DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 27, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 6-8, 10-13, 14-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Allababdeh, A.S., "Electrochemically Regulated Polyelectrolyte Complex for Smart Wound Dressings," Master's Thesis, Youngstown State University, 92 pages, dated May 2022 (hereinafter “Allababdeh”).
With reference to claim 14, Allababdeh discloses a wound dressing (page 9) comprising:
a cathode;
an anode; and
a composition located between the cathode and the anode, the composition comprising: a ferrocene-containing polyelectrolyte complex; and
an active ingredient as shown in figure 4.17.
As to claims 6-8 and 18, Allababdeh discloses a wound dressing wherein ferrocene is bonded to a polycation of the polyelectrolyte complex and wherein the polycation is chitosan (cl. 7) and the polyanion is alginate (cl. 8) as discussed throughout the thesis, see especially page 3, the bottom of page 4 and pages 35-37.
Regarding claims 10-13 and 19, Allababdeh discloses a wound dressing wherein a weight ratio of the ferrocene-conjugated chitosan to alginate is within the claimed range as set forth on page 18.
With reference to claim 15 Allababdeh discloses a wound dressing further comprising: a polydimethylsiloxane chamber wherein the composition is located within the polydimethylsiloxane chamber as set forth on pages 45-46.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allababdeh, A.S., "Electrochemically Regulated Polyelectrolyte Complex for Smart Wound Dressings," Master's Thesis, Youngstown State University, 92 pages, dated May 2022 (hereinafter “Allababdeh”) and further in view of CN 112244766 (hereinafter “Wu”).
With reference to claim 16, Allababdeh teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 14.
The difference between Allababdeh and claim 16 is the explicit recitation that the cathode and the anode comprise laser-induced graphene.
Wu teaches an analogous wound device that includes a cathode and an anode comprising laser-induced graphene as addressed on the second page of the translated document.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the cathode and anode of Allababdeh with laser-induced graphene as taught by Wu because the material is cost effective, simple and efficient and can realize mass production as taught by Wu on page 4 of the translated document.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allababdeh, A.S., "Electrochemically Regulated Polyelectrolyte Complex for Smart Wound Dressings," Master's Thesis, Youngstown State University, 92 pages, dated May 2022 (hereinafter “Allababdeh”) and further in view of Mower (US 2016/0175579).
With reference to claim 17, Allababdeh teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 14.
The difference between Allababdeh and claim 17 is the explicit recitation that the wound dressing further comprises an adhesive layer on a side of the anode opposite the composition.
Mower teaches an analogous wound device that includes an adhesive layer (408) on opposite sides of the anode (404) as shown in figure 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the device of Allababdeh with adhesive as taught by Mower to provide a stable adherence to the skin as taught by Mower in [0028-0030].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allababdeh, A.S., "Electrochemically Regulated Polyelectrolyte Complex for Smart Wound Dressings," Master's Thesis, Youngstown State University, 92 pages, dated May 2022 (hereinafter “Allababdeh”).
With reference to claim 20, Allababdeh teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 14.
The difference between Allababdeh and claim 20 is the explicit recitation that a degree of ferrocene conjugation of the ferrocene-conjugated chitosan is in a specific range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the range as desired because Allababdeh teaches that different amounts of ferrocene are conjugated to find the most efficient conditions for functionality and stability as set forth on pages 4-5.
"[W]here 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 experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELE M KIDWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4935. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at 571-270-5879. 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.
/MICHELE KIDWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights