DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Amendment after Non-final office action filed on 3/2/2026 is acknowledged.
3. Claim filed on 3/2/2026 is acknowledged.
4. Claims 13, 23 and 24 have been cancelled.
5. Claims 1-12, 14-22 and 25 are pending in this application.
6. Claims 14-22 and 25 remain withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to non-elected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
7. Applicant elected without traverse Group 1 (claims 1-13) and elected without traverse of a controlled release formulation comprising compound with the structure
PNG
media_image1.png
376
366
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) as species of formulation in the reply filed on 10/14/2025.
Restriction requirement was deemed proper and made FINAL in the previous office action. Group 1 is drawn to a formulation comprising a homogenous mixture of a biodegradable polyester and a compound of Formula (I): AA-AA-AA-X-Y (I), wherein there is no covalent attachment between the polyester and the compound of Formula (I). A search was conducted on the elected species; and prior art was found. Claims 1-12 are examined on the merits in this office action.
Withdrawn Objections
8. Objection to claims 2, 4-6, 8, 10 and 12 is hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claim.
Maintained/Revised Objections
9. (Revised due to Applicant’s amendment to the specification) The specification remains objected to for the following minor informality: The clean copy of specification filed on 3/2/2026 recites “
PNG
media_image2.png
38
66
media_image2.png
Greyscale
” on page 32, Table 3 of instant specification. First, such change is not indicated in the marked-up copy of the specification filed on 3/2/2026. Second, there appears to be a typo in this recitation. Applicant is required to correct this error.
Please note: The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible error. Applicant's cooperation is required in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification (see MPEP § 608.01).
10. (Revised due to Applicant’s amendment to the claim) Claim 1 remains objected to for the following minor informality: Applicant is suggested to amend claim 1 as “…a compound of Formula (I): AA-AA-AA-X-Y (I), wherein, in any order…and Y is selected…and R4, wherein:…R2 is C, and each of R1 and R2…R3 is a group comprising 1 to 3 cyclic groups, wherein each of the cyclic groups comprises 5 or 6 non-hydrogen atoms, and 2 or more of the cyclic groups is optionally fused and one or more of the cyclic groups is optionally substituted, and wherein there is no more than…”.
11. (Revised due to Applicant’s amendment to the claim) Claim 3 remains objected to for the following minor informality: Applicant is suggested to amend claim 3 as “…wherein said cationic amino acid is arginine or lysine”.
12. (Revised due to Applicant’s amendment to the claim) Claim 7 remains objected to for the following minor informality: The quality of the compound structure recited in instant claim 7 is poor. Applicant is required to amend claim 7 to recite a clear chemical structure.
Response to Applicant's Arguments
13. Applicant’s amendment to the specification introduces additional minor issue into instant specification; and Applicant fails to address all the minor issues in claims 1, 3 and 7. Therefore, these objections are deemed proper and are hereby maintained.
Maintained/Revised Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112 paragraph (b)
14. 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.
15. Claims 1-6 and 8-12 remain 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
16. Claim 1 recites a compound of Formula (I) wherein X is a N atom, R1 is C, O, S or N and R2 is C, and wherein X, R1 and R2 are optionally substituted with certain alkyl and/or aryl group. In the instant case, since all the bonds in the compound of Formula (I) is single bond, the unsubstituted X, R1 and R2 in the formula contain unfilled valency. Furthermore, it is unclear whether X, R1 and R2 in the formula can also be substituted with hydrogen (H) atom to fill in the valency. Therefore, the metes and bounds of instant claim 1 is vague and indefinitely. Because claims 2-6 and 8-12 depend from indefinite claim 1, and none of the dependent claims clarifies the point of confusion, they must also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Furthermore, in view of the disclosure of instant specification and the compound recited in instant claim 7, for the purpose of this examination, the Examiner is interpretating X, R1 and R2 in the formula can be substituted with hydrogen (H) atom.
