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 .
Final Rejection
Claims 1, 7, and 10-11 are pending. Claim 1 is independent. Claim 11 is new. Claim 2-6, 8-9 are cancelled.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that independent claim 1 requiring ‘consisting of’ language to the combination for reducing protein adsorption, and does not apply to the polysaccharide composition limited by a buffer solution which is not identified by the claim 1 and thus, BRI of said claim 1 language is to comprising. Examiner’s interpretation of claim 1 is supported by the claim 10 and new claim 11 both of which are to ‘further comprises’ claim language.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1, 7 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Rijk (US 9,499,419 B2) in view of Kiyobayashi (JP4863589B2) is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s urge on page 3 of 6 of their Remarks 10/17/2025 that de Rijk does not teach the claim amendments to consisting of carrageenan and alginic acid and instead teach them as optional and further with at least four other essential components. In response Applicant’s arguments are not pertinent to the BRI of claim 1, which is to a polysaccharide composition comprising a combination for reducing protein adsorbtion consisting of 1-10 mg/ml alginic acid and 1-10 mg/ml carrageenan in 1:1 ratio and comprising buffer solutions having a pH of 6.5-7.5. de Rijk is pertinent to the claims as amended because in col.3,ln.35-45 de Rijk describe that their contact lens cleaner solutions remove protein deposits on contact lenses including both hard and soft contacts (see col.60,ln.5). de Rijk guides one of ordinary skill to a contact lens cleaning solution having pH of about 7 (col.40 ln.5) and the combination of carrageenan gum sodium alginate (col.3,ln38-39) further suggesting a ratio of 1:1 (col.9,ln.44) in an amount of in an amount of 0.01 to 2 wt % (col.32,ln.35-40) thus, guiding one of ordinary skill to add the claimed alginic acid and carrageenan to a buffer solution and arrive at a similar solution that removes protein deposits on hard and soft contacts.
Applicant’s continue to urge that de Rijk teach over 30 different thickening agents in addition to alginic acid and carrageenan. Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive nor pertinent to the claims presented for examination having material limitation to buffer solution and the new claim 11 limitation including sodium hydrogen phosphate, potassium chloride, calcium chloride buffers which are commonly known thickeners. See the previously attached Google search notes.
Applicants urge their declaration showing that de Rijk et al. concentration is insoluble and thus the claimed 1:1 ratio of alginic acid to carrageenan is unexpectedly superior is not found persuasive because de Rijk et al. guide one of ordinary skill to the claim 1 consisting of language by teaching carrageenan gum sodium alginate in col.35,ln.38-39 and suggest a 1:1 ratio in col.9,ln.44 with the same buffers (potassium chloride or sodium chloride) in col..9,ln.54-55 in a similar contact lens cleaning solution that removes protein deposits from hard and soft contact lenses and de Rijk et al. is properly combined with Kiyobayashi teaching it is commonly known to optimize the alginic acid and carrageenan as taught by de Rijk in varying amounts of about 0.001 to 10% with respect to the whole preparation based on the type of ocular mucosa application. Accordingly, the claim amendments are addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Rijk (US 9,499,419 B2) in view of Kiyobayashi (JP4863589B2) Google Patents Translation attached.
With respect to claim 1, de Rijk et al. teach a liquid formulation multipurpose solution comprising a polysaccharide composition for cleaning, disinfecting and storing hard contact lenses and/or soft contact lenses (col.60,ln.1-5) comprising a buffer solution having a pH of about 7( col.40,ln.5) encompassing the claim 1 pH of 6.5 to 7.5. de Rijk et al. teach the claim 1 combination for reducing protein adsorption the polysaccharide composition consisting of alginic acid and carrageenan by teaching car rageenan gum sodium alginate in col.35,ln38-39. Col.32,ln.35-40 and 55-56 teach 0.1-5% thickeners including the claimed alginic acid and carrageenan. It is the Examiner’s position that de Rijk guide one of ordinary skill to the claimed 1:1 ratio of the alginic acid to carrageenan and to a concentration of 1 ~ 10 mg/ml because it teaches both the claimed alginic acid and carrageenan thickeners typically in an amount of from about 0.01% to about 10% by weight in general. See col.14,ln.40. One of ordinary skill is motivated to include equivalent amounts of carrageenan and alginic acid as such as taught by the prior art. See col.14,ln.65 teaching one of ordinary skill to include the ingredients individually. See also col.9,ln.44 teaching one of ordinary skill the 1:1 ratio of mixture of salts in the contact lens solution. While both alginic acid and carrageenan are a polysaccharide, de Rijk et al. guide one of ordinary skill to commonly known utility as a salt carrageenan gum sodium alginate (see col.35,ln.38-39). Thus, it is Examiner’s position that while de Rijk et al. do not exemplify the claimed buffers comprising a combination for reducing protein adsorbtion consisting of alginic acid and carrageenan in a 1:1 ratio, the teachings of de Rijk et al. as a whole guide one of ordinary skill to the clamed ratio in a buffer solution as claimed.
