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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-23 and 25-27 are pending in the Response and examined at this time.
Withdrawn objection/rejections:
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 03/02/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. The Examiner has re-weighed all the evidence of record. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below are herein withdrawn.
The following rejection and/or objection are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejection and/or objection presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 17 are objected to a minor informality under 37 CFR 1.75.
Each of claims 7 and 17 reciting “wherein the Bacillus spp. … B-68031” in lines 3-4 are not written in a proper Markush-type claim format where the Markush-type claim should recite alternatives in a format such as "selected or chosen from the group consisting of A, B, and C." Alternatively, “selected or chosen from A, B or C” can be used. (see MPEP 2111.03 –II and 2117 and MPEP 2173.05(h)). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites “the formulation is suitable for direct application to human integument” in lines 3-4, and but it is unclear because “suitable” is generally viewed as a potentially relative or subjective term because it depends on suitable for what purpose, under what conditions, and/or to what degree.
Suggestion: Applicant may consider amending it to “the formulation is configured for direct application to human integument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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.
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.
As indicated above, the present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
(MPEP 2141.03)
MPEP 2141.03 (I) states: “The “hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art’ to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art.” Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988). The level of skill is that of a medical/pharmaceutical research scientist, as is the case here, then one can assume comfortably that such an educated artisan will draw conventional ideas from medicine, pharmacy, physiology and chemistry— without being told to do so.
In addition, the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level (MPEP 2141.03(II)).
Claims 1 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farmer et al. (WO2019/227034A1, IDS of 04/04/2023, citation is obtained from its corresponding US2021/0121597A1, of record) in view of Andersen et al., “Weak and Saturable Protein–Surfactant Interactions in the Denaturation of Apo-α-Lactalbumin by Acidic and Lactonic Sophorolipid”, Frontiers in Microbiology, vol. 7, Article 1711, 2016-11-08, pp. 1-9.
Applicant claims the below claim 1 filed on 03/02/2026:
PNG
media_image1.png
167
853
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP 2141.01); Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP 2141.02) and Finding of prima facie obviousness Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
Farmer teaches topical therapeutic compositions and method of their use for enhanced healing of wounds, including burns, and scars of the skin, and specifically, in one embodiment, the subject invention provides materials and methods for reducing the healing time of skin wounds and for reducing the appearance of scars (abstract), and the compositions comprise a therapeutically-effective amount of one or more microorganisms and/or one or more microbial growth by-products, and a dermatologically-acceptable carrier, wherein the one or more microbial growth by-products are biosurfactants, enzymes and/or proteins, and wherein the biosurfactants are amphiphilic molecules and include glycolipids ([0021], [0039], [0067] and claim 1 of prior art), wherein the glycolipids are sophorolipid (SLP) and mannosylerythritol lipids (claim 5 of prior art) wherein the biosurfactants accumulates at interfaces, thus leading to the formation and aggregated micellar structures ([0069]), and this prior art further teaches a method for promoting the healing of skin condition by applying the said composition to an area of skin ([0122]). SLPs have environmental compatibility, high biodegradability, low toxicity, high selectivity and specific activity in a broad range of temperature, pH and salinity conditions ([0081]) (instant claim 1 (in part)); the composition to be applied to skin further comprises lactoferrin for applying ([0112]) (instant claim 4); the composition further comprises organic solvents, silicones, softeners, dye or fragrances ([0030]), pH adjusters ([0114]), chelating agent ([0145]), gelling agent, protein, emollients, oils, thickeners, ([0112]), vitamins, minerals, botanicals and essential oils ([0029]), hydroxy acids, exfoliating agent ([0104]), viscosity modifiers and polymers ([0109]), insect repellents, lubricants and preservatives ([0113]), non-biological surfactants ([0108]), antioxidants ([0107]), sunscreens ([0029] and [0102]), moisturizer ([0029]) (instant claim 5); the composition to be applied to skin further comprises skin active substances selected from anesthetics, keratolytic agents, desquamating agents, keratinocyte proliferation enhancers, collagenase inhibitors, elastase inhibitors, depigmenting agents, anti-inflammatory agents, steroids, anti-acne agents, and advanced glycation end-product (AGE) inhibitors (claim 9 of prior art)(instant claim 6); the biosurfactants can comprise one or more lipopeptides, such as, for example, surfactin, etc., which is produced by a variety of non-pathogenic bacteria, such as, e.g., Bacillus natto, Bacillus coagulans, Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, etc. ([0090]) which reads on the claimed supernatant (instant claim 7); the composition to be applied to skin is formulated as a lotion, cream, serum, spray, aerosol, liquid cake, ointment, etc. ([0117]) and the composition is applied to the integument (e.g., skin)([0050])(instant claim 8); the wound dressing may be impregnated with the said composition and, optionally, dried (instant claim 9); the wound dressing may be made from a woven or non-woven fabric of synthetic or non-synthetic fibers, or any combination thereof ([0119])(instant claim 10); the dressing material is fashioned out of the polymer polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) ([0120])(instant claim 11); the skin condition includes wound, burn, or scars (abstract), and also skin aging (wrinkles and dryness), age spots ([0047]); the skin condition is a wound in the proliferative stage of healing ([0007]-[0008]); and the skin condition also includes acne ([0036]), psoriasis, eczema, infection and wrinkles ([0047]).
