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 .
Claim Status
Claims 5-24 are pending.
Claims 1-4 are cancelled.
Claims 5-24 have been examined.
Priority
This application is a CIP of 16/510,381 07/12/2019 ABN
16/510,381 is a CIP of 15/952,004 04/12/2018 ABN
15/952,004 has PRO 62/484,558 04/12/2017
The limitation of treating scabbing of skin caused by microneedling or skin resurfacing on a patient was first disclosed in this instant application. Thus, the prior art date of this application is the effective filing date of this instant application on 2/17/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
No IDS of record.
Withdrawn Objection and Rejection
The objection to claims 5 and 15 are withdrawn because the amendments to the claims overcomes the objection.
The provisional rejection of claims 5-23 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 9 of copending Application No. 17/184,745 (the ‘745 application) in view of Radisic et al., Kim and Hou et al. and further evidenced by (i) Dermapen Aftercare and evidenced by (ii) National Cancer Institute is withdrawn because the ‘745 application has been abandoned.
Maintained Rejection
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.
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.
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.
1. Claims 5-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radisic et al. (US 2018/0296631 A1, previously cited 9/26/2025) in view of Kim (WO 2018/079899 A1 English translation starting at page 30, previously cited 9/26/2025) and Hou et al. (Dermatol Surg 2017;43:321–339, previously cited 9/26/2025) and further evidenced by (i) Dermapen Aftercare (April 2017, https://dermapen.com/category/dermapen-aftercare/, previously cited 9/26/2025) and evidenced by (ii) National Cancer Institute (https://www.cancer.gov/ publications/dictionaries/ cancer-terms/def/rash, previously cited 9/26/2025).
Claim 1 is drawn to a method of treating scabbing of skin caused by microneedling or skin resurfacing on a patient, the method comprising administering to the patient a formulation comprising a peptide having the sequence QHREDGS (SEQ ID NO:1).
Radisic et al. teach hydrogel compositions and associated method of use (Title). Radisic et al. teach the hydrogel composition comprises the peptide of QHREDGS (SEQ ID NO: 1) , which interacts with integrins, receptors that function in cell-adhesion and ECM binding is used in promoting and enhancing wound healing by 1) promoting effective keratinocyte migration , 2) protecting the wound bed cells against oxidative stress and 3) providing a new matrix for cell attachment [0009-0010]. Radisic et al. teach the QHREDGS-containing composition (QHREDGS peptide immobilized to chitosan-collagen hydrogel [0031]) can promote re-epithelialization [0011] to accelerate wound healing process of acute wounds including trauma wounds, surgical wounds, burns, grafted skin and donor sites, scrape wounds, etc. Improving re-epithelialization in these type of wounds leads to faster healing, less scarring and less pain for patients [0008]. Radisic et al. further teach the treated wound can also be a cutaneous opening, a lesion, an abrasions (damaged epidermis or damage deeper into part or all of the dermis), a burn, a rash (see definition by the cited National Cancer Institute cited in rejection of claim 13), any animal skin wound (including human skin wound), a surgical incision wound, a post-surgical adhesions wound, a grafted skin site [0092]. Radisic et al. teach the composition can also be used to treat atherosclerotic skin changes (e.g., redness of skin), bacterial and fungal infections of the skin and, itching [0093]. Radisic et al. further teach topical administration of the composition results in beneficial (i.e., improved) wound healing, rate of wound closure, reduced inflammation, and/or reduced rate / amelioration of infection [0070]. Kim is cited to show it was known that hydrogel-formed chitosan forms a coating film on wound areas such as wounds to protect the wound, and prevents the formation of scabs, and excellent hemostatic effect (English translation p4, para 5). Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to administer Radisic’s QHREDGS peptide immobilized to chitosan-collagen hydrogel to treat scabs of skin wound.
Radisic et al. in view of Kim teach administration a QHREDGS peptide immobilized chitosan-collagen hydrogel [0031] to promote re-epithelialization [Radisic et al. 0011] to accelerate wound healing process for various causes of skin wounds [Radisic et al. 0008, 0092] as well as to protect the wound and prevent the formation of scabs (Kim English translation p4, para 5).
