DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 10-14, 16-19, 21-23 are currently pending. Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 10-14, 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 .
Specification
The specification amendments submitted 11/18/2022 will be entered.
Withdrawn Rejections
The prior rejection of claims 1-7, 9-14, 16 and 18 under 112(b) and claim 5 under 112(d) are withdrawn based on Applicant’s claim amendments to remove parenthesis, correct antecedent basis issue and canceling claim 5.
Examiner’s Note
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 04/14/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. The Examiner has re-weighed all the evidence of record. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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. In the Applicant’s response, filed 04/14/2026, it is noted that claims 1 and 3-4 have been amended and no new matter or claims have been added.
New Rejections:
The following rejections are newly applied based on Applicant’s claim amendments.
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, 3-4, 7, 10-14, 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation of “wherein the odour-inhibiting mixture comprises spend coffee grounds, an adhesion agent, a dispersant, a binding agent or a buffer solution; or mixture thereof” and additionally recites “wherein the odor-inhibiting mixture comprises…spent coffee grounds”, and “wherein the odour-inhibiting mixture comprises an adhesion agent, a dispersant, a binding agent or a buffer solutions or mixtures thereof; wherein the odour-inhibiting mixture comprises….binding agent”. It is unclear what is required by the odour-inhibiting mixture as it is claimed in the alternative form using “or” for each of the ingredients, therefor it appears spend coffee grounds is not required, however it is additionally listed in alternative form wherein the list does not include coffee grounds and further limits the coffee grounds and binding agents. The instant claims is therefor unclear as to what ingredients are required by instant claims, and which are optional components. For examination purposes the limitations will be deemed to require “spent coffee grounds” wherein additional ingredients may be selected from adhesion agents, dispersant, binding agents, buffering solutions or mixtures thereof. Claims 3-4, 7, 10-14, 16 and 18 are further rejected as not curing the ambiguity of claim 1.
Regarding claims 1, 3-4 contain the limitation “spent coffee grounds”. The limitation of “spent” has unclear metes and bounds, as the process to which the grounds are subjected to be considered “spent”. The instant specification recites “spent coffee grounds” but does not define what “spent” coffee grounds is limited to. Claims 7, 10-14, 16 and 18 are further rejected as not curing the ambiguity of “spent coffee grounds”.
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 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 (previously applied) as evidenced by Mesh Chart (previously applied).
Regarding claims 1, 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 4-4000 um, and wherein the odour-inhibiting mixtures comprises an adhesion agent, a dispersant, a binding agent or a buffer solution or mixtures thereof, wherein the dressing further comprises an outer layer comprising a textile substrate which serves as a support for the absorbent layer carrying the inhibiting mixture 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 as 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 the coffee grounds being “spent”, the ‘290 publication teaches coffee extracts being produced through the steps of boiling coffee in water and drying and pulverizing essence of the boiled coffee [0025] thus teaching the pulverizing of grounds after being subjected to boiling, reading on “spent” absent factual evidence to the contrary. The addition of fruit powder may be considered a dispersant, absent factual evidence to the contrary [0037].
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, 3-4, 7, 13-14, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2005/018543 (previously applied) 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, an adhesion agent, a dispersant, a binding agent or a buffer solution or mixtures thereof 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 claims 1, 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 claims 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), wherein the coffee grounds are spent (claims 1 and 3-4).
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). Regarding the coffee grounds being “spent”, the ‘290 publication teaches coffee extracts being produced through the steps of boiling coffee in water and drying and pulverizing essence of the boiled coffee [0025] thus teaching the pulverizing of grounds after being subjected to boiling, reading on “spent” absent factual evidence to the contrary.
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 and method of forming coffee grounds (spent) as 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 methods of forming such grounds, 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) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2005/018543 (previously applied) in view of Yuwono (IDS 12/09/2022) and US 2015/190290 (previously applied) as evidenced by Mesh Chart as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 7, 13-14, 16 and 18 above, and further in view of WO 2009/134447 (previously applied).
As mentioned in the above 103(a) rejection, all of the limitations of claims 1, 3-4, 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 1) 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 (previously applied).
As mentioned in the above 103(a) rejection, all of the limitations of claims 1, 3-4, 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 from 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 from 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.
