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 .
Election/Restriction
Inventor’s election, with traverse, of the claims of Group III (claims 14 and 15) as the elected invention is acknowledged.
Inventor argues that there would not be a serious search burden in examining all claimed subject matter. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As cogently outlined in the requirement for election/restriction by the previous examiner, there would indeed be a serious search burden in examining all claimed subject matter. Inventor further argues that no serious search burden exists because the limitations of Group III are common to the other groups. This is factually incorrect. For example, independent claim 1, a member of Group I, does not require the wound honey preservative of Group III. Likewise, independent claim 12, a member of Group II, does not require the wound honey preservative of Group III.
The election/restriction was made merely in order to facilitate the reasonably complete and thorough search to which inventor is entitled and is hereby made FINAL.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of an egregious spelling error. In the second line of text, the term “…equivocal…” should clearly and properly be the term: equivalent.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Inventor’s assistance is respectfully requested in correcting any other grammatical and/or spelling errors which may be present in the specification.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Food Chemistry (2015), 169, pp. 34-40.
The reference teaches that honey intrinsically comprises a host of compounds including, for instance, vanillin and linalool (page 37, Table 2).
The examiner notes that the limitations wound and preservative (“A wound honey preservative…”) do not distinguish the instant honey from the prior art honey. This is so because the limitation wound, for instance, cannot be given patentable weight because it merely teaches an intended use of the honey: wound care. The limitation preservative likewise does not distinguish the instant honey from the prior art honey because honey is intrinsically a preservative (note the background discussion in Annals of Plastic Surgery (2003), 50(2), pp. 143-148 beginning at page 143, text line 1, with respect to the antimicrobial (i.e. preservative) properties of honey due to its intrinsic “osmotic effect” and acidity).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Annals of Plastic Surgery (2003), 50(2), pp. 143-148.
The reference teaches a honey-medicated dressing (i.e. a bandage comprising honey, a “wound honey”, for dressing a wound) (abstract; page 144, column 1, text line 17).
The examiner notes that the limitation preservative does not distinguish the instant honey from the prior art honey because honey is intrinsically a preservative (note the background discussion in the reference beginning at page 143, text line 1, with respect to the antimicrobial (i.e. preservative) properties of honey due to its intrinsic “osmotic effect” and acidity).
Furthermore, it is known in the art that honey intrinsically comprises a host of compounds including, for instance, vanillin and linalool (as evidenced by Food Chemistry (2015), 169, pp. 34-40 at page 37, Table 2). That is, as with the limitation preservative, the limitation with respect to the components vanillin and linalool which comprise the honey does not distinguish the instant honey from the prior art honey.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to honey without significantly more.
The claim recites “A wound honey preservative comprising at least one of vanillin, limonene, linalool, linalyl acetate, and a monoglyceride.” That is, the claim is drawn to one of the four statutory categories of invention: a composition of matter. However, this composition of matter is a product of nature, and the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (Note the discussion at MPEP 2106). This is so because the limitations wound and preservative (“A wound honey preservative…”) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. The limitation wound, for instance, merely teaches an intended use of the honey: wound care. The limitation preservative merely teaches what honey already intrinsically is: a preservative (note the background discussion in the Annals of Plastic Surgery (2003), 50(2), pp. 143-148 beginning at page 143, text line 1, with respect to the antimicrobial (i.e. preservative) properties of honey due to its intrinsic “osmotic effect” and acidity).
Finally, the limitation with respect to the at least one component of honey, for instance, vanillin and linalool, is intrinsic to honey (as evidenced by Food Chemistry (2015), 169, pp. 34-40 at page 37, Table 2).
In sum, the claim distills to a claim to the natural product honey, which is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining limitations of the claim with respect to this honey, as outlined immediately above, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN J DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-0638. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 PM 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, Ali Soroush, can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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.
/BRIAN J DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614 11/17/2025