DETAILED ACTION
Previous Rejections
Applicants' arguments, filed 11 June 2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – New Matter
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 31 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. This is a “new matter” rejection. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 31 recites that the scavenger is an “enzyme” and claim 38 further recites a limitation to the scavenger at “room temperature.” These two terms are not disclosed in the originally filed disclosure for the scavenger.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Munro et al. (PCT Patent Application Publication WO 2016/079538).
Munro et al. discloses dressings for treating conditions such as surgical wounds (abstract). The system can comprise a hydrogel with a sulphonic acid (claim 1). The sulphonic acid can be pendant on a monomer such as vinyl sulphonic acid (claims 13-14). This hydrogel with this monomer anticipates instant claim 26.
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.
Claims 21, 28-30, and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munro et al. (PCT Patent Application Publication WO 2016/079538) in view of ‘373 (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0250373).
Munro et al. discloses dressings for treating conditions such as surgical wounds (abstract). The system can comprise a hydrogel with a sulphonic acid and a layer comprising a nitrite (claim 1). The sulphonic acid can be pendant on a monomer which is polymerized and present in the hydrogel (claim 13), with specific monomers suggesting including vinyl sulphonic acid (the elected species of polymer) and 2-acrylamido-2-mtheylpropane sulfonic acid (claim 14).These polymers read upon the instantly recited copolymer.
Munro et al. further suggests the nitrite can be sodium nitrite (claim 8), and this reads upon the instantly recited source of nitrite.
Munro et al. does not suggest the inclusion of an oxygen scavenger. Such scavengers would include glucose (as demonstrated by the instant specification at paragraph [138]), and oxygen scavengers as disclosed by the instant specification are used remove oxygen (paragraph [138]) and thus reduce oxidation of nitric oxide (paragraph [113 & 125-126]). This deficiency is remedied by ‘373, which discloses hydrogel wound dressing materials (abstract). Further, ‘373 suggests the inclusion of glucose in order to stimulate wound healing (paragraph [84]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have included glucose in the hydrogel taught by Munro et al., as doing so would provide the additional benefit of stimulating wound healing.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues that the rejections are not proper. The Applicant argues that the anticipation rejection over Munro et al. of claim 26 is not proper. Munro et al. does not teach an oxygen scavenger, and thus the rejection is not proper. As for the obviousness rejections, the Applicant states that the amendment to clarify the scope of the oxygen scavenger overcomes the rejection.
The Examiner acknowledges the arguments presented, but does not consider them persuasive. The anticipation rejection is not considered improper, because claim 26 does not require an oxygen scavenger. Claim 26 recites a hydrogel wound dressing with the monomers according to claim 21. Those monomers are present. No other ingredients are required by claim 26, and as such oxygen scavengers are not required.
As for the obviousness rejection, the oxygen scavenger cited in the rejection is still considered to be within the scope of the instant claims. As demonstrated by the instant specification, oxygen scavengers as disclosed by the instant specification to remove oxygen (paragraph [138]) and thus reduce oxidation of nitric oxide (paragraph [113 & 125-126]). Further, such scavengers would include glucose (as demonstrated by the instant specification at paragraph [138]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32-37 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The closest subject matter is the above cited Munro et al. While similar dressings are disclosed therein, claims 32-37 recite the inclusion of additional ingredients which are not suggested by Munro et al.. Further, the prior art does not suggest or provide motivation for their inclusion in such dressings.
Conclusion
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 Brian Gulledge whose telephone number is (571) 270-5756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am - 4pm.
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, Fereydoun Sajjadi can be reached at (571) 272-3311. 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 Gulledge/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1699
Prosecution Insights