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 .
Status of Application
The Preliminary Amendment filed on 07/17/23 is acknowledged.
Claims 3-4 and 6-12 were amended.
Claims 1-12 are included in the prosecution.
Priority
This Application is a 371 of PCT/EP 2022/052182 filed on 01/31/22. This Application also claims foreign priority to IN 202111004454 filed on 02/02/21. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
References in the Specification
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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 7 and 8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claims 7 and 8, line 3, the phrase "(model Discovery HR-3, available from TA Instruments)" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) in the parentheses are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is recommended that the parentheses be removed.
Notice for all US Patent Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013
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.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Louis et al. (US 2014/0010884 A1 – “Louis”), as evidenced by Beneke et al. (Molecules 2009, 14, 2602-2620 – “Beneke”) in view of Lanquetin et al. (US 2008/0227763 A1 – “Lanquetin”).
Instant claim 1 is drawn to an aqueous gel composition for topical application comprising
a physiologically active ingredient,
an aqueous dispersion of ethylcellulose (EC), and
a carrageenan.
Louis teaches dermatological compositions comprising retinoids, dispersed benzoyl peroxide and carrageenans, wherein the compositions are useful for treating dermatological conditions and afflictions linked to disorders of cell differentiation and/or proliferation and/or keratinization, notably for treating acne vulgaris (Title and Abstract). Aqueous gels are disclosed as suitable forms of the composition ([0110]). Additional gelling agents other than the carrageenans are disclosed ([0127]) and include EC ([0128]). Louis teaches that the carrageenans are capable of conferring a viscosity on the composition sufficient to keep the retinoid and the benzoyl peroxide in suspension, and include the iota form of carrageenan ([0104]) and Gelcarin GP379NF® ([0109]).
Beneke (used as an evidentiary reference only) teaches that iota-carrageenan or ι-carrageenan produces elastic gels (Page 2609, 1st ¶, line 3) and that commerically available ι-carrageenan is Gelcarin® GP-379 NF (Page 2609, 2nd ¶, lines 1-3).
Louis does not expressly teach an aqueous dispersion of EC.
Lanquetin teaches a topical hormonal composition with systemic action wherein the topical composition comprises an active principle, a film-forming agent, and a gelling agent (Title, Abstract, claims 18, and 20-21). Natural gelling agents include carrageenans ([0042]). The gelling agent also includes cellulose derivatives ([0043]), which further include EC (Aquacoat®) ([0045]). The film-forming agent also includes cellulose derivatives ([0060]) which further includes an aqueous dispersion of EC under the tradename Aquacoat ECD30® ([0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare a dermatological composition comprising the active ingredients retinoids and benzoyl peroxide, and gelling agents including carrageenans and EC, as taught by Louis, in view of the topical hormonal composition which comprises an active principle and a gelling agent or film-forming agent which is an aqueous dispersion of EC, as taught by Lanquetin, and produce the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the aqueous dispersion of EC as taught by Lanquetin in place of the EC in the dermatological composition of Louis because the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. Please see MPEP 2141(III)(B). Furthermore, both references teach the inclusion of EC, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it advantageous to disperse the active ingredients of Louis in an aqueous dispersion of the gel ([0110]) by using the aqueous dispersion of EC as taught by Lanquetin ([0061]), and have a reasonable expectation of success in producing a functional dermatological or topical composition.
From the 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 would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding instant claim 1, the limitation of an aqueous gel composition for topical application would have been obvious over the dermatological compositions (Title and Abstract) in the form of aqueous gels ([0110]), as taught by Louis; and the topical composition in the form of a gel (Abstract and claims 18, and 20-21), as taught by Lanquetin.
Regarding instant claim 1, the limitation of (a) a physiologically active ingredient would have been obvious over the retinoids and benzoyl peroxide (Abstract and claim 1), as taught by Louis.
Regarding instant claim 1, the limitation of (b) an aqueous dispersion of EC would have been obvious over the EC ([0128]), as taught by Louis, in view of the aqueous dispersion of EC under the tradename Aquacoat ECD30® ([0045] and [0061]), as taught by Lanquetin.
Regarding instant claim 1, the limitation of (c) a carrageenan would have been obvious over the carrageenans ([0127]), the iota form of carrageenan ([0104]) and Gelcarin GP379NF® ([0109]), as taught by Louis, and the carrageenans ([0042]), as taught by Lanquetin.