Radisic et al. in view of Kim do not specify treating scabbing of skin caused by microneedling or skin resurfacing on a patient.
Hou et al. teach microneedling is a minimally invasive procedure that uses fine needles to puncture the epidermis (creating a damage to the skin) to stimulate the release of growth factors and induce collagen production (Abstract). Hou et al. teach skin scabbing as 46% adverse event of microneedling treatment (p327, Table 1, Vejjabhinanta and colleagues; p334, col 1, last 8th line) and other adverse events comprising transient erythema, edema (p333, col 1, para 2) well-known in the art. Dermapen Aftercare is further cited as evidenced to show it is also common to have a scabby texture around the treated area after a microneedling procedure shown as follows
PNG
media_image1.png
514
755
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(p2, figure and legend), consistent with Hou et al. The extent of the scabbing generally depends on the depth of the microneedling treatment. Because Radisic et al. in view of Kim teach administration the QHREDGS peptide immobilized chitosan-collagen hydrogel [0031] to promote re-epithelialization [Radisic et al. 0011] to accelerate wound healing process for various causes of skin wounds [Radisic et al. 0008, 0092] as well as to protect the wound and prevent the formation of scabs (Kim English translation p4, para 5), one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to administer Radisic’s hydrogel comprising the peptide of QHREDGS to treat scabbing of skin caused by microneedling.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention would have found it obvious to combine (i) Radisic et al. in view of Kim and (ii) Hou et al. and evidenced by Dermapen Aftercare because (a) Radisic et al. in view of Kim teach administration the QHREDGS peptide immobilized chitosan-collagen hydrogel [0031] to promote re-epithelialization [Radisic et al. 0011] to accelerate wound healing process for various causes of skin wounds [Radisic et al. 0008, 0092] as well as to protect the wound and prevent the formation of scabs (Kim English translation p4, para 5) and (b) Hou et al. teach microneedling is a minimally invasive procedure that uses fine needles to puncture the epidermis (creating a damage to the skin) to stimulate the release of growth factors and induce collagen production (Abstract) and skin scabbing as 46% adverse event of microneedling treatment (p327, Table 1, Vejjabhinanta and colleagues; p334, col 1, last 8th line). Dermapen Aftercare is further cited as evidenced to show it is also common to have a scabby texture around the treated area after a microneedling procedure (p2, figure and legend), consistent with Hou et al. The combination would have reasonable expectation of success because Radisic’s hydrogel is expected to accelerate wound healing of epidermis punctured by microneedle and Radisic’s hydrogel comprising chitosan is further expected to protect the wound, and prevents the formation of scabs, and excellent hemostatic effect as taught by Kim (English translation p4, para 5) to treat adverse events after microneedle treatment.
With respect to claims 6-8, Radisic et al. teach a QHREDGS-containing composition comprising QHREDGS peptide immobilized to chitosan-collagen hydrogel [0031].
With respect to claim 9, Radisic et al. teach an average molecular weight of about 100 Daltons (Da) to about 1,000,000 Da [0014].
With respect to claim 10, Radisic et al. teach hydrogel has a viscosity from about 100 to about 10,000 cps [0014].
With respect to claim 11, Radisic et al. teach the composition can be in the form of a tincture, a cream, an ointment, a gel, a lotion, or an aerosol spray [0016].
With respect to claim 12, Radisic et al. teach a composition with ointment bases comprising one or more lanolin, hydrophilic ointment, polyethylene glycol ointment, petrolatum, hydrophilic petrolatum, white ointment, yellow ointment, and rose water ointment [0148].
With respect to claim 13, Radisic et al. teach the QHREDGS-containing composition can be used to treat various causes of skin wound including rash or a lesion [0092]. Rash is defined by National Cancer Institute as “An area of the skin that has changes in texture or color”. The skin may be red, warm, scaly, bumpy, dry, itchy, swollen, or painful. Thus, the administration of Radisic’s composition (e.g., QHREDGS peptide immobilized to chitosan-collagen hydrogel [0031]) to treat scabbing caused by microneedling treatment is also obviously treating any other adverse events associated with microneedling treatment including changes in texture or color of skin such as redness or swollen of skin as defined by National Cancer Institute.