However, Farmer does not expressly teach the ratio of linear sophorolipid to lactonic sophorolipid as recited in instant claim 1. The deficiency is cured by Andersen.
Andersen discloses biosurfactant sophorolipid (SL) is produced by fermentation and SL occurs both as an acidic and a lactonic form and the lactSL is sparingly soluble and has a lower critical micelle concentration (CMC) than the acidSL; acidSL has weak and saturable interactions with apo-aLA at low concentrations; due to the relatively low CMC of acidSL (which means that the monomer concentration is limited to ca. 0-1 mM SL), it is only possible to observe interactions with monomeric acidSL at high apo-aLA concentrations. However, the denaturation kinetics of apo-aLA in the presence of acidSL are consistent with a collaboration between monomeric and micellar surfactant species, similar to rhamnolipid (RL) and non-ionic or zwitterionic surfactants. Inclusion of diacetylated lactonic sophorolipid (lactSL) as mixed micelles with acidSL lowers the CMC and this effectively reduces the rate of unfolding, emphasizing that SL like other biosurfactants is a gentle anionic surfactant for use in the pharmaceutical industry; the tested SL is a mixture of acidic SL (70%) and lactonic SL (30%) (see e.g., abstract, last para. on page 3, right column, and Figs. 1B and 4B-C, and right column on page 8). As evidenced by Lajnaf et al., “Antioxidant and antibacterial activities, interfacial and emulsifying properties of the apo and holo forms of purified camel and bovine 𝛼-lactalbumim”, Int’l Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 2020, 165, pp. 205-213, the apo-alpha-lactalbumin has antimicrobial properties (e.g., abstract).
It would have been obvious to modify the sophorolipid (SLP=SL) of Farmer with a specific mixture (70% acidic SL to 30% lactonic SL) of Andersen because Andersen explicitly tests the said ratio mixture creates a highly stable micellar structure with a drastically reduced CMC while acting as a gentle surfactant that prevents the denaturation of apo-alpha LA having antimicrobial activity, as taught by Andersen, and thus, the combination of the references would have yielded useful biosurfactant SLP (=SL) having 70:30 ratio of acidic and lactonic SL in pharmaceutical antimicrobial products such as wound healing, infection treatment and/or skin care.
In light of the foregoing, instant claims 1 and 4-11 are obvious over Farmer in view of Andersen as evidenced by Lajnaf.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farmer et al. (WO2019/227034A1, IDS of 04/04/2023, citation is obtained from its corresponding US2021/0121597A1 (of record)) in view of Anderson et al. as evidenced by Lajnaf; further in view of Maingault et al. (US5,981,497, IDS of 08/21/2024).
However, the applied art alone or in combination does not expressly teach salt-form linear sophorolipid of instant claim 3. The deficiency is cured by Maingault.
Maingault discloses a composition containing sophorolipid (SLP=SL) compound, its pharmaceutical salt of the acidic form (=linear form), and ester for the treatment and/or healing and/or improvement of wounds and skin condition (abstract and claims 1-11of prior art) wherein the salt includes sodium (Na) (col. 3, line 53) (instant claim 3 – salt form linear sophorolipid).
It would have been obvious to modify the teachings of Farmer/Andersen with sodium salt of linear sophorolipid of Maingault in order to enhance the healing/treating properties of SLP and such definition and/or replacement of SLP with salt form linear sophorolipid of Maingault would have yielded no more than the predictable results.
In light of the foregoing, instant claim 3 is obvious over Farmer in view of Andersen and Maingault.
Claims 12, 14-23 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farmer et al. (WO2019/227034A1, IDS of 04/04/2023, citation is obtained from its corresponding US2021/0121597A1, of record) in view of Maingault et al. (US5,981,497, IDS of 08/21/2024).