Response to Applicant's Arguments
17. Applicant argues that “One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have understood that the normal valences of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and sulphur are satisfied by hydrogen atoms when an atom is "unsubstituted". The skilled person is fully aware of how many bonds each atom can form and would understand that, where no further substituents are specified, any remaining valances are occupied by hydrogen, in accordance with standard chemical language and practice. The Examiner has acknowledged that "in view of the disclosure of the instant specification" the claims have been interpreted such that X, R1 and R2 can be substituted with a hydrogen atom.”
18. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive.
In response to Applicant's arguments about instant rejection, the Examiner would like to point out that in the instant case, claim 1 explicilty recites “X is a N atom”, “R1 is C, O, S or N” and “R2 is C”. As an example, instant claim 1 does not recite “X is -NH- group”. And one of ordinary skilled in the art would understand “X is a N atom” is not the same as “X is -NH- group”. Furthermore, the Examiner would like to point out that claim is examined and interpretated as how it is written. In addition, in the instant case, since instant claim 1 is indefinite, for the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has to rely on instant specification and instant claim 7 for the interpretation of X, R1 and R2 in the instant claimed Formula (I). It is unclear to the Examiner how and/or why this would made instant claim 1 definite. Further clarification is required.
Taken all these together, the rejection is deemed proper and is hereby maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
19. 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 of this title, 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.
20. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
21. (Revised due to Applicant’s amendment to the claim) Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stensen et al (WO 2010/038040 A1, filed with IDS) in view of Chereddy et al (Journal of Controlled Release, 2014, 194, pages 138-147, cited and enclose in the previous office action), and as evidenced by the PLGA document (cited and enclose in the previous office action, from https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/technical-documents/technical-article/materials-science-and-engineering/drug-delivery/resomer#properties, 2025, pages 1-2), and further in view of Said et al (European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics, 2012, 80, pages 85-94).
The instant claims 1-12 are drawn to a formulation comprising a homogenous mixture of a biodegradable polyester and a compound of Formula (I): AA-AA-AA-X-Y (I), wherein there is no covalent attachment between the polyester and the compound of Formula (I).
Stensen et al, throughout the patent, teach antimicrobial peptide or peptidomimetic for use in the treatment of a biofilm-associated infection in a subject; wherein the antimicrobial peptide or peptidomimetic can be compound 2 with the structure
PNG
media_image3.png
314
326
media_image3.png
Greyscale
; and wherein wound, including chronic wound, is a preferred therapeutic target, for example, Abstract; page 8, lines 20-24; page 9, lines 25-35; page 16, line 30 to page 19, line 35. It meets the limitations of the compound of Formula (I) recited in instant claims 1-7. Stensen et al further teach such antimicrobial peptide or peptidomimetic is formulated as a controlled release formulation, for example, page 28, lines 10-16. It meets the limitation of instant claim 12.
The difference between the reference and instant claims 1-12 is that the reference does not explicilty teach a controlled release formulation comprising compound with the structure
PNG
media_image1.png
376
366
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) as the elected species of formulation; the limitations “a homogenous mixture”, “a biodegradable polyester” and “wherein there is no covalent attachment between the polyester and the compound of Formula (I)” recited in instant claim 1; and the limitations of instant claims 8-11.
However, Chereddy et al, throughout the literature, teach a controlled release formulation comprising poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) nanoparticle loaded with the antimicrobial peptide LL37 promotes wound healing, wherein PLGA supplies lactate that accelerates neovascularization and promotes wound healing; PLGA is biodegradable, biocompatible, has versatile degradation kinetics and approved by the European Medical Agency and Food and Drug Administration as an excipient for parenteral products, thus, the key advantage of PLGA drug delivery systems is the polymer can perform the dual roles: being a wound healing agent itself and its capability to release loaded drugs sustainably to the wound, for example, Title; Abstract; page 138, right column, the 2nd paragraph; page 139, left column, the 2nd paragraph; page 141, Figure 1; and page 146, right column, Section “5. Conclusions”. Chereddy et al further teach PLGA in the controlled release formulation is PLGA (50:50, Mw 7000–17,000, acid terminated, Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, DE), for example, page 139, left column, Section “2.1. PLGA-LL37 nanoparticle preparation”. And as evidenced by the PLGA document, the PLGA (50:50, Mw 7000–17,000, acid terminated, Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, DE) in Chereddy et al is RESOMER RG 502 H, which is a poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) having an intrinsic viscosity between 0.16-0.24 dL/g (page 1, AI overview; and page 2, information about RESOMER RG 502 H).