Response to Arguments:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are not deemed to be persuasive.
Applicant argues claim 1 has been amended to change the term to “spent coffee grounds” which correspond to the powder that remains after the extraction of the drink. The ‘290 publication and Yuwono disclose raw coffee powder or pulverized beans prior to extraction. This is in contrast to the spent coffee grounds correspond to the solid residue remaining after extraction. Spent coffee grounds are depleted of soluble compounds and consist predominantly of an insoluble porous lignocellulostic matrix.
In response, regarding the coffee grounds being “spent”, the ‘290 publication teaches coffee extracts being produced through the steps of boiling coffee in water and drying and pulverizing essence of the boiled coffee [0025] thus teaching the pulverizing of grounds after being subjected to boiling, reading on “spent” absent factual evidence to the contrary.
Applicant argues, the prior art of the ‘290 publication and the ‘543 publication do not recognize the absorption properties suitable for odour adsorption.
In response, regarding the coffee grounds being “spent”, the ‘290 publication teaches coffee extracts being produced through the steps of boiling coffee in water and drying and pulverizing essence of the boiled coffee [0025] thus teaching the pulverizing of grounds after being subjected to boiling, reading on “spent” absent factual evidence to the contrary. It appears Applicant is arguing unexpected results regarding the use of “spent” coffee grounds, however has presented no factual data. Attorney’s arguments may not take the place of factual evidence wherein factual evidence is required.
Applicant argues the claim defined granulometry range of 4-4000 um. The prior art document explicitly teaches that the beans must be finely pulverized to this small size, less than 50 mess size or less corresponding to 300 um. The present invention encompasses particles up to 4,000 um, which are more than 13 times larger than the upper limit disclosed in the prior art document and have the benefits of preventing caking.
In response, it appears Applicant is arguing unexpected results in the claimed range, however has not presented factual evidence to the contrary. Attorney’s arguments may not take the place of factual evidence wherein factual evidence is required. Additionally, the range taught by the ‘290 publication fall within the claimed range. The instant claims do not require specifically the 4,000 um but rather falls within the claimed range and thus meet the instant claim limitations.
Applicant argues the instant claim limitations require a specific combination of spent coffee grounds with formulation components such as adhesion agents, dispersant or binding agents. These components ensure that the spent coffee grounds are uniformly distributed and effectively retained within the absorbent layer. This results in improved adhesion the textile substrate and reached formulation homogeneity. The prior art cited by the Office Action merely refers to coffee grounds as optional odour absorbing material and does not disclose or suggest a structural formation comprising coffee-derived material in combination with the binding or adhesion system claimed ranges. The present application requires a low amount of chitosan as a binding agent, not to stanch, seal or stabilize tissue injury.
In response, Applicant is referred to the 112(b) rejection above, wherein the what is required by the instant claims is unclear. Further the ‘447 publication teaches chitosan being added at 2, 3, 4% for adhesin properties. 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. Applicant has presented no unexpected results regarding the use of chitosan or the specific amounts of the chitosan. In response to applicant's argument that chitosan as a binding agent, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant argues the selection of siloxane as a dispersant is not suggested for this application. The ‘585 publication teaches siloxane exclusively as a wetting agent to reduce surface tension in fibrous atter, offering not motivation to one of ordinary skill to employ it as a dispersant to stabilize coffee-derived particulates.
In response, 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. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant argues the ‘497 patent concerns crystalline molecular sieves, which are inorganic materials with entirely different physical and adsorption kinetics compared to spend coffee grounds. The prior art does not identify these parameters as result effective variable in the context of wound dressings. There is not teaching that controlling granulometry concentration and formulation components in combination with lead to improved odour inhibition performance.
In response, the ‘497 publication is directed to pads comprises siliceous molecular sieves for deodorizing properties. A range of the amounts of crystalline siliceous molecular sieves are taught. 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”.
Applicant argues the sue of a specifically formulated odour-inhibiting mixture comprising spent coffee grounds in combination with defined formation components within the defined ranges is not suggested by the prior art. There is no motivation for the skilled person to arrive at the claimed invention nor any reasonable expectation of success.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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.
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
/BRIAN-YONG S KWON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Prosecution Insights