With respect to claim 14, the limitation is directed the efficacy of treatment by a formulation comprising the peptide of QHREDGS (SEQ ID NO.: 1). Radisic et al. teach a QHREDGS-containing composition comprising QHREDGS peptide immobilized to chitosan-collagen hydrogel [0031] met the claimed therapeutic formulation of in claim 5. MPEP 2112.01 (I) states “Product and apparatus claims - When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent”.
With respect to claim 15, the claim is very similar to claim 5 except for an additional limitation of typically administering a composition in different forms to treat the scabbing of skin. Radisic et al. explicitly teach the composition can be in the form of a tincture, a cream, an ointment, a gel (e.g., hydrogel [0031]), a lotion, or an aerosol spray [0016]. Radisic et al. explicitly teach the topical administration of at least one composition in accordance with the invention to the skin and/or a wound of a patient in need thereof [0070]. Thus, it would be obvious to topically administer a gel comprising a peptide having the sequence QHREDGS (SEQ ID NO.: 1) and topically administer an ointment (or other forms) to treat scabbing of skin caused by microneedling. See the reason of rejecting claim 5 above not repeated here.
With respect to claims 16-18, Radisic et al. teach a QHREDGS-containing composition comprising QHREDGS peptide immobilized to chitosan-collagen hydrogel [0031].
With respect to claim 19, Radisic et al. teach an average molecular weight of about 100 Daltons (Da) to about 1,000,000 Da [0014]. Also see rejection of claim 9.
With respect to claim 20, Radisic et al. teach hydrogel has a viscosity from about 100 to about 10,000 cps [0014]. Also see rejection of claim 10.
With respect to claim 21, Radisic et al. teach a composition with ointment bases comprising one or more lanolin, hydrophilic ointment, polyethylene glycol ointment, petrolatum, hydrophilic petrolatum, white ointment, yellow ointment, and rose water ointment [0148]. Also see rejection of claim 12.
With respect to claim 22, Radisic et al. teach the QHREDGS-containing composition can be used to treat various causes of skin wound including rash [0092]. Rash is defined by National Cancer Institute as “An area of the skin that has changes in texture or color”. The skin may be red, warm, scaly, bumpy, dry, itchy, swollen, or painful. Thus, the administration of Radisic’s composition (e.g., QHREDGS peptide immobilized to chitosan-collagen hydrogel [0031]) to treat scabbing caused by microneedling treatment is also obviously treating adverse events of rash associated with microneedling treatment including changes in texture or color of skin such as redness or swollen as defined by National Cancer Institute. Also see rejection of claim 13.
With respect to claim 23, the limitation is directed the efficacy of treatment by a formulation comprising the peptide of QHREDGS (SEQ ID NO.: 1). Radisic et al. teach a QHREDGS-containing composition comprising QHREDGS peptide immobilized to chitosan-collagen hydrogel [0031]. MPEP 2112.01 (I) states “Product and apparatus claims - When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent”.
Applicant’s Arguments
It would not be obvious to combine Radisic with Kim to arrive at administration of a QHREDGS peptide immobilized to chitosan-collagen hydrogel for "treating scabbing of skin caused by microneedling or skin resurfacing on a patient" as recited in claim 5 (Remarks, p5, 2nd last para).
One skilled in the art would understand that "prevents the formation of scabs" is clearly different from "treating scabbing of skin" (Remarks, p5, last para to p6, para 1)
Further, the Office Action cites Kim as disclosing that "hydrogel-formed chitosan forms a coating film on wound areas such as wounds to protect the wound, and prevents the formation of scabs" (emphasis in Office Action). However, this would not lead one skilled in the art to arrive at treating scabbing of skin using a formulation comprising a peptide having the sequence
QHREDGS (Remarks, p6, para 2-3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons as follows.
Applicant’s arguments (i) and (ii) are not persuasive because applicant’s opinions do not change the fact pattern analysis according to the combined references summarized in the following.
Radisic et al. teach QHREDGS peptide immobilized to chitosan-collagen hydrogel [0031]) to promote re-epithelialization [0011] and to accelerate wound healing process and improving re-epithelialization in wounds leads to faster healing, less scarring and less pain for patients [0008], consistent with the common knowledge of using a hydrogel-formed chitosan on wound areas such as wounds to protect the wound, and prevents the formation of scabs as demonstrated by Kim. When a chitosan-containing hydrogel composition is able to prevent formation of scabs by intervening or inhibiting the mechanism(s) of producing scabs in a patient after of treatment by microneeding, one of ordinary skill in the art would be expecting that the same preventative chitosan-containing hydrogel is also effectively to intervening the same mechanism(s) of producing scabs in a patient who has developed scabs after treatment by microneeding. In other words, when a chitosan hydrogel composition is found effective to prevent the mechanisms of producing scabs in a patient, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect or obvious to utilize the same chitosan hydrogel composition targeted to the same mechanisms of producing scabs to treat and intervene further production of scabs in a patient with scabs resulting from treatment by microneeding.
Furthermore, Hou et al. teach microneedling is a minimally invasive procedure that uses fine needles to puncture the epidermis (creating a damage to the skin) to stimulate the release of growth factors and induce collagen production (Abstract). Radisic’s QHREDGS peptide immobilized to chitosan-collagen hydrogel [0031] not only beneficially promotes re-epithelialization for the skin damage caused by Hou’s microneeding [0011], but also provides additional source of collagen for recovery of the skin damage resulting from microneeding. Expected beneficial results are evidence of obvious. See MPEP 716.02(c)(II).
According to MPEP 2144(I), the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The use of a hydrogel to remove scabs was known to one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Brumberg et al. (Biomedicines. 2021 Sep 16;9(9):1235) teaching “hydrogels are often used to treat burns and ulcers and, in addition, can facilitate autolysis and removal of scabs and can be used to cleanse wounds” (p6, para 2).
Applicant’s argument (iii) is not persuasive because applicant’s opinion is groundless without any support. On the other hand, the use of a hydrogel to remove scabs was known to one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Brumberg et al. (Biomedicines 2021 Sep 16;9(9):1235) teaching “hydrogels are often used to treat burns and ulcers and, in addition, can facilitate autolysis and removal of scabs and can be used to cleanse wounds” (p6, para 2). Thus, the rejection is proper. Also see response to arguments (i) and (ii) detailed above, not repeated here.
2. Claims 5-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radisic et al. in view of Kim and Hou et al. and further evidenced by (i) Dermapen Aftercare and evidenced by (ii) National Cancer Institute as applied to claim 5-23 and further in view of Ruther et al. (Heliyon 7 (2021) e06071, previously cited 9/26/2025).
Claim 24 is drawn to topically administered a gel to treat skin caused by microneedling or skin resurfacing on a patient prior to topically administered the ointment to the skin of the patient.
Radisic et al. in view of Kim and Hou et al. and further evidenced by (i) Dermapen Aftercare and evidenced by (ii) National Cancer Institute teach a method of topically administering a hydrogel and an ointment composition to treat scabbing of skin caused by microneedling as applied to claims 5-23 above.
Radisic et al. in view of Kim and Hou et al. and further evidenced by (i) Dermapen Aftercare and evidenced by (ii) National Cancer Institute do not specify an order of administering the two compositions.