Furthermore, Said et al, throughout the literature, teach electrospun polymer nanofibers have demonstrated great potentials as wound dressing materials; the advantages of nanofibers as wound dressing; and an antimicrobial PLGA ultrafine fibers for wound healing, wherein such ultrafine fibers are fusidic acid-loaded PLGA ultrafine fibers that are prepared by electrospinning of a solution comprising PLGA and fusidic acid (FA), and wherein such ultrafine fibers are sustained release system, for example, Abstract; page 85, the 1st paragraph in Section “1. Introduction”; page 86, Section “2.2. Preparation and characterization of plain and fusidic acid-loaded PLGA ultrafine fibers (UFs)”; and page 93, left column, the 1st paragraph.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Stensen et all, Chereddy et al and Said et al to develop a controlled release formulation in the form of ultrafine fibers, wherein the ultrafine fibers are prepared by electrospinning of a solution comprising poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) nanoparticle loaded with compound 2 with the structure
PNG
media_image3.png
314
326
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, wherein the PLGA can be RESOMER RG 502 H, which is a poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) having an intrinsic viscosity between 0.16-0.24 dL/g and Mw 7000–17,000 Dalton, and wherein there is no covalent attachment between compound 2 and PLGA. It reads on a controlled release formulation comprising compound with the structure
PNG
media_image1.png
376
366
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) as the elected species of formulation.
With regards to the limitation “a homogenous mixture” recited in instant claim 1, in view of the teachings of Said et al about how to prepare the ultrafine fibers, one of ordinary skilled in the art would understand and reasonably expect that the controlled release formulation in the form of ultrafine fibers developed from the combined teachings of Stensen et all, Chereddy et al and Said et al above comprises a homogenous mixture of PLGA and compound 2. And since the USPTO lacks the experimental facilities to make a further determination, the burden is on the Applicant to prove the otherwise.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Stensen et all, Chereddy et al and Said et al to develop a controlled release formulation in the form of ultrafine fibers, wherein the ultrafine fibers are prepared by electrospinning of a solution comprising poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) nanoparticle loaded with compound 2 with the structure
PNG
media_image3.png
314
326
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, wherein the ultrafine fibers comprise a homogenous mixture of PLGA and compound 2, wherein the PLGA can be RESOMER RG 502 H, which is a poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) having an intrinsic viscosity between 0.16-0.24 dL/g and Mw 7000–17,000 Dalton, and wherein there is no covalent attachment between compound 2 and PLGA, because Chereddy et al, throughout the literature, teach a controlled release formulation comprising poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) nanoparticle loaded with the antimicrobial peptide LL37 promotes wound healing, wherein PLGA supplies lactate that accelerates neovascularization and promotes wound healing; PLGA is biodegradable, biocompatible, has versatile degradation kinetics and approved by the European Medical Agency and Food and Drug Administration as an excipient for parenteral products, thus, the key advantage of PLGA drug delivery systems is the polymer can perform the dual roles: being a wound healing agent itself and its capability to release loaded drugs sustainably to the wound. Chereddy et al further teach PLGA in the controlled release formulation is PLGA (50:50, Mw 7000–17,000, acid terminated, Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, DE). Said et al, throughout the literature, teach electrospun polymer nanofibers have demonstrated great potentials as wound dressing materials; the advantages of nanofibers as wound dressing; and an antimicrobial PLGA ultrafine fibers for wound healing, wherein such ultrafine fibers are fusidic acid-loaded PLGA ultrafine fibers that are prepared by electrospinning of a solution comprising PLGA and fusidic acid (FA), and wherein such ultrafine fibers are sustained release system.
A person of ordinary skilled in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Stensen et all, Chereddy et al and Said et al to develop a controlled release formulation in the form of ultrafine fibers, wherein the ultrafine fibers are prepared by electrospinning of a solution comprising poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) nanoparticle loaded with compound 2 with the structure
PNG
media_image3.png
314
326
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, wherein the ultrafine fibers comprise a homogenous mixture of PLGA and compound 2, wherein the PLGA can be RESOMER RG 502 H, which is a poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) having an intrinsic viscosity between 0.16-0.24 dL/g and Mw 7000–17,000 Dalton, and wherein there is no covalent attachment between compound 2 and PLGA.
Response to Applicant's Arguments
22. Applicant argues that “the combination of Stensen with Chereddy fails to teach or suggest the claimed homogenous mixture of a biodegradable polyester and an antimicrobial peptide.”
23. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive.
Please note: due to Applicant’s amendment to the claim, Said et al (European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics, 2012, 80, pages 85-94) is cited as a prior art reference in instant rejection.
In response to Applicant's arguments about instant rejection, in the instant case, as stated in Section 21 above, in view of the combined teachings of Stensen et all, Chereddy et al and Said et al, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to develop a controlled release formulation in the form of ultrafine fibers, wherein the ultrafine fibers are prepared by electrospinning of a solution comprising poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) nanoparticle loaded with compound 2 with the structure
PNG
media_image3.png
314
326
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, wherein the PLGA can be RESOMER RG 502 H, which is a poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) having an intrinsic viscosity between 0.16-0.24 dL/g and Mw 7000–17,000 Dalton, and wherein there is no covalent attachment between compound 2 and PLGA. Furthermore, with regards to the limitation “a homogenous mixture” recited in instant claim 1, in view of the teachings of Said et al about how to prepare the ultrafine fibers, one of ordinary skilled in the art would understand and reasonably expect that the controlled release formulation in the form of ultrafine fibers developed from the combined teachings of Stensen et all, Chereddy et al and Said et al comprises a homogenous mixture of PLGA and compound 2. And since the USPTO lacks the experimental facilities to make a further determination, the burden is on the Applicant to prove the otherwise.
Taken all these together, the rejection is deemed proper and is hereby maintained.
Obviousness Double Patenting
24. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
25. (Revised due to Applicant’s amendment to the claim) Claims 1-12 remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of US patent 8598114 B2 in view of Chereddy et al (Journal of Controlled Release, 2014, 194, pages 138-147, cited and enclosed in the previous office action), and as evidenced by the PLGA document (2025, pages 1-2, from https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/technical-documents/technical-article/materials-science-and-engineering/drug-delivery/resomer#properties, cited and enclosed in the previous office action), and further in view of Said et al (European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics, 2012, 80, pages 85-94).
26. Instant claims 1-12 are drawn to a formulation comprising a homogenous mixture of a biodegradable polyester and a compound of Formula (I): AA-AA-AA-X-Y (I), wherein there is no covalent attachment between the polyester and the compound of Formula (I).
27. Claims 1-18 of US patent 8598114 B2 are drawn to a compound of formula (I) AA-AA-AA-X-Y (I) wherein, in any order, 2 of said AA (amino acid) moieties are cationic amino acids and 1 of said AA is an amino acid with a lipophilic R group, the R group having 14-27 non-hydrogen atoms; X is a N atom, which may be substituted by a branched or unbranched C1-C10 alkyl group, which group may incorporate up to 2 heteroatoms selected from N, O and S; Y represents -Ra-Rb- wherein Ra is C, O, S or N, Rb is C; each of Ra and Rb may be substituted by C1-C4 alkyl groups or unsubstituted; Z is a group comprising 1 to 3 cyclic groups each of 5 or 6 non-hydrogen atoms, 2 or more of the cyclic groups may be fused and one or more of the cyclic groups may be substituted; the Z moiety incorporates a maximum of 15 non-hydrogen atoms; and wherein the bond between Y and Z is a covalent bond between Ra or Rb of Y and a non-hydrogen atom of one of the cyclic groups of Z; a method of treating a microbial or fungal infection comprising administering the compound as claimed in claim 1 to a patient in need of such treatment; and a formulation comprising a compound as claimed in claim 1 in admixture with a suitable diluent, carrier or excipient.