Regarding instant claim 2, the limitation of the concentration of EC in the range of 5-50% by weight of the composition would have been obvious over the additional gelling agent ([0127]) which includes EC ([0128]) and the overlapping amount of the additional gelling agent which ranges from 0.01% to 20% by weight, with respect to the total weight of the composition (claims 1 and 4-6), as taught by Louis. According to MPEP 2144.05, “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Regarding instant claim 3, the limitation of the concentration of carrageenan in the range of 0.1-5% by weight of the composition would have been obvious over the overlapping amount of carrageenan which ranges from 0.1% to 20% by weight, with respect to the total weight of the composition (claims 1 and 3), as taught by Louis. Please see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding instant claims 4 and 5, the limitations of the type of carrageenan would have been obvious over the iota form of carrageenan ([0104]) and Gelcarin GP379NF® ([0109]), as taught by Louis, as evidenced by Beneke (Page 2609, 1st and 2nd ¶s).
Regarding instant claim 6, the limitation of the physiologically active ingredient would have been obvious over the retinoids and benzoyl peroxide (anti-acne agent) used for treating acne vulgaris (Abstract and claim 1), as taught by Louis.
Regarding instant claim 7, the limitation of the gel having a viscosity of 100 to 6000 mPa.s at shear rate of 0.01 s-1 would have been obvious over the viscosity of 185 cP (or mPa.s) at 100 s-1 ([0287]), the viscosity of 300 cP (or mPa.s) at 100 s-1 ([0293]), and the viscosity of 185 cP (or mPa.s) at 100 s-1 ([0299]), as taught by Louis. Please see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding instant claim 8, the limitation of the gel having a yield stress of 10 to 200 Pa determined as storage modulus using a rheometer would have been obvious over the composition comprising the same components as taught by Louis and Lanquetin since the recited limitation is a property of the composition and is naturally present. Louis teaches the same composition, having the same components, in the same arrangement, and for the same topical or dermatological application. Louis also teaches that the “yield point” (T0, expressed in pascals) means the force necessary (minimum shear stress) to overcome the cohesive forces of Van der Waals type and to bring about flow ([0274]). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the composition, then the properties are also taught by the prior art. The burden is shifted to Applicant to show that the prior art product does not possess or render obvious the same properties as the instantly claimed product.
Regarding instant claim 9, the limitation of a pH in the range of 3-8 would have been obvious over the pH between 6 and 7 ([0075]), as taught by Lanquetin.
Regarding instant claim 10, the limitation of an auxiliary ingredient would have been obvious over the buffers, preservatives ([0170]), surfactants (claims 14-16), emollients ([0116]), and penetrating agents (claims 11-13), as taught by Louis; and the surfactants ([0034]), as taught by Lanquetin.
Regarding instant claim 11, the limitation of the composition providing controlled release of the physiologically active ingredient on topical application thereof would have been obvious over the dermatological compositions (Title and Abstract) in the form of aqueous gels ([0110]), as taught by Louis; and the topical composition in the form of a gel with systemic action (Abstract and claims 18, and 20-21), as taught by Lanquetin. The recited limitation of controlled release is a property of the composition and is naturally present. Louis and Lanquetin teach the same composition, having the same components, in the same arrangement, and for the same topical or dermatological application. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the composition, then the properties are also taught by the prior art. The burden is shifted to Applicant to show that the prior art product does not possess or render obvious the same properties as the instantly claimed product. Moreover, instant claim 11 is silent with respect to any time period or release parameters.
Regarding instant claim 12, the limitations of (i) – (iv) of the method of preparing the composition would have been obvious over the preparation of the dermatological compositions (Title and Abstract) in the form of aqueous gels ([0110]), wherein the composition contains retinoids and benzoyl peroxide (Abstract and claim 1), carrageenans ([0127]), the iota form of carrageenan ([0104]) and Gelcarin GP379NF® ([0109]), wherein the preparation includes preparing active phase 1, active phase 2, aqueous phase, mixing the active phases, preparation of the fatty phase, emulsification, addition of the single active phase ([0198]-[0222]), wherein the mixture is heated ([0208]) and then the preparation is cooled ([0210]), as taught by Louis, in view of the aqueous dispersion of EC under the tradename Aquacoat ECD30® ([0045] and [0061]), as taught by Lanquetin.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARADHANA SASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9022. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 6:30 am to 3:00 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, Robert A. Wax can be reached on 571-272-6023. 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.
/ARADHANA SASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615