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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 6, 2026 has been entered.
The amendment filed August 6, 2026 has been entered. Claims 84, 89, 96 have been amended, claims 1-83, 86-88, 90, 92-95, and 98-101 have been cancelled.
Applicant’s arguments filed August 6, 2026 were fully considered but they were not persuasive. Rejections and response to arguments as they currently apply are addressed below.
Claims 84-85, 89, 91, 96-97, and 102-108 are pending in this application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code (pgs. 17-18, paras. 0063-0064). Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Objections
Claims 85, 91, 97 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claims 85, 91, and 97 the phrase “Claim” should not be capitalized. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
With respect to the claims, which are directed to a pharmaceutical composition and recites the phrase “dermal filler composition”. The Examiner notes that it is well settled that “intended use” of a composition or product, e.g., “dermal filler”, will not further limit claims drawn to a composition, so long as the prior art discloses the same composition comprising the same ingredients in an effective amount, as the instantly claimed (See MPEP 2111.02 (II)).
The claims recite ”….wherein the in-vitro hyaluronidase degradation rate is slower than unmodified hyaluronic acid.”. Wherein the prior art teaches the derivative as claimed thereby anticipating the claim, this description is an inherent property of the compound. The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer (See MPEP 2112 (I)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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 84-85, 89, 91, 96-97, and 102-108 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.
Regarding claims 84-85, 89, 91, 96-97, and 102-108: In claims 84, 89, and 96 the structural formulas recite wherein X is S and R1 is a mercaptobenzoic acid moiety (i.e. S-mercaptobenzoic acid). According to the instant specification, the X group is from a thiol that is present in a nucleophile containing a thio group (i.e. 2-mercaptobenzoic acid (thiosalicylic acid), pg. 13, para. 0045). The specification discloses that hyaluronic acid is reacted with divinyl sulfone, and reacted with a nucleophile of formula X-AR-Y to provide a second derivative of the polymer, a nucleophilic compound, such as a thiol compound (pg. 18, para. 0065). This presents an issue of clarity because it is unclear whether the formulas intend to add an additional sulfur atom in addition to the one possessed by mercaptobenzoic acid, or wherein the X is S portion of the formula is the sulfur atom that is present in the mercaptobenzoic acid, and then R1 would technically be a benzoic acid. This renders the scope of claims unclear, thereby rendering the claims indefinite. Dependent claims 85, 91, 97, and 102-108 are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 84-85, 89, 91, 96-97, and 102-106 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gravett (WO 2019/046834, published March 7, 2019, international filing date September 1, 2018, IDS filed June 2, 2023).
Regarding claims 84-89, 91-94, 96-100, and 102-106: Gravett teaches a composition comprising a derivative of a polymeric polyhydric alcohol, e.g., hyaluronic acid (HA), wherein derivatives of a polymeric polyhydric alcohol may comprise the derivatives as disclosed above for polyhydric polymers (pg. 6, para. 0019). Gravett teaches that the polymers of the disclosure have hyaluronidase degradation rate that is the same as or less than that of hyaluronic acid that is not derivatized (pg. 62, para. 0188). Gravett teaches the derivative of hyaluronic acid or other polyhydric polymer has the structure HA-(OCH2CH2S02CH2CH2-XR1-Y)n where HA is a polyhydric polymer such as hyaluronic acid, X is S or NH, R1 is a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C20 aliphatic or aromatic moiety and n is the number of modified hydroxyl groups where n is an integer and n greater than or equal 1, and Y is one or more of H, a carboxylic acid group or a salt or ester thereof, a hydroxyl group, a sulfonic acid group or a salt thereof, or an amine group (pg. 2, para. 0007). Gravett teaches a derivative of polyhydric polymer, such as a polysaccharide, e.g., hyaluronic acid, in which two or more hydroxyl groups of the hyaluronic acid are modified hydroxyl groups, wherein the derivative of hyaluronic acid has the structure (CH2=CH-SO2CH2CH2O)m-HA-(OCH2CH2SO2CH2CH2-X-R1-Y)n where HA is hyaluronic acid or other polyhydric polymer, X is S or NH, R1 is a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C20 aliphatic or aromatic moiety, each of n and mis an integer, and n is greater or equal to 1 and m greater or equal to 1, and Y is H; a carboxylic acid group, or a salt or ester; thereof; a hydroxyl group; a sulfonic acid group, or a salt thereof; or an amine group (pg. 3, para. 0009). Gravett exemplifies wherein 2-mercaptobenzoic acid makes up the X-R1-Y group of the hyaluronic acid derivative (pg. 11, para. 0030, drawings pg. 4, figure 4). Thus a person of ordinary skill would recognize mercaptobenzoic acid being a preferred embodiment to be incorporated into the aforementioned formulas. A composition may further comprise an excipient (pgs. 6-7, para. 0019). Gravett teaches the reactions to produce the derivatives can involve different thiol containing compounds (pg. 24, para. 0083). Gravett teaches the preparation of a divinyl sulfone (DVS) modified HA wherein the hydroxyl substitution is about 25 % (i.e. DVS13, pg. 87-88, paras. 0272). Gravett teaches the production of a DVS modified HA with octanethiol, 2-mercaptobenzoic acid, or thiophenol (i.e. R1 is C8 aliphatic, benzene-COOH, benzene-OH, pg. 89, para. 0275, pg. 95, para. 0285, pg. 97, para. 0288). The substitution of the benzoic acid moiety was 10 % (pg. 95, para. 0285). Gravett teaches the HA can modified twice with 33% hydroxy substitution (i.e. R1 and R2 groups, pgs. 103, para. 0297-0298). Gravett teaches crosslinking of the modified HA derivatives (pg. 104, para. 0299, drawings, figure 2). arrangement based on the disclosure of Gravett (See MPEP 2131.02 (III)). Gravett teaches the derivatized polyhydric polymers and compositions can be used as dermal fillers (pg. 62, paras. 0188-0189). Gravett teaches the formulations can comprise saline (pg. 110, table 1). Gravett teaches in another aspect, the derivatized polyhydric polymers and compositions used as dermal fillers are in the form of particles of a crosslinked hydrogel (pgs. 62-63, para. 0189).