28. The difference between the compound and/or formulation recited in claims 1-18 of US patent 8598114 B2 and the formulation recited in instant claims 1-12 is that they don’t teach the limitations “a homogenous mixture”, “a biodegradable polyester” and “wherein there is no covalent attachment between the polyester and the compound of Formula (I)” recited in instant claim 1; and the limitations of instant claims 8-12.
However, in view of the combined teachings of Chereddy et al and Said et al as set forth in Section 21 above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the compound and/or formulation recited in claims 1-18 of US patent 8598114 B2 and develop the formulation recited in instant claims 1-12.
29. (Revised due to Applicant’s amendment to the claim) For the same/similar reasoning/rational as the rejection set forth in Sections 25-28 above, instant claims 1-12 remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of US patent 9556223 B2, and claims 1-8 of US patent 11548912 B2, and in view of the combined teachings Chereddy et al (Journal of Controlled Release, 2014, 194, pages 138-147, cited and enclosed in the previous office action), and as evidenced by the PLGA document (2025, pages 1-2, from https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/technical-documents/technical-article/materials-science-and-engineering/drug-delivery/resomer#properties, cited and enclosed in the previous office action), and further in view of Said et al (European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics, 2012, 80, pages 85-94) as set forth in Section 21 above.
In the instant case, as evidenced by the specification of US patent 11548912 B2, the compound recited in claims 1-8 of US patent 11548912 B2 is antimicrobial agent (see for example, Abstract).
30. (Revised due to Applicant’s amendment to the claim) For the same/similar reasoning/rational as the rejection set forth in Sections 25-28 above, instant claims 1-12 remain provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 9-17 and 22-25 of co-pending Application No. 18/575343, and claims 1-4, 6-15, 17-19 and 22-24 of co-pending Application No. 19/145240, and in view of the combined teachings of Chereddy et al (Journal of Controlled Release, 2014, 194, pages 138-147, cited and enclosed in the previous office action), and as evidenced by the PLGA document (2025, pages 1-2, from https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/technical-documents/technical-article/materials-science-and-engineering/drug-delivery/resomer#properties, cited and enclosed in the previous office action), and further in view of Said et al (European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics, 2012, 80, pages 85-94).
In the instant case, claims 1-7, 9-17 and 22-25 of co-pending Application No. 18/575343 and/or claims 1-4, 6-15, 17-19 and 22-24 of co-pending Application No. 19/145240 are in possession of the compound of Formula (I) recited in instant claims 1-7. And as evidenced by the specification of co-pending Application No. 18/575343, such compound is antimicrobial agent (see for example, pages 15-17 of the specification); and as evidenced by the specification of co-pending Application No. 19/145240, such compound is antimicrobial agent (see for example, pages 38-41 of the specification).
These are all provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejections because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Applicant's Arguments
31. Applicant argues that “The combination of the subject matter claimed in the above patents and patent applications with Chereddy fails to teach or suggest the claimed homogenous mixture of a biodegradable polyester and an antimicrobial peptide.”
32. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive.
Please note: due to Applicant’s amendment to the claim, Said et al (European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics, 2012, 80, pages 85-94) is cited as a prior art reference in instant rejections.
In response to Applicant’s arguments about these ODP rejections, in the instant case, in view of the combined teachings of Chereddy et al and Said et al as set forth in Section 21 above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to develop the formulation recited in instant claims 1-12. Therefore, these double patenting rejections are deemed proper. And until a proper terminal disclaimer is filed and approved by the Office, these double patenting rejections are hereby maintained.
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.
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LI N KOMATSU whose telephone number is (571)270-3534. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-4pm 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, Melissa Fisher can be reached on 5712707430. 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.
/LI N KOMATSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1658
Prosecution Insights