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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/10/2025 has been entered.
Claims 70, 72, 74-83, and 85-93 are pending in the application. Claims 1-69, 71, 73, and 84 have been cancelled. Claims 78-83, and 85-91 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. Claims 70, 72, 74-77, 92 and 93 are rejected.
The 112 rejection has been maintained.
The rejections over Areskoug and further in view of Foss have been overcome in view of the present amendment and response. None of the cited references disclose or suggest a second additive comprising an absorbent additive that retains aqueous absorption capacity characteristics in the powder charge.
New ground of rejection is made in view of newly discovered references to Bleys et al. (US 6,271,277) and Thompson, Jr. et al. (US 2015/0119837).
The non-statutory double patenting rejections have been maintained.
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.
Claims 70, 72, 74-77, 92 and 93 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 70, the claim looks confusing because the phrase “an absorbent additive that retains aqueous absorption capacity characteristic in the powder charge” is awkward. A more grammatically correct version would be: an absorbent additive that retains a capacity for aqueous absorption properties of the powder charge.
As to claim 74, the phrase "or similar type" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or similar type"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 70, 72, 74, 75, 77, 92 and 93 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0196501 to Areskoug et al. (hereinafter “Areskoug”) in view of US 6,271,277 to Bleys et al. (hereinafter “Bleys”).
As to claims 70, 92 and 93, Areskoug discloses a hydrophilic polyurethane foam comprising at least one silver salt wherein the polyurethane foam is obtained by the following steps:
providing a water phase comprising a surfactant and at least one silver salt wherein the at least one silver salt is dispersed in the water phase;
providing an isocyanate-terminated polyether comprising functionality of more than 2;
mixing the water phase and the isocyanate-terminated polyether, and transferring the mixture to a mold wherein a foam structure is obtained (abstract).
The examiner equates the surfactant to the claimed carrier liquid.
Areskoug discloses that a part of the silver salt is dispersed in the reaction mixture during the manufacturing process (paragraph 21). Hence, the silver salt retains its powder form after polymerization of the polyurethane foam.
It appears that the hydrophilic polyurethane foam is obtained from the same composition and produced using the similar approach set forth in the Applicant’s disclosure.
The examiner directs Applicant’s attention to paragraphs 59-64 of published application:
PNG
media_image1.png
294
427
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
106
413
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Both Aerskoug and the Applicant used silver sulfate as a powder charge, that has very low solubility in the aqueous phase, but insoluble in the isocyanate or in the carrier liquid. In light of the mixing of the isocyanate phase, the aqueous phase comprising undissolved silver sulfate particles and the surfactant, the silver sulfate particles would be inherently, uniformly and homogeneously dispersed within the reaction mixture to form a foam structure as like material has like property. This approach is consistent with what is disclosed in the Applicant’s specification. Further, the release rate of the accumulated silver from the foam structure after 24 hours is at least 0.14 g/cm2 (paragraph 66). This is within the range set forth in the Applicant’s disclosure. Hence, it is not seen that the silver sulfate particles could not be homogeneously dispersed within the foam structure because the heterogeneous dispersion would prevent the accumulated silver from achieving a significant release rate within the range outlined in the Applicant’s specification.
Areskoug discloses a wound dressing comprising the polyurethane foam layer and a gel layer provided on the foam layer (paragraph 47). The foam layer functions as an absorbent material and as a gel carrier, and the dressing is very soft and pliant (paragraph 47). That is, the polyurethane foam layer itself would be a flexible material. The polyurethane foam comprises a network of open cells with a pore size between 30 to 1000 microns (paragraph 45).
Areskoug discloses that the polyurethane foam is a hydrophilic Hypol foam (paragraph 17). This is an exact hydrophilic polyurethane foam described in the Applicant’s disclosure. The hydrophilic Hypol foam is obtained from Hypol 2002 or 2000HD prepolymer that would inherently include an isocyanate selected from TDI or MDI; and a polyol selected from PEG or PPG as like material has like property (paragraph 19).
Areskoug does not explicitly disclose a hydrophilic polyurethane foam comprising an adsorbent additive retaining aqueous absorption capacity characteristic in the powder charge.
Bleys, however, discloses a polyurethane foam used for wound dressings comprising a superabsorbent polymer in an amount of 1 to 100 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of prepolymer (column 5, lines 10-15; and column 7, lines 60-67). The superabsorbent polymer is a sodium polyacrylate (column 11, lines 20-30; and table 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a superabsorbent polymer disclosed in Bleys in the hydrophilic polyurethane foam as taught by Areskoug motivated by the desire to provide the foam having very good water-absorption and water retention properties.
As to claim 72, Areskoug discloses that the water phase comprises oxypropylene-oxyethylene block copolymer as a non-ionic surfactant (paragraph 20).
Areskoug discloses that the polyurethane foam is a hydrophilic Hypol foam (paragraph 17). This is an exact hydrophilic polyurethane foam described in the Applicant’s disclosure. The hydrophilic Hypol foam is obtained from Hypol 2002 or 2000HD prepolymer that would inherently include an isocyanate selected from TDI or MDI; and a polyol selected from PEG or PPG as like material has like property (paragraph 19).
As to claim 74, Areskoug discloses that the water phase comprises oxypropylene-oxyethylene block copolymer as a non-ionic surfactant corresponding to the claimed carrier liquid (paragraph 20).
As to claim 75, Areskoug discloses that the silver salt has low water solubility (paragraph 21).
As to claim 77, Areskoug discloses that the silver salt comprises silver sulphate, silver citrate, silver acetate, silver carbonate, silver phosphate, silver lactate or combinations thereof (paragraph 21).
Claim 76 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Areskoug in view of Bleys as applied to claim 70 above, and further in view of US 2015/0044449 to Foss et al. (hereinafter “Foss”).
Neither Areskoug nor Bleys discloses the silver salt having a particle size distribution d50 in a range from 4 to 60 microns.
Foss, however, discloses a fabric comprising fibers and silver salts incorporated therein to provide excellent antibacterial properties wherein the silver salts have a particle size distribution from 1 to 10 microns with a median of about 5 microns (paragraphs 57 and 58).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the silver salt disclosed in Areskoug/Bleys having a particle size distribution as taught by Foss motivated by the desire to provide excellent antibacterial properties.
Claims 70, 72, 74, 75, 77, 92 and 93 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Areskoug in view of US 2015/0119837 to Thompson, Jr. et al. (hereinafter “Thompson”).
As to claims 70, 92 and 93, Areskoug discloses a hydrophilic polyurethane foam comprising at least one silver salt wherein the polyurethane foam is obtained by the following steps:
providing a water phase comprising a surfactant and at least one silver salt wherein the at least one silver salt is dispersed in the water phase;
providing an isocyanate-terminated polyether comprising functionality of more than 2;
mixing the water phase and the isocyanate-terminated polyether, and transferring the mixture to a mold wherein a foam structure is obtained (abstract).
The examiner equates the surfactant to the claimed carrier liquid.
Areskoug discloses that a part of the silver salt is dispersed in the reaction mixture during the manufacturing process (paragraph 21). Hence, the silver salt retains its powder form after polymerization of the polyurethane foam.
It appears that the hydrophilic polyurethane foam is obtained from the same composition and produced using the similar approach set forth in the Applicant’s disclosure.
The examiner directs Applicant’s attention to paragraphs 59-64 of published application:
PNG
media_image1.png
294
427
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
106
413
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Both Aerskoug and the Applicant used silver sulfate as a powder charge, that has very low solubility in the aqueous phase, but insoluble in the isocyanate or in the carrier liquid. In light of the mixing of the isocyanate phase, the aqueous phase comprising undissolved silver sulfate particles and the surfactant, the silver sulfate particles would be inherently, uniformly and homogeneously dispersed within the reaction mixture to form a foam structure as like material has like property. This approach is consistent with what is disclosed in the Applicant’s specification. Further, the release rate of the accumulated silver from the foam structure after 24 hours is at least 0.14 g/cm2 (paragraph 66). This is within the range set forth in the Applicant’s disclosure. Hence, it is not seen that the silver sulfate particles could not be homogeneously dispersed within the foam structure because the heterogeneous dispersion would prevent the accumulated silver from achieving a significant release rate within the range outlined in the Applicant’s specification.
