about 4%, whereas the instant claims are directed toward a citrate salt concentration of about 16%. However, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the solution of the reference patent such that the citrate salt concentration is about 16% for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1 above. Ash provides further motivation for the optimization which would yield the claimed solution. Therefore, for substantially the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claims 1-9, 12-17, and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above, claims 1-9, 12-17, and 19-21 of the instant application are obvious over claims 1-10 of the reference patent (US 11,045,589).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY C PILSBURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8054. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30a-5:00p.
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, MICHAEL MARCHESCHI can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/BRADY C PILSBURY/Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797