DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7, 9-14, 16-19, 21-23 are currently pending. Claims 1-7, 9-14, 16 and 18 are currently under examination.
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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-7, 9-14 and 16-18) in the reply filed on 06/30/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 19, 21-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/30/2025.
Applicant’s election of adhesion agent is highly active matrix based on anionic, dispersant is siloxane and binding agent is chitosan for the odor inhibiting mixture in the reply filed on 10/06/2025 and textile substrate and combination of cotton and polyester in the reply filed 06/30/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). The election to the specific superabsorbent polymer is withdrawn as a result of the instant specification not disclosing specific superabsorbent polymers.
Claim 17 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/06/2025 and 06/30/2025.
Priority
The instant case is a national stage entry of PCT/IB2021/054271, filed 05/18/2021 which claims priority to PT116388, filed 05/18/2020.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of paper required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s Informational Disclosure Statement, filed on 12/09/2022 has been considered. Please refer to Applicant's copy of the 1449 submitted herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-14, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 contains the limitation “wherein the odour-inhibiting mixture comprises 10-40% (w/V inhibiting mixture) of coffee grounds”. The use of parenthesis makes it unclear if the limitations contained in the parenthesis is required or optional, and thus has unclear metes and bounds.
Claim 3 contains the limitation “wherein the odour-inhibiting mixture comprises 15-30% (w/V inhibiting mixture) of coffee grounds”. The use of parenthesis makes it unclear if the limitations contained in the parenthesis is required or optional, and thus has unclear metes and bounds.
Claim 9 contains the limitation “wherein the dressing comprises 0.5 – 5% (V/V inhibiting mixture) of bonding agent”. The use of parenthesis makes it unclear if the limitations contained in the parenthesis is required or optional, and thus has unclear metes and bounds.
Claim 9 recites the limitation directed to the concentration of “bonding agent”. Instant claim 1 contains limitations directed to “binding agent”. It is unclear if claim 9 is attempting to provide a concentration to the binding agent present in claim 1 or if a bonding agent is an additional agent. For examination purposes either interpretation will be used.
Claim 16 recites “the textile substrate is”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Instant claim 1, from which it depends does not contain a textile substrate.
Claim 18 recites “the textile substrate is”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Instant claim 1, from which it depends does not contain a textile substrate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 contains the limitation “mixture comprises coffee grounds”. Dependent claim 5 contains the limitation “the coffee grounds are dried and/or ground”. Instant claim 1 defines the ingredient as ground, therefor claim 5 with the limitation of dried and/or ground does not further limit the coffee which is already defined as ground.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0190290 (IDS dated 12/09/2022) and US 4,826,497 as evidenced by Mesh Chart (USA Standard Mesh Chart, accessed 12/8/2025, https://www.dualmfg.com/Pdf/USA-Standard-Mesh-Chart.pdf, pgs. 1-4).
Regarding claims 1-2, the limitation of a wound treatment dressing, comprising an absorbent layer comprising an odour-inhibiting mixture, wherein the odour-inhibiting mixture comprises coffee grounds, wherein the grounds varies between 3-5000 um, 4-4000um, and wherein the odour-inhibiting mixtures comprises an adhesion agent, a dispersant, a binding agent or a buffer solution or mixtures thereof is met by the ‘290 publication teaching a pad coated with coffee which includes an outer cover. A coating layer which is formed below the outer cover and swears of coffee, an absorber which is below the coating layer to absorb secretions. The coffee powder is taught as coated on the coating layer (abstract, [0019], [0025]). The coffee powder is taught a produced through the step of pulverizing the dried coffee beans in 50 mesh size or less and is coated on the coating layer together with an absorbing material to enhance the adhesive strength of the coating layer [0015], thus teaching coffee groups and an adhesion agent. Mesh Chart evidences the mesh opening of mesh 50 is 300 microns (pages 1 and 3). Thus the mesh sizes the coffee beans are processed through would result in particles 300 microns or less overlapping with the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The ‘290 publication teaches the coffee layer can be formed in the middle of the absorber [0027]. The ‘290 publication teaches the structure of the device, an absorbent layer with odor inhibiting mixture which comprise into contact with the skin and is therefore capable of use as a wound treatment dressing, absent factual evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation of wherein the coffee grounds are dried and/or ground is met by coffee powder is produced by pulverizing dried coffee beans in 50 mesh size or less [0019].
Regarding claim 14, the limitation of wherein the absorbent layer is coated through a Meyer bar and/or film coating applicator is met by the ‘290 publication teaches coating layer is formed below the outer cover (abstract). MPEP 2113 - “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
The ‘290 publication does not specifically teach wherein the odour inhibiting mixture comprises 10-40% of coffee grounds (claim 1) or comprises 15-30% of coffee grounds (claim 3).
The ‘497 patent teaches fibrous absorbent articles such as pads and the like comprising crystalline, siliceous molecular sieve which are exhibited to enhance deodorizing properties with respect to the body fluids intended to be absorbed (abstract). The amount of siliceous molecular sieve used in a fibrous absorption article may be characterized by various means. Generally, the amount of crystalline siliceous molecular sieve is at least about 0.001 and sometimes up to 50, preferably 0.01 to 25 grams per 100 cubic centimeters fibrous material (column 7, lines 50-67). Another means of providing the molecular sieve includes using molecular sieve as filler, e.g. in an amount of at least 1 to say 70 percent in the polymeric film or paper type material (column 8, lines 33-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to known amounts of odor absorbing material in pads as taught by the ‘497 patent for the pad taught by the ‘290 publication because the ‘290 publication teaches the inclusion of odor absorbing material, coffee grounds, in a pad and the ‘497 patent teaches known ranges of odor absorbing particles to be used in pad compositions. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would be motived to use known amounts of odor absorbing material as taught by the ‘497 patent and optimizing as the ‘497 patent teaches a wide range for odor absorbing material included in a pad and the ‘290 publication teaches the coffee containing coating to absorb secretions and provides deodorizing effects. As MPEP 2144.05 recites “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine optimization”.
Claim(s) 1-7, 13-14, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2005/018543 in view of Yuwono (IDS 12/09/2022) and US 2015/190290 (IDS dated 12/09/2022) as evidenced by Mesh Chart.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, the limitation of a wound treatment dressing, comprising an absorbent layer comprising an odour-inhibiting mixture, wherein the odour inhibiting mixture comprises coffee grounds and wherein the odour inhibiting mixture comprises an adhesion agent, a dispersant, a binding agent or a buffer solution or mixtures thereof is met by the ‘543 publication teaching wound care device comprising a fiber, fabric, film foam or hydrogel to provide a single antimicrobial wound care device and may comprise additional layers of target substrate to provide a comprise antimicrobial wound care device. The device may contain an odor absorbing component capable of reducing or eliminating odors that are inherently associated with infectious wounds (abstract). The wound care device optionally includes an odor absorbing agent or layer for eliminating or reducing undesirable odors emitted from the wound site. Additionally, layers may also include composite structure to assist in boosting absorption capacity and may or may not contain an antimicrobial agent (page 5, lines 20-30). The odor receiving agent can be odor absorbing agent and includes coffee grounds. Smaller the particulate size the better the odor receiving capability of the odor receiving agent (page 12, lines 14-6). The odor absorbing agent or layer may be included on or within one or more layers of the comprise wound care device (claim 30, lines 8-12). The composition is taught to include binders, odor absorbing agents and the like added to the substrate in an amount of at least 0.01% (page 12, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 5, the limitation of wherein the coffee grounds are dried and/or ground is met by the ‘543 publication teaching coffee grounds (page 12, lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 6, 16 and 18, the limitation of wherein the dressing further comprise an outer layer comprising a textile substrate, which is a natural fiber , which serves as a support for the absorbent layer carrying the inhibiting mixture is met by the ‘543 publication teaching suitable substrates for receiving a topically applied silver based antimicrobial finish include fabrics formed of natural fibers (page 6, lines 15-25), a textile product (page 7, lines 5-15) including polyester and cotton and blends thereof (page 5, lines 15-25)..
Regarding claim 7, the limitation of wherein the absorbent layer further comprises superabsorbent polymers is met by the ‘543 publication teaching the wound care device optionally includes an odor absorbing agent or layer for eliminating or reducing undesirable odors emitted from the wound site and a composite structure to assist in boosting absorption capacity such as for example, one or more layers of foam, alginate, carboxymethyl cellulose and the like (page 5, lines 20-30). The ‘543 publication teaches an absorbent polymer, wherein super absorbent is not defined by the instant specification, therefore the absorbent polymers taught by the ‘543 publication meets the instant claim limitation.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation of wherein the absorbent layer is coated through a Meyer bar and/or film applicator is met by the ‘543 publication teaching coating methods include spraying, dipping, padding foaming and the like (page 13, lines 30-35). MPEP 2113 - “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
The ‘543 publication does not specifically teach wherein the granulometry of the ground coffee grounds varies between 3-5000 um (claim 1), 4-4,000 um (claim 2).
The ‘543 publication teaches wherein the odour-inhibiting mixture comprise 10-40% of coffee grounds (claim 1).
The ‘543 publication does not specifically teach absorbent layer comprises between 0.05 to 5 g of coffee grounds per cm2 of absorbent layer (claim 4).
Yuwono teaches homemade coffee powder for management of patients with a variety of acute and chronic wounds. All wounds were treated using topical coffee powder as wound dressing that was replaced once every 4 weeks until its healing. Coffee has a bactericidal capacity and absorptive capacity (abstract). The coffee was milled into coffee powder. The amount of coffee powder is given to close the wound, depending on the size of the magnitude and dept of the wound. For injuries at a diameter of 5cm at a depth of about 0.5 cm should be given as much as an adult handful of coffee beans or 80-100 grams (page 26, first column, 2nd paragraph). This leads to 4 g/cm2 (80 g/19.63 cm2 area).