Further one of ordinary skill is motivated to include equivalent amounts of carrageenan and alginic acid as such as taught by the prior art. See col.14,ln.65 teaching one of ordinary skill to include the ingredients individually. See also col.9,ln.44 teaching one of ordinary skill the 1:1 ratio of mixture of salts in the contact lens solution. While both alginic acid and carrageenan are a polysaccharide, de Rijk et al. guide one of ordinary skill to commonly known utility as a salt carrageenan gum sodium alginate (see col.35,ln.38-39). Thus, it is Examiner’s position that while de Rijk et al. do not exemplify the claimed buffers comprising a combination for reducing protein adsorbtion consisting of alginic acid and carrageenan in a 1:1 ratio, the teachings of de Rijk et al. as a whole guide one of ordinary skill to the clamed ratio in a buffer solution as claimed.
de Rijk does not explicitly teach a concentration of 1-10 mg/ml alginic acid with 1-10 mg/ml carrageenan as required by the amended claims.
. In the analogous contact lens solution art, Kiyobayashi (JP4863589B2) Google Patents Translation attached, teaches on page 11, that it is commonly known to optimize the alginic acid and carrageenan, as taught by de Rijk, in varying amounts of about 0.001 to 10% with respect to the whole preparation based on the type of ocular mucosa application being prepared. See [0029-0031] on page 11 of the (JP4863589B2) Google Patents Translation. Kiyobayashi teaches the alginic acid and carrageenan can be included in a range of 0.0001-10% which range is also encompassed by de Rijk. Kiyobayashi teaches in [0031] that the alginic acid and carrageenan are in varied concentrations for decongestant, anti-inflammatory, anesthetic properties. Examiner notes that de Rijk teach the same range of 0.0001-10% effectively removes protein in contact lenses. Thus, optimizing the same ingredients within the broadly claimed concentration is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve the beneficial properties of the ophthalmic solution.
de Rijk and Kiyobayashi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aqueous compositions for cleaning hard or soft contact lenses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the claimed concentration of 1 -10 mg/ml alginic acid with 1 -10 mg/ml carrageenan as claimed because de Rijk teach about 0.01% to about 10% inclusion of alginic acid and carrageenan individually in a buffer solution is effective for removing protein, disinfecting, and storing hard/soft contact lenses in general and Kiyobayashi (JP4863589B2) teaches that it is commonly known to optimize the alginic acid and carrageenan as taught by de Rijk in varying amounts of about 0.001 to 10% with respect to the whole preparation based on the type of ocular mucosa application. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of de Rijk with that of Kiyobayashi since both are in the same field of contact lens solutions and Kiyobayashi teaches in [0031] that alginic acid and carrageenan are included in various concentrations for decongestant, anti-inflammatory, anesthetic properties and de Rijk teach the same amounts ie 0.01% to about 10%, as taught by Kiyobayashi, of the same alginic acid and carrageenan, is effective to remove protein in contact lenses. Further it is the Examiner’s position that the claimed 1 -10 mg/ml alginic acid with 1 -10 mg/ml carrageenan is encompassed by both de Rijk and Kiyobayashi teaching the similar percentages of about 0.001 to 10% of the same alginic acid and carrageenan with respect to the whole preparation of the contact lens solution.
de Rijk teach claim 10 limitation to the composition further comprising y-polyglutamic acid (y-PGA) in col.69,ln.20.
de Rijk et al. teach the new claim 11 buffers (potassium chloride or sodium chloride) in col..9,ln.54-55 in a similar contact lens cleaning solution that removes protein deposits from hard and soft contact lenses.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PREETI KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/PREETI KUMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761