Ruther et al. teach the current state of knowledge shows that the self-healing process can be supported therapeutically effective by an ideal moist wound management, which supports gas exchange and moisture supply, for example on the basis of modern hydrogels, which can help in all phases of healing (p2, col 1, para 1). Ruther et al. show a hydrogel composition is superior to an ointment composition with respect to gas exchange and moisture supply (p2, col 2, 3.1
PNG
media_image2.png
282
972
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Transepidermal water loss) and figure 1 shown as follows. Ruther et al. further teach ointments are not suitable for all biomedical applications and anhydrous ointments are well suited for the treatment of chronic dermatoses paired with hyperkeratosis. Even today, wound healing ointments are frequently used for superficial injuries (p1, col 2). Because Ruther et al. teach hydrogel composition is superior to an ointment composition with respect to gas exchange and moisture supply for all phases of wound healing (p2, col 1, para 1; p2, col 2, 3.1 Transepidermal water loss), one of ordinary skill in the art would topically administer the hydrogel composition first to promote the early phase of skin wound healing after microneedle treatment before topically administering ointment for further promoting latter phase of skin wound healing after microneedle treatment, reading on claim 24.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention would have found it obvious to combine (1) Radisic et al. in view of Kim and Hou et al. and evidenced by (i) Dermapen Aftercare and (ii) National Cancer Institute and (2) Ruther et al. because (a) Radisic et al. in view of Kim and Hou et al. and evidenced by (i) Dermapen Aftercare and (ii) National Cancer Institute teach topically administering a hydrogel composition and an ointment composition to treat skin wounds caused by microneedling and (b) Ruther et al. teach hydrogel composition is superior to an ointment composition with respect to gas exchange and moisture supply for all phases of wound healing (p2, col 1, para 1; p2, col 2, 3.1 Transepidermal water loss) demonstrating one of ordinary skill in the art would topically administer the hydrogel composition first to promote the early phase of wound healing after microneedle treatment before topically administering ointment for further promoting later stage of wound healing after microneedle treatment.
Applicant’s Argument
Ruther clearly teaches that it applying an occlusive ointment is undesirable and instead hydrogel should be used. One skilled in the art is therefore taught that, given the choice between administering a hydrogel and administering an ointment, one should administer the hydrogel instead of the ointment (Remarks, p6, last para to p7, para 1-3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons as follows.
Applicant’s argument is not commensurate with scope of the claim. Claim 24 requires both hydrogel formulation and ointment are used to treat scabbing caused by microneedling or skin resurfacing on a patient in an order. Ruther et al. show a hydrogel composition is good for gas exchange and moisture supply (p2, col 2, 3.1 Transepidermal water loss) and anhydrous ointments are well suited for the treatment of chronic dermatoses paired with hyperkeratosis. Even today, wound healing ointments are frequently used for superficial injuries (p1, col 2). Although hydrogel is good for gas exchange and moisture supply as argued by applicant, this does not change fact that (a) Even today, wound healing ointments are frequently used for superficial injuries and (b) anhydrous ointments are well suited for the beneficial treatment of chronic dermatoses paired with hyperkeratosis. One of ordinary skill in the art would it obvious to topically administer the hydrogel composition first to promote the early phase of skin wound healing after microneedle treatment before topically administering ointment for further promoting latter phase of skin wound healing after microneedle treatment as described in the rejection above.
A person of ordinary skill in the art is well defined as a person of ordinary creativity able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. See MPEP 2141.03 (I). Thus, applicant’s argument and analysis of Ruther’s teachings do not represent the common knowledge and Ruther’s teachings for one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the advantage of Radisic’s hydrogen anhydrous to fit in Ruther’s teaching of ointments well suited for the beneficial treatment of chronic dermatoses paired with hyperkeratosis in the order as claimed.
Maintained Rejection
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 5-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 9,096,643 B2 (the ‘643 patent) in view of Radisic et al., Kim and Hou et al. and evidenced by (i) Dermapen Aftercare and evidenced by (ii) National Cancer Institute.
Claim 1 of the ‘643 patent disclosed a biomaterial conjugate comprising the amino acid sequence of QHREDGS (SEQID NO: 2) conjugated to a biomaterial.
Claim 3 of the ‘643 patent disclosed the biomaterial comprising chitosan.
Claims 1 and 3 of the ‘643 patent do not teach topically administering a composition comprising the amino acid sequence of QHREDGS and chitosan to treat scabbing of skin caused by microneedling or skin resurfacing on a patient.
The relevancy of Radisic et al. in view of Kim e al. and Hou et al. and evidenced by (i) Dermapen Aftercare and evidenced by (ii) National Cancer Institute as applied to claims 5-23 above not repeated here.
Because Radisic et al. in view of Kim and Hou et al. and evidenced by (i) Dermapen Aftercare and evidenced by (ii) National Cancer Institute teach topically administering a composition comprising the amino acid sequence of QHREDGS and chitosan to treat scabbing of skin caused by microneedling, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the composition comprising the amino acid sequence of QHREDGS and chitosan taught by claims 1 and 3 of the ‘643 patent and Radisic et al. in view of Kim and Hou et al. and evidenced by (i) Dermapen Aftercare and evidenced by (ii) National Cancer Institute to treat scabbing of skin caused by microneedling.