Areskoug discloses a wound dressing comprising the polyurethane foam layer and a gel layer provided on the foam layer (paragraph 47). The foam layer functions as an absorbent material and as a gel carrier, and the dressing is very soft and pliant (paragraph 47). That is, the polyurethane foam layer itself would be a flexible material. The polyurethane foam comprises a network of open cells with a pore size between 30 to 1000 microns (paragraph 45).
Areskoug discloses that the polyurethane foam is a hydrophilic Hypol foam (paragraph 17). This is an exact hydrophilic polyurethane foam described in the Applicant’s disclosure. The hydrophilic Hypol foam is obtained from Hypol 2002 or 2000HD prepolymer that would inherently include an isocyanate selected from TDI or MDI; and a polyol selected from PEG or PPG as like material has like property (paragraph 19).
Areskoug does not explicitly disclose a hydrophilic polyurethane foam comprising an adsorbent additive retaining aqueous absorption capacity characteristic in the powder charge.
Thompson, however, discloses an absorbent article comprising an absorbent composite including a first foam absorbent layer and a second fibrous absorbent layer in fluid communication with the first absorbent layer (abstract). The absorbent article is suitable for use as a wound dressing (paragraph 79). The first foam absorbent layer comprises a polyurethane foam and discrete pieces of superabsorbent polymer dispersed therein (abstract). The superabsorbent polymer comprises carboxymethyl cellulose, polyvinyl alcohol, crosslinked polyethylene oxide or sodium polyacrylate (paragraph 43) and each of which corresponding to the claimed second additive that retains aqueous absorption capacity properties in the powder charge.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a superabsorbent polymer disclosed in Thompson in the hydrophilic polyurethane foam as taught by Areskoug motivated by the desire to provide the foam having very good water-absorption and water retention properties.
As to claim 72, Areskoug discloses that the water phase comprises oxypropylene-oxyethylene block copolymer as a non-ionic surfactant (paragraph 20).
Areskoug discloses that the polyurethane foam is a hydrophilic Hypol foam (paragraph 17). This is an exact hydrophilic polyurethane foam described in the Applicant’s disclosure. The hydrophilic Hypol foam is obtained from Hypol 2002 or 2000HD prepolymer that would inherently include an isocyanate selected from TDI or MDI; and a polyol selected from PEG or PPG as like material has like property (paragraph 19).
As to claim 74, Areskoug discloses that the water phase comprises oxypropylene-oxyethylene block copolymer as a non-ionic surfactant corresponding to the claimed carrier liquid (paragraph 20).
As to claim 75, Areskoug discloses that the silver salt has low water solubility (paragraph 21).
As to claim 77, Areskoug discloses that the silver salt comprises silver sulphate, silver citrate, silver acetate, silver carbonate, silver phosphate, silver lactate or combinations thereof (paragraph 21).
Claim 76 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Areskoug in view of Thompson as applied to claim 70 above, and further in view of Foss.
Neither Areskoug nor Thompson discloses the silver salt having a particle size distribution d50 in a range from 4 to 60 microns.
Foss, however, discloses a fabric comprising fibers and silver salts incorporated therein to provide excellent antibacterial properties wherein the silver salts have a particle size distribution from 1 to 10 microns with a median of about 5 microns (paragraphs 57 and 58).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the silver salt disclosed in Areskoug/Thompson having a particle size distribution as taught by Foss motivated by the desire to provide excellent antibacterial properties.
Response to Arguments
Areskoug fails to disclose suggest a second additive comprising an absorbent additive that retains aqueous absorption capacity characteristics in the powder charge. However, new combinations of Areskoug and Bleys; and Areskoug and Thompson suggest the claimed invention.
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 70, 72, 75-77, 92 and 93 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,083,232 (reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference patent disclose each and every limitation of the claims except for a hydrophilic HYPOL foam.
It appears that the reference patent uses a HYPOL 2002 isocyanate prepolymer for forming a hydrophilic HYPOL foam as the claimed invention. Therefore, it is not seen that the TDI-PEG prepolymer could not be present as like material has like property.
Claim 74 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,083,232 (reference patent) as applied to claim 70 above, in view of Areskoug.
The claims of the reference patent do not explicitly disclose the hydrophilic polyurethane foam comprising a surfactant as a carrier liquid.