Applicant claims the below claims 12 and 27 filed on 03/02/2026:
PNG
media_image2.png
197
880
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
142
848
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP 2141.01); Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP 2141.02) and Finding of prima facie obviousness Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
Farmer teaches topical therapeutic compositions and method of their use for enhanced healing of wounds, including burns, and scars of the skin, and specifically, in one embodiment, the subject invention provides materials and methods for reducing the healing time of skin wounds and for reducing the appearance of scars (abstract), and the compositions comprise a therapeutically-effective amount of one or more microorganisms and/or one or more microbial growth by-products, and a dermatologically-acceptable carrier, wherein the one or more microbial growth by-products are biosurfactants, enzymes and/or proteins, and wherein the biosurfactants includes glycolipids (claim 1 of prior art), wherein the glycolipids are sophorolipid (SLP) and mannosylerythritol lipids (claim 5 of prior art) in an amount of 0.001% (=10 ppm) ([0079]). Please note that “0.001%” is close enough to less than 0.001% (=10 ppm) of the claimed range. In this respect please see MPEP 2144.05 III - A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985), and thus in the absence of criticality evidence, the claimed range is obvious; in the alternative, please note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), “less than 10ppm of a mannosylerythritol lipid” also embraces the absence of that mannosylerythritol lipid in the composition of instant claim 12 and 27; this prior art further teaches a method for promoting the healing of skin condition by applying the said composition to an area of skin ([0122]). SLPs have environmental compatibility, high biodegradability, low toxicity, high selectivity and specific activity in a broad range of temperature, pH and salinity conditions ([0081]) (instant claims 12, 14 and 27 (in part)); the composition to be applied to skin further comprises lactoferrin for applying ([0112]) (instant claim 15); the composition further comprises organic solvents, silicones, softeners, dye or fragrances ([0030]), pH adjusters ([0114]), chelating agent ([0145]), gelling agent, protein, emollients, oils, thickeners, ([0112]), vitamins, minerals, botanicals and essential oils ([0029]), hydroxy acids, exfoliating agent ([0104]), viscosity modifiers and polymers ([0109]), insect repellents, lubricants and preservatives ([0113]), non-biological surfactants ([0108]), antioxidants ([0107]), sunscreens ([0029] and [0102]), moisturizer ([0029]); the composition to be applied to skin further comprises skin active substances selected from anesthetics, keratolytic agents, desquamating agents, keratinocyte proliferation enhancers, collagenase inhibitors, elastase inhibitors, depigmenting agents, anti-inflammatory agents, steroids, anti-acne agents, and advanced glycation end-product (AGE) inhibitors (claim 9 of prior art)(instant claim 16); the biosurfactants can comprise one or more lipopeptides, such as, for example, surfactin, etc., which is produced by a variety of non-pathogenic bacteria, such as, e.g., Bacillus natto, Bacillus coagulans, Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, etc. ([0090]) which reads on the claimed supernatant (instant claim 17); the composition to be applied to skin is formulated as a lotion, cream, serum, spray, aerosol, liquid cake, ointment, etc. ([0117]) and the composition is applied to the integument (e.g., skin)([0050])(instant claim 18); the wound dressing may be made from a woven or non-woven fabric of synthetic or non-synthetic fibers, or any combination thereof ([0119]); the skin condition includes wound, burn, or scars (abstract), and also skin aging (wrinkles and dryness), age spots ([0047]) (instant claim 19); the skin condition is a wound in the proliferative stage of healing ([0007]-[0008])(instant claim 20); the skin condition also includes acne ([0036]), psoriasis, eczema, infection and wrinkles ([0047]) (instant claim 21); applying the composition reduces the healing time of skin wounds and for reducing the appearance of scars ([0036])(instant claim 22); the composition is applied once daily, up to ten times ([0034]) which reads on the claimed at least once daily(instant claim 23); the wound dressing may be impregnated with the said composition and, optionally, dried (instant claim 25); and the dressing material is fashioned out of the polymer polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) ([0120])(instant claim 26).
However, the applied art alone or in combination does not expressly teach salt-form linear SLP of instant claims 12, 14 and 27. The deficiency is cured by Maingault.
Maingault discloses a composition containing sophorolipid compound, its pharmaceutical salt of the acidic form (=linear form), and ester for the treatment and/or healing and/or improvement of wounds and skin condition (abstract and claims 1-11of prior art) wherein the salt includes sodium (Na) (col. 3, line 53) (instant claims 12, 14 and 27 – salt form linear sophorolipid).
It would have been obvious to modify the teachings of Farmer/Andersen with sodium salt of linear sophorolipid of Maingault in order to enhance the healing/treating properties of sophorolipid and further defining and/or replacing Farmer’s sophorolipid with salt form linear sophorolipid would have yielded no more than the predictable wound-healing results.
In light of the foregoing, instant claims 12, 14-23 and 25-27 are obvious over Farmer in view of Andersen and further in view of Maingault.
From the above discussions, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103(a).
From the combined teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the combined references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are moot in view of new reference Andersen, and also Applicant’s arguments as to “less than 10 ppm of a mannosylerythritol lipid” are also unpersuasive as noted in the body of action. Further, Maingault was not relied on to disclose the said concentration of mannosylerythritol lipid, but rather to disclose the salt form of sophorolipid. With regard to this point, please note that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In reKeller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In reMerck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2145.