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.
Claim(s) 84-89, 91-94, 96-100, and 102-108 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gravett (WO 2019/046834, published March 7, 2019, international filing date September 1, 2018, IDS filed June 2, 2023) as applied to claims 84-89, 91-94, 96-100, and 102-106 above.
Regarding claims 84-89, 91-94, 96-100, and 102-106: As discussed above Gravett teaches the composition of claims 84-89, 91-94, 96-100, and 102-106 that can be used as dermal fillers. Even if assuming for the sake of argument, that Gravett does not specifically teach the claimed derivatives in a dermal filler composition, the claims would still have been rendered obvious over Gravett.
As discussed above, Gravett teaches the derivatized polyhydric polymers and compositions can be used as dermal fillers (pg. 62, paras. 0188-0189). Gravett teaches the formulations can comprise saline (pg. 110, table 1). Gravett teaches In another aspect, the derivatized polyhydric polymers and compositions used as dermal fillers are in the form of particles of a crosslinked hydrogel (pgs. 62-63, para. 0189).
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to utilize the compositions of Gravett as dermal fillers as Gravett explicitly states that this a known purpose for this class of compounds.
Additionally, with respect to the specific derivative claimed, Gravett exemplifies wherein 2-mercaptobenzoic acid makes up the X-R1-Y group of the hyaluronic acid derivative (pg. 11, para. 0030, drawings pg. 4, figure 4). Thus a person of ordinary skill would recognize mercaptobenzoic acid being a preferred embodiment to be incorporated into the aforementioned formulas. An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties (See MPEP 2144.09 (I)).
Regarding claims 107-108: As discussed above Gravett teaches/renders obvious the dermal fillers of claims 89 and 96.
Gravett does not explicitly demonstrate a derivative wherein the cross-linking agent is 1,4-butanediol diglycidyl ether.
However, Gravett teaches 1,4-butanediol diglycidyl ether (BDDE) is a suitable alternative for divinyl sulfone as a crosslinking agent.
Taken together it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the composition such that divinyl sulfone is replaced with BDDE as taught by Gravett. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the motivation to do so with a reasonable expectation of success as Gravett teaches BDDE as a suitable alternative crosslinking agent, and it is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose (See MPEP 2144.06 (II)).
Modified/New 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 84-89, 91-94, 96-100, and 102-108 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. US 11,440,976 (cited in previous action) in view of Gravett (WO 2019/046834, published March 7, 2019, international filing date September 1, 2018, IDS filed June 2, 2023). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claims 84-89, 91-94, 96-100, and 102-106: Patented claim 1 teaches the following derivatives:
PNG
media_image1.png
412
360
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Patent claims 6-8 teach wherein in the process of preparing the polymers, 0.25-50% of the hydroxyl groups are modified. Thus, the claimed derivatives necessarily possess this feature. Patented claim 12 teaches wherein the polymer is crosslinked. Patented claim 12 teaches compositions comprising the hyaluronic acid polymer derivative and a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient. Thus, the hyaluronic derivatives instantly claimed are anticipated by the patent. Although the patented claims do not teach wherein the in-vitro hyaluronidase degradation rate is slower than unmodified hyaluronic acid, wherein the prior art teaches the derivative as claimed thereby anticipating the claim, this description is an inherent property of the derivative, absent evidence to the contrary. The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer (See MPEP 2112 (I)).
The patented claims do not teach wherein the composition is a dermal filler. They do not teach the formulations can comprise saline. They do not teach wherein the composition is in the form of particles.