Areskoug, however, discloses a hydrophilic polyurethane foam comprising at least one silver salt wherein the polyurethane foam is obtained by the following steps:
providing a water phase comprising a surfactant and at least one silver salt wherein the at least one silver salt is dispersed in the water phase;
providing an isocyanate-terminated polyether comprising functionality of more than 2;
mixing the water phase and the isocyanate-terminated polyether, and transferring the mixture to a mold wherein a foam structure is obtained (abstract).
Areskoug discloses that the surfactant comprises oxypropylene-oxyethylene block copolymer (paragraph 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a surfactant disclosed in Areskoug in the hydrophilic polyurethane foam of the reference patent motivated by the desire to control the foaming process, stabilize the foam structure while imparting the desired hydrophilic properties to the polyurethane foam.
Claims 70, 72, 75-77 and 92 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, and 8-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,064,523 (reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference patent disclose each and every limitation of the claims except for a hydrophilic HYPOL foam.
It appears that the reference patent uses a HYPOL 2002 isocyanate prepolymer for forming a hydrophilic HYPOL foam as the claimed invention. Therefore, it is not seen that the TDI-PEG prepolymer could not be present as like material has like property.
Claim 74 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, and 8-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,064,523 (reference patent) as applied to claim 70 above, in view of Areskoug.
The claims of the reference patent do not explicitly disclose the hydrophilic polyurethane foam comprising a surfactant as a carrier liquid.
Areskoug, however, discloses a hydrophilic polyurethane foam comprising at least one silver salt wherein the polyurethane foam is obtained by the following steps:
providing a water phase comprising a surfactant and at least one silver salt wherein the at least one silver salt is dispersed in the water phase;
providing an isocyanate-terminated polyether comprising functionality of more than 2;
mixing the water phase and the isocyanate-terminated polyether, and transferring the mixture to a mold wherein a foam structure is obtained (abstract).
Areskoug discloses that the surfactant comprises oxypropylene-oxyethylene block copolymer (paragraph 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a surfactant disclosed in Areskoug in the hydrophilic polyurethane foam of the reference patent motivated by the desire to control the foaming process, stabilize the foam structure while imparting the desired hydrophilic properties to the polyurethane foam.
Claim 93 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,064,523 (reference patent) as applied to claim 70 above, in view of Thompson.
The claims of the reference patent do not explicitly disclose a superabsorbent polymer selected from the group consisting of sodium polyacrylate, carboxymethyl cellulose or crosslinked carboxymethyl cellulose derivatives, cross linked polyethylene oxide and PVA copolymer.
Thompson, however, discloses an absorbent article comprising an absorbent composite including a first foam absorbent layer and a second fibrous absorbent layer in fluid communication with the first absorbent layer (abstract). The absorbent article is suitable for use as a wound dressing (paragraph 79). The first foam absorbent layer comprises a polyurethane foam and discrete pieces of superabsorbent polymer dispersed therein (abstract). The superabsorbent polymer comprises carboxymethyl cellulose, polyvinyl alcohol, crosslinked polyethylene oxide or sodium polyacrylate (paragraph 43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add one of the superabsorbent polymers disclosed in Thompson in the hydrophilic polyurethane foam of the reference patent motivated by the desire to provide the foam having very good water-absorption and water retention properties.
Claims 70, 72, 75-77 and 92 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,730,854 (reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference patent disclose each and every limitation of the claims except for a hydrophilic HYPOL foam.
It appears that the reference patent uses a HYPOL 2002 isocyanate prepolymer for forming a hydrophilic HYPOL foam as the claimed invention. Therefore, it is not seen that the TDI-PEG prepolymer could not be present as like material has like property.
Claim 74 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,730,854 (reference patent) as applied to claim 70 above, in view of Areskoug.
The claims of the reference patent do not explicitly disclose the hydrophilic polyurethane foam comprising a surfactant as a carrier liquid.
Areskoug, however, discloses a hydrophilic polyurethane foam comprising at least one silver salt wherein the polyurethane foam is obtained by the following steps:
providing a water phase comprising a surfactant and at least one silver salt wherein the at least one silver salt is dispersed in the water phase;
providing an isocyanate-terminated polyether comprising functionality of more than 2;
mixing the water phase and the isocyanate-terminated polyether, and transferring the mixture to a mold wherein a foam structure is obtained (abstract).