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-23 and 25-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7-15 of patent no. US11,759,544B2 in view of Andersen et al., “Weak and Saturable Protein–Surfactant Interactions in the Denaturation of Apo-α-Lactalbumin by Acidic and Lactonic Sophorolipid”, Frontiers in Microbiology, vol. 7, Article 1711, 2016-11-08, pp. 1-9 and Maingault et al. (US5,981,497, IDS of 08/21/2024).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claim sets require a topical composition comprising sophorolipid, mannosylerythritol lipid, dermatologically acceptable carrier, lactoferrin, supernatant of microorganism and method for promoting the healing using the said composition. Please note that the composition of instant claim 12 reciting “less than 10 ppm of a mannosylerythritol” embraces the absence of mannosylerythritol. The difference between them instant invention and the patent ‘544 is that the instant invention requires a mixture of 70% linear/30% lactonic and salt-form linear sophorolipid and the patent ‘544 further requires cellular components. The deficiencies are cured by Andersen and Maingault wherein Andersen discloses a mixture of linear/lactonic form sophorolipid with the exact ratio of 70:30 and Maingault discloses sodium salt form of the linear sophorolipid. It would have been obvious to modify sophorolipid of patent ‘544 with its specific biosurfactant SLP compound forms in order to enhance wound/infection healing/treating effects. Further, patent ‘544 requires cellular components, but the instant composition uses “comprising” which does not exclude the introduction of cellular components.
Consequently, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the obvious variation of the instantly claimed subject matter over the patent ‘544 subject matter.
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-23 and 25-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4-6 and 13-22 of patent no. US11,759,414B2 in view of Andersen et al. and Maingault et al. (US5,981,497, IDS of 08/21/2024).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claim sets require a topical composition comprising sophorolipid, mannosylerythritol lipid, dermatologically acceptable carrier, supernatant of microorganism and method for promoting the healing using the said composition. Please note that the composition of instant claim 12 reciting “less than 10 ppm of a mannosylerythritol” embraces the absence of mannosylerythritol. The difference between them instant invention and the patent ‘414 is that the instant invention requires a mixture of 70% linear/30% lactonic form of sophorolipid and its salt-form linear sophorolipid, and the patent ‘414 further requires Pichia clade yeast cell component. The deficiencies are cured by Andersen and Maingault wherein Andersen discloses a mixture of linear/lactonic form sophorolipid with the exact ratio of 70:30 and Maingault discloses sodium salt form of the linear sophorolipid. It would have been obvious to modify sophorolipid of patent ‘414 with its specific SLP compound forms in order to enhance wound/infection healing/treating effects. Further, patent ‘414 requires yest cell component, but the instant composition uses “comprising” which does not exclude the introduction of Pichia clade yeast cells comprising Pichia kudriavzevii (Wickerhamomyces kudriavzevii).
Consequently, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the obvious variation of the instantly claimed subject matter over the patent ‘414 subject matter.
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-23 and 25-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of patent no. US11,964,040B2 in view of Andersen et al. and Maingault et al. (US5,981,497, IDS of 08/21/2024).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claim sets require a topical composition comprising sophorolipid, mannosylerythritol lipid, dermatologically acceptable carrier, lactoferrin, supernatant of microorganism and method for promoting the healing using the said composition. Please note that the composition of instant claim 12 reciting “less than 10 ppm of a mannosylerythritol” embraces the absence of mannosylerythritol. The difference between them instant invention and the patent ‘040 is that the instant invention requires a mixture of linear/lactonic form of sophorolipid and its salt-form linear sophorolipid, and the patent ‘040 further requires Pichia clade yeast cell component. The deficiencies are cured by Andersen and Maingault wherein Andersen discloses a mixture of exact ratio 70% linear/30% lactonic form sophorolipid and Maingault discloses sodium salt form of the linear sophorolipid. It would have been obvious to further define or replace sophorolipid of patent ‘040 with its specific SLP compound forms in order to enhance wound/infection healing/treating effects. Further, patent ‘040 requires biofilm, but the instant composition uses “comprising” which does not exclude the introduction of biofilm.
Consequently, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the obvious variation of the instantly claimed subject matter over the patent ‘040 subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are moot in view of new references of Andersen; and the instant invention recited in claim 12 embraces the absence of mannosylerythritol, and therefore, applicant’s arguments that the referenced patents do not require “less than 10 ppm of a mannosylerythritol” are not persuasive.
Conclusion
All examined claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYUNG S CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1392. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Yong (Brian-Yong) S 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.
/KYUNG S CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Prosecution Insights