Thus, claims 1 and 3 of the ‘643 patent in view of Radisic et al., Kim and Hou et al. and further evidenced by (i) Dermapen Aftercare and evidenced by (ii) National Cancer Institute are obvious to the instant claims 5-23.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See response to arguments above.
Claims 5-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,766,496 B2 (the ‘496 patent) in view of Radisic et al., Kim and Hou et al. and evidenced by (i) Dermapen Aftercare and evidenced by (ii) National Cancer Institute.
Claim 1 of the ‘496 patent disclosed a method and a formulation comprising the amino acid sequence of QHREDGS cross-linked to a carrier of hydrogel.
Claim 1 of the ‘496 patent does not teach topically administering a composition comprising the amino acid sequence of QHREDGS cross-linked hydrogel to treat scabbing of skin caused by microneedling or skin resurfacing on a patient.
The relevancy of Radisic et al. in view of Kim and Hou et al. and evidenced by (i) Dermapen Aftercare and evidenced by (ii) National Cancer Institute as applied to claims 5-23 above not repeated here.
Because Radisic et al. in view of Kim and Hou et al. and evidenced by (i) Dermapen Aftercare and evidenced by (ii) National Cancer Institute teach topically administering a composition comprising the amino acid sequence of QHREDGS cross-linked hydrogel composition to treat scabbing of skin caused by microneedling, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the composition comprising the amino acid sequence of QHREDGS cross-linked hydrogel taught by claim 1 of the ‘496 patent and Radisic et al. in view of Kim and Hou et al. and evidenced by (i) Dermapen Aftercare and evidenced by (ii) National Cancer Institute to treat scabbing of skin caused by microneedling.
Thus, claim 1 of the ‘496 patent in view of Radisic et al., Kim and Hou et al. and further evidenced by (i) Dermapen Aftercare and evidenced by (ii) National Cancer Institute are obvious to the instant claims 5-23.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See response to arguments above.
Claims 5-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,186,420 B2 (the ‘420 patent) in view of Radisic et al., Kim and Hou et al. and evidenced by (i) Dermapen Aftercare and evidenced by (ii) National Cancer Institute.
Claim 1 of the ‘420 patent disclosed a method and a formulation comprising a peptide comprising an amino acid sequence of QHREDGS (SEQ ID NO: 1).
Claims 6-7 of the ‘420 patent disclosed the peptide formulation comprising a carrier of hydrogel.
Claims 1 and 6-7 of the ‘420 patent do not teach topically administering a composition comprising the amino acid sequence of QHREDGS in a hydrogel to treat scabbing of skin caused by microneedling or skin resurfacing on a patient.
The relevancy of Radisic et al. in view of Kim and Hou et al. and evidenced by (i) Dermapen Aftercare and evidenced by (ii) National Cancer Institute as applied to claims 5-23 above not repeated here.
Because Radisic et al. in view of Kim and Hou et al. and evidenced by (i) Dermapen Aftercare and evidenced by (ii) National Cancer Institute teach topically administering a composition comprising the amino acid sequence of QHREDGS cross-linked hydrogel composition to treat scabbing of skin caused by microneedling, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the composition comprising the amino acid sequence of QHREDGS in a hydrogel taught by claims 1 and 6-7 of the ‘420 patent and Radisic et al. in view of Kim and Hou et al. and evidenced by (i) Dermapen Aftercare and evidenced by (ii) National Cancer Institute to treat scabbing of skin caused by microneedling.
Thus, claims 1 and 6-7 of the ‘420 patent in view of Radisic et al., Kim and Hou et al. and further evidenced by (i) Dermapen Aftercare and evidenced by (ii) National Cancer Institute are obvious to the instant claims 5-23.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See response to arguments above.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIA-HAI LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1691. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
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 at 571-270-7430. 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.
/J.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1658
07-January-2026
/LI N KOMATSU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1658