However, Gravett teaches a composition comprising a derivative of a polymeric polyhydric alcohol, e.g., hyaluronic acid (HA), wherein derivatives of a polymeric polyhydric alcohol may comprise the derivatives as disclosed above for polyhydric polymers (pg. 6, para. 0019). Gravett teaches that the polymers of the disclosure have hyaluronidase degradation rate that is the same as or less than that of hyaluronic acid that is not derivatized (pg. 62, para. 0188). For example, HA-(OCH2CH2SO2CH2CH2-X-R1-Y)n; (Y-R2-X-CH2CH2SO2CH2CH2O)m-HA-(OCH2CH 2S02CH2CH2-X-R1-Y)n; (CH 2=CH-SO2CH2CH2O )m-HA-(OCH2CH 2SO2CH2CH2-X-R1-Y)n; or (CH2=CH-SO2CH2CH2O)m-HA, where HA is hyaluronic acid or other polyhydric polymer, X is S or NH, R1 is a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C20 aliphatic or aromatic moiety, R2 is a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C20 aliphatic or aromatic moiety, and where applicable, wherein R1 and R2 are different from each other, Y is one or more of H, a carboxylic acid group or a salt or ester thereof, a hydroxyl group, a sulfonic acid group or a salt thereof, or an amine group; wherein n and m are each integers, and n ≥ 1 and m ≥ 1 A composition may further comprise an excipient (pgs. 6-7, para. 0019). Gravett teaches the reactions to produce the derivatives can involve different thiol containing compounds (pg. 24, para. 0083). Gravett teaches the preparation of a divinyl sulfone (DVS) modified HA wherein the hydroxyl substitution is about 25 % (i.e. DVS13, pg. 87-88, paras. 0272). Gravett teaches the production of a DVS modified HA with octanethiol, 2-mercaptobenzoic acid, or thiophenol (i.e. R1 is C8 aliphatic, benzene-COOH, benzene-OH, pg. 89, para. 0275, pg. 95, para. 0285, pg. 97, para. 0288). The substitution of the benzoic acid moiety was 10 % (pg. 95, para. 0285). Gravett teaches the HA can modified twice with 33% hydroxy substitution (i.e. R1 and R2 groups, pgs. 103, para. 0297-0298). Gravett teaches the derivatized polyhydric polymers and compositions can be used as dermal fillers (pg. 62, paras. 0188-0189). Gravett teaches the formulations can comprise saline (pg. 110, table 1). Gravett teaches In another aspect, the derivatized polyhydric polymers and compositions used as dermal fillers are in the form of particles of a crosslinked hydrogel (pgs. 62-63, para. 0189).
Taken together, it would have been prima facie obvious to apply the composition of the patented claims as a dermal filler and formulate with saline in the form of particles as taught by Gravett. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the motivation to do so with a reasonable expectation of success as compositions comprising these types of hyaluronic acid derivatives are known in the art to be suitable for this purpose.
Regarding claims 107-108: As discussed above the prior art and Gravett teaches/renders obvious the dermal fillers of claims 89 and 96.
The patented claims do not teach wherein the cross-linking agent is 1,4-butanediol diglycidyl ether.
However, Gravett teaches 1,4-butanediol diglycidyl ether (BDDE) is a suitable alternative for divinyl sulfone as a crosslinking agent.
Taken together it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the composition such that derivative crosslinked with BDDE as taught by Gravett. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the motivation to do so with a reasonable expectation of success as Gravett teaches BDDE as a suitable alternative crosslinking agent, and it is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose (See MPEP 2144.06 (II)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 6, 2026 with respect to the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-8 of Applicant’s response, Applicant argues that the newly amended claims overcome the 102 rejections described above by specifying that R1 is a mercaptobenzoic acid wherein the composition is injectable subcutaneously an exhibit improved intro hyaluronidase degradation rates compared to current unmodified hyaluronic acid based dermal fillers.
However, as discussed above in the claim interpretation section above, it is well settled that “intended use” of a composition or product, e.g., “dermal filler”, will not further limit claims drawn to a composition, so long as the prior art discloses the same composition comprising the same ingredients in an effective amount, as the instantly claimed (See MPEP 2111.02 (II)). Additionally the claim limitation of injectable subcutaneously is also an intended use and so long as a given composition is capable of being injected subcutaneously, the composition claim is anticipated. Gravett teaches the compositions can be used as a dermal filler (pg. 7, para. 0022). Gravett teaches the composition can be injected subcutaneously, intra-dermally or intra-muscularly (pg. 70, para. 0210). Gravett teaches the claimed hyaluronic acid derivative formulas and teaches mercapto benzoic acid as an exemplified embodiment. By utilizing mercaptobenzoic in the claimed formulas, a reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination (See MPEP 2131.02 (III))..
