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 Status
Applicant’s remarks and amendments, filed 29 December 2025 in response to the non-final rejection mailed 27 June 2025, are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims are acknowledged. The listing of claims filed 29 December 2025 replaces all prior versions and listings of the claims.
Claims 1-32 are pending. Claims 16-27 and 30-32 remain withdrawn. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13-15, and 29 are amended. Claims 1-15, 28, and 29 are being examined on the merits.
Response to Amendment
Any previous rejection or objection not mentioned herein is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 15, and 29 have overcome the claims objection in regards to grammatical and clarification issues. The objection to Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 15, and 29 has thus been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, on page 7 of the reply filed 29 December 2025 with respect to the rejection of Claims 8, 10, 13, 14, and 29 under 35 USC § 112(b) have been fully considered. The rejections of Claims 8, 10, 13, 14, and 29 are withdrawn due to amendment of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
(maintained)
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 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.
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 1-3, 5-7, 12-15, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegar et al. (Iran Red Crescent Med J, 2011, 739-743) in view of Azadi et al. (Jundishapur J Nat Pharm Prod, 2015, 6 pages).
The instant claims are as of record, drawn to a wound healing composition comprising egg yolk and burned cereal powder.
Rastegar et al. teach treatment of burn wounds in rats (animal) with egg yolk oil extracted from farm-fresh grocery store (chicken eggs) egg yolks separated from the egg white (less than 20% by weight egg white; Rastegar et al., Materials and Methods, page 740; as required for instant Claims 1, 5, 6, 12, 15, and 28). The composition was applied to rats topically (treatment of skin of a subject) and resulted in abundant re-epithelialization of burn wounds without scar tissue (medicament; Rastegar et al., Abstract, page 739; as required for instant Claims 13, 14, 29).
Rastegar et al. do not teach wherein the composition comprises burned cereal powder.
Azadi et al., however, teach a composition comprising barley seed ash ground into a powder (burned cereal powder) for accelerated burn wound healing in rats (Azadi et al., Abstract, page 1; as required for instant Claims 1, 7, and 28).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Rastegar et al. and Azadi et al. to arrive at the claimed invention. The composition of Azadi et al. also comprises a lipid mixture in the form of visceral fat (Azadi et al., Title, page 1) and a skilled artisan would know that egg yolk oil is also a lipid mixture. This in combination with the knowledge that egg yolk oil is also effective at healing burn wounds would provide a skilled artisan with the motivation to combine egg yolk and burned cereal powder to make a wound healing composition with a reasonable expectation of success.
Rastegar et al. and Azadi et al. are relied upon for the reasons discussed above. If not expressly taught by the prior art, based upon the overall beneficial teaching provided by this reference with respect to using the ingredients of a composition in the manner disclosed therein, the adjustments of particular conventional working conditions (e.g., determining one or more suitable weight percentage of composition ingredients (instant Claims 2 and 3)), is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-15, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegar et al. (Iran Red Crescent Med J, 2011, 739-743) in view of Azadi et al. (Jundishapur J Nat Pharm Prod, 2015, 6 pages) as applied to Claims 1-3, 5-7, 12-15, 28, and 29 above, and further in view of Liu (CN 103721218 A, translation, 3 pages).
The instant claims and teachings of Rastegar et al. and Azadi et al. are as of record.
Rastegar et al. in view of Azadi et al. do not teach wherein the cereal is rice, de-hulled, or suitable for making rice pudding.
Liu, however, teaches a composition comprising charred (burned) rice grains (de-hulled cereal) cooked into a starchy soup (suitable for making rice pudding; Liu, [0005]-[0010]; as required for instant Claims 9-11).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Rastegar et al. and Azadi et al. with those of Liu to arrive at the claimed invention. The rice is trivial in daily life and affordable (Liu, [0010]) and the carbon from burning the rice acts as an adsorbent (Liu, [0009]), which would help the composition stick to the skin and adsorb fluids from the wound, providing motivation for a skilled artisan to provide them for the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 12-15, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegar et al. (Iran Red Crescent Med J, 2011, 739-743) in view of Azadi et al. (Jundishapur J Nat Pharm Prod, 2015, 6 pages) as applied to Claims 1-3, 5-7, 12-15, 28, and 29 above, and further in view of Food and Agriculture Organization (Uses of Quinoa, 2013, 2 pages).
The instant claims and teachings of Rastegar et al. and Azadi et al. are as of record.
Rastegar et al. in view of Azadi et al. do not teach wherein the cereal is or may comprise a pseudocereal.
Food and Agriculture Organization teaches that roasted quinoa grain can be turned into flour (burned cereal powder) and that the leaves, stems, and grains can be used for medicinal purposes such as healing wounds and reducing swelling (Food and Agriculture Organization, pages 1-2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Rastegar et al. and Azadi et al. with those of Food and Agriculture Organization to arrive at the claimed invention. The positive teaching that quinoa grains can be used for medicinal purposes such as healing wounds and reducing swelling provides motivation for a skilled artisan to include them in the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 1-7, 12-15, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegar et al. (Iran Red Crescent Med J, 2011, 739-743) in view of Azadi et al. (Jundishapur J Nat Pharm Prod, 2015, 6 pages) as applied to Claims 1-3, 5-7, 12-15, 28, and 29 above, and further in view of Maxwell (ThermoFisher, 2017, 5 pages).
The instant claims and teachings of Rastegar et al. and Azadi et al. are as of record.
Rastegar et al. in view of Azadi et al. do not teach wherein the egg yolk is salmonella free.
Maxwell, however, teaches that routine testing, welfare and husbandry improvements, vaccination, and supply chain monitoring have led to Salmonella-free flocks of egg laying chickens in both the United States and United Kingdom (Maxwell, pages 1-3; as required for instant Claim 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Rastegar et al. and Azadi et al. with those of Maxwell to arrive at the claimed invention. Salmonella-free eggs are safe for pregnant women, the elderly, and the very young (Maxwell, page 1), providing motivation for a skilled artisan to provide them for the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
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 was 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.
Please note, since the Office does not have the facilities for examining and comparing Applicants’ composition with the composition of the prior art, the burden is on applicant to show a novel or unobvious difference between the claimed product and the product of the prior art. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980), and “as a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith.” In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685,
688 (CCPA 1972).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is noted that the Rule 132 Declaration mentioned in the remarks on pages 9 was not included in the response filed 29 December 2025.
Applicant argues that the references teach independent, alternative solutions and thus the assumption that combining two agents individually useful for wound healing is impermissible. The Examiner disagrees, however, 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 the instant case, both egg yolk and burnt cereal powder have been shown by the prior art to be useful for healing wounds, and thus it would be obvious to combine these compositions to produce a third wound-healing composition. See MPEP § 2144.06.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a bioactive, ointment-like matrix; formation of a stable matrix; moisture retention; adsorption of excess exudate and contaminants; balanced microenvironment; promotion of epithelial regeneration; inhibition of bacterial growth; hydrogel-like properties; synergistic interaction) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Additionally, it is noted that regarding synergy, evidence of a greater than expected result may be shown by demonstrating an effect which is greater than the sum of each of the effects taken separately. However, a greater than additive effect is not necessarily sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness because such an effect can either be expected or unexpected. Applicants must further show that the results were greater than those which would have been expected from the prior art to an unobvious extent, and that the results are of a significant, practical advantage. See MPEP § 716.02(a).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 JENNIFER L CAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1318. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 11:00am to 5:00pm 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, Anand Desai can be reached at (571)272-0947. 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.
/J.L.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1655
/AARON J KOSAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1655