Areskoug discloses that the surfactant comprises oxypropylene-oxyethylene block copolymer (paragraph 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a surfactant disclosed in Areskoug in the hydrophilic polyurethane foam of the reference patent motivated by the desire to control the foaming process, stabilize the foam structure while imparting the desired hydrophilic properties to the polyurethane foam.
Claim 93 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,730,854 (reference patent) as applied to claim 70 above, in view of Thompson.
The claims of the reference patent do not explicitly disclose a superabsorbent polymer selected from the group consisting of sodium polyacrylate, carboxymethyl cellulose or crosslinked carboxymethyl cellulose derivatives, cross linked polyethylene oxide and PVA copolymer.
Thompson, however, discloses an absorbent article comprising an absorbent composite including a first foam absorbent layer and a second fibrous absorbent layer in fluid communication with the first absorbent layer (abstract). The absorbent article is suitable for use as a wound dressing (paragraph 79). The first foam absorbent layer comprises a polyurethane foam and discrete pieces of superabsorbent polymer dispersed therein (abstract). The superabsorbent polymer comprises carboxymethyl cellulose, polyvinyl alcohol, crosslinked polyethylene oxide or sodium polyacrylate (paragraph 43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add one of the superabsorbent polymers disclosed in Thompson in the hydrophilic polyurethane foam of the reference patent motivated by the desire to provide the foam having very good water-absorption and water retention properties.
Claims 70, 72, 75-77 and 92 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, and 7-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,730,852 (reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference patent disclose each and every limitation of the claims except for a hydrophilic HYPOL foam.
It appears that the reference patent uses a HYPOL 2002 isocyanate prepolymer for forming a hydrophilic HYPOL foam as the claimed invention. Therefore, it is not seen that the TDI-PEG prepolymer could not be present as like material has like property.
Claim 74 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, and 7-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,730,852 (reference patent) as applied to claim 70 above, in view of Areskoug.
The claims of the reference patent do not explicitly disclose the hydrophilic polyurethane foam comprising a surfactant as a carrier liquid.
Areskoug, however, discloses a hydrophilic polyurethane foam comprising at least one silver salt wherein the polyurethane foam is obtained by the following steps:
providing a water phase comprising a surfactant and at least one silver salt wherein the at least one silver salt is dispersed in the water phase;
providing an isocyanate-terminated polyether comprising functionality of more than 2;
mixing the water phase and the isocyanate-terminated polyether, and transferring the mixture to a mold wherein a foam structure is obtained (abstract).
Areskoug discloses that the surfactant comprises oxypropylene-oxyethylene block copolymer (paragraph 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a surfactant disclosed in Areskoug in the hydrophilic polyurethane foam of the reference patent motivated by the desire to control the foaming process, stabilize the foam structure while imparting the desired hydrophilic properties to the polyurethane foam.
Claim 93 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,730,852 (reference patent) as applied to claim 70 above, in view of Thompson.
The claims of the reference patent do not explicitly disclose a superabsorbent polymer selected from the group consisting of sodium polyacrylate, carboxymethyl cellulose or crosslinked carboxymethyl cellulose derivatives, cross linked polyethylene oxide and PVA copolymer.
Thompson, however, discloses an absorbent article comprising an absorbent composite including a first foam absorbent layer and a second fibrous absorbent layer in fluid communication with the first absorbent layer (abstract). The absorbent article is suitable for use as a wound dressing (paragraph 79). The first foam absorbent layer comprises a polyurethane foam and discrete pieces of superabsorbent polymer dispersed therein (abstract). The superabsorbent polymer comprises carboxymethyl cellulose, polyvinyl alcohol, crosslinked polyethylene oxide or sodium polyacrylate (paragraph 43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add one of the superabsorbent polymers disclosed in Thompson in the hydrophilic polyurethane foam of the reference patent motivated by the desire to provide the foam having very good water-absorption and water retention properties.
Response to Arguments
The non-statutory double patenting rejections would not be withdrawn until submission of the terminal disclaimers because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm with every other Friday off.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/Hai Vo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788