Additionally, the claims recite ”….wherein the in-vitro hyaluronidase degradation rate is slower than unmodified hyaluronic acid.”. Wherein the prior art teaches the derivative as claimed thereby anticipating the claim, this description is an inherent property of the compound. The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer (See MPEP 2112 (I)).
Additionally, Gravett teaches the compositions can be used as a dermal filler (pg. 7, para. 0022). Gravett teaches the composition can be injected subcutaneously, intra-dermally or intra-muscularly (pg. 70, para. 0210). Gravett teaches the claimed hyaluronic acid derivative formulas and teaches mercapto benzoic acid as an exemplified embodiment.
On page 10 of Applicant’s response, Applicant does not teach using mercaptobenzoic acid derivatives of hyaluronic acid which can be injected subcutaneously as a dermal filler (pg. 10, para. 2).
However, as discussed above, Gravett teaches the compositions can be used as a dermal filler (pg. 7, para. 0022). Gravett teaches the composition can be injected subcutaneously, intra-dermally or intra-muscularly (pg. 70, para. 0210). Gravett teaches the claimed hyaluronic acid derivative formulas and teaches mercapto benzoic acid as an exemplified embodiment. Gravett exemplifies wherein 2-mercaptobenzoic acid makes up the X-R1-Y group of the hyaluronic acid derivative (pg. 11, para. 0030, drawings pg. 4, figure 4). Thus a person of ordinary skill in the art would be directed to this modification specifically.
On page 10 of Applicant’s response, Applicant argues the claimed MBA derivatives of HA have improved degradation rates and less of a change in viscosity compared to unmodified HA (para. 3). Applicant argues that the slower degradation rate is measured as a change of viscosity over time. Applicant argues the crosslinked gel derivative has a smaller loss over time as compared to a crosslinked gel and degrade more slowly than unmodified HA gel (para. 3). In short, Applicant is arguing the claimed composition comprising derivatized Hyaluronic acid have unexpectedly improved properties of improved (i.e. lower degradation rates) over unmodified hyaluronic acid.
However, this is not found to be a persuasive showing of unexpected results. As discussed above, Gravett teaches that the polymers of the disclosure have hyaluronidase degradation rate that is the same as or less than that of hyaluronic acid that is not derivatized (pg. 62, para. 0188). It cannot be unexpected that the HA derivatives claimed and taught by Gravett have improved degradation rates and in turn less of a change in viscosity, as Gravett specifically teaches the lower degradation rates are to be expected.
On pages 10-11 of Applicant’s response, Applicant argues that the improved stability and degradation rates were exhibited with a 1% BDDE crosslinked HA-MBA gel compared to crosslinked HA (bridging para.). On page 11 of Applicant’s response, Applicant argues the HA-DVS-MBA compositions as currently claimed have longer in vivo persistence and slower degradation as compared to non-derivatized HA compositions (para. 1).
However, as discussed above, this is not found to be a persuasive showing of unexpected results. As discussed above, Gravett teaches that the polymers of the disclosure have hyaluronidase degradation rate that is the same as or less than that of hyaluronic acid that is not derivatized (pg. 62, para. 0188). It cannot be unexpected that the HA derivatives claimed and taught by Gravett have improved degradation rates and in turn less of a change in viscosity, as Gravett specifically teaches the lower degradation rates are to be expected. Additionally, purported evidence of unexpected results must compare the claimed invention with the closest prior art (See MPEP 716.02(e). Gravett teaches HA derivatives of that instantly claimed, while Applicant is comparing the claimed invention to underivatized HA.
On page 11 of Applicant’s response, Applicant argues the Examiner has identified various parts of the claimed invention but has not provided sufficient direction for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an MBA derivative HA dermal filler composition which are injectable subcutaneously (para. 2). The applicant argues that the claimed composition was not taught or suggested by the cited art, and it was only with hindsight that the rejection was formulated.
However, as discussed above, Gravett teaches the compositions can be used as a dermal filler (pg. 7, para. 0022). Gravett teaches the composition can be injected subcutaneously, intra-dermally or intra-muscularly (pg. 70, para. 0210). Gravett teaches the claimed hyaluronic acid derivative formulas and teaches mercapto benzoic acid as an exemplified embodiment. Gravett exemplifies wherein 2-mercaptobenzoic acid makes up the X-R1-Y group of the hyaluronic acid derivative (pg. 11, para. 0030, drawings pg. 4, figure 4). Thus a person of ordinary skill in the art would be directed to this modification specifically.
Applicant’s reply is considered to be a bona fide attempt at a response and is being accepted as a complete response. The 35 USC § 102, 103, and double patenting rejections are maintained for reason of record and foregoing discussion.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed in this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL L GALSTER whose telephone number is (571)270-0933. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Scarlett Y Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/SAMUEL L GALSTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1693
Prosecution Insights