The ‘290 publication teaching a pad coated with coffee which includes an outer cover. A coating layer which is formed below the outer cover and swears of coffee, an absorber which is below the coating layer to absorb secretions. The coffee powder is taught as coated on the coating layer (abstract, [0019], [0025]). The coffee powder is taught a produced through the step of pulverizing the dried coffee beans in 50 mesh size or less and is coated on the coating layer together with an absorbing material to enhance the adhesive strength of the coating layer [0015], thus teaching coffee grounds and an adhesion agent. Mesh Chart evidences the mesh opening of mesh 50 is 300 microns (pages 1 and 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use the amount of coffee grounds taught by Yuvono in the wound dressing as taught by the ‘543 publication because Yuvono teaches the amount of coffee ground to be used on a wound. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to use the amount taught by Yuvono and optimize as Yuvono teaches the amount of coffee ground is dependent on the wound size and the ‘543 publication is directed to a wound dressing. As MPEP 2144.05 recites “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine optimization”.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use the particle size range taught by the ‘290 publication in the wound dressing taught by the ‘543 publication because the ‘290 publication teaches known particle sizes of ground coffee to be used for odor absorption and the ‘543 publication is directed to coffee grounds to be used for odor absorption. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to use known coffee sizes and optimize as the ‘290 publication teaches known coffee ground particle sizes and the ‘543 publication teaches Smaller the particulate size the better the odor receiving capability of the odor receiving agent thus teaching an optimizable parameter. As MPEP 2144.05 recites “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine optimization”.
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2005/018543 in view of Yuwono (IDS 12/09/2022) and US 2015/190290 as evidenced by Mesh Chart as applied to claims 1-7, 13-14, 16 and 18 above, and further in view of WO 2009/134447.
As mentioned in the above 103(a) rejection, all of the limitations of claims 1-7, 13-14, 16 and 18 are taught by the combination of the ‘543 publication, Yuwono and the ‘290 publication.
The combination of references does not specifically teach 0.5 to 5% of bonding agent (claim 9) wherein the binding agent is selected from a list including chitosan (claim 11).
The ‘447 publication teaches absorbent wound dressing assembly that can be used to stanch, seal or stabilize a site of tissue injury, tissue trauma or tissue access. Preferably the wound dressing material is a flexible carrier material of chitosan (abstract). Adhesion properties of wound dressing assemblies having various amount of chitosan material applied to the dressing assemblies (2%, 3%, 4%). The results indicate that each of the various amount of chitosan used do have acceptable adhesion properties. The dressing assemblies will have at least a minimal amount of adhesion (page 27, lines 15-35). Chitosan is defined as an absorbable material providing improved overall properties of the wound dressing assembly (page 25, lines 15-30). The composition is taught to be applied to cotton gauze as the carrier strip (page 19, lines 5-10). The assembly is taught to be able to stanch the flow of blood and other bodily fluids (page 19 lines 15-25).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use chitosan in the concentration taught by the ‘447 publication in the wound dressing taught by the ‘543 publication as the ‘447 publication teaches chitosan is known to be used in wound dressings. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use chitosan in the wound dressing of the ‘543 publication because the ‘447 publication teaches chitosan is an absorbable adherent material that stanches the flow of blood and other bodily fluids and improve the properties of the wound dressing assembly and the ’543 publication teaches a wound dressing assembly. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have a reasonable expectation of success as the ‘543 publication teaches the compristion including adherents and the ‘447 publication teaches chitosan is an adherent.
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2005/018543 in view of Yuwono (IDS 12/09/2022) and US 2015/190290 as evidenced by Mesh Chart as applied to claims 1-7, 13-14, 16 and 18 above, and further in view of US 2009/0093585.
As mentioned in the above 103(a) rejection, all of the limitations of claims 1-7, 13-14, 16 and 18 are taught by the combination of the ‘543 publication, Yuwono and the ‘290 publication.
The combination of references does not specifically teach wherein the adhesion agent is selected form a list consisting of highly active matrix based on anionic, cationic, nonionic, amphoteric agents and combination thereof (claim 10).
The combination of references does not specifically teach wherein the dispersant is selected form a list consisting of polyester, siloxane, polyphosphate, polyacrylates and combinations thereof (claim 12).
The ‘585 publication teaches absorbent fibrous mats (abstract). The end use is taught to be wound dressings ([0032], [0103]). Wetting agents are taught to include anionic compound which spread more easily over the surface of another material by reducing the surface tension of the one or more liquids present. Wetting agents are taught to be surfactants and include ionic silicone surfactants, one or more quaternary polydimethyl siloxane and combinations of two or more [0054]. The ‘585 publication teaches the ionic agent and the siloxane thus reading on the claims 10 and 12.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use the ionic siloxane wetting agents as taught by the ‘585 publication in the wound dressing taught by the ‘543 publication because the ‘585 publication teaches the wetting agents reduce surface tension and spread more easily over the surface. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have a reasonable expectation of success as the ‘543 publication is a wound dressing taught to contain wetting agents and the ‘585 publication teaches wetting agents which may be used in wound dressings.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Examiner Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNDSEY MARIE BECKHARDT whose telephone number is (571)270-7676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am to 4pm and Friday 9am to 2pm.
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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at 571-272-0581. 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.
/LYNDSEY M BECKHARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 1613