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 Reply filed 19 March 2026, Applicant amended the claims. Accordingly, claims 1-7, 10, 12-14, 17-18 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species A.i. benzalkonium chloride and lidocaine hydrochloride, B.iv. a specific mixture of the above (a combination of polymyxin B sulfate and at least one additional component selected from the group consisting of bacitracin zinc, neomycin sulfate or mixtures thereof), and C.i. absorbent pad and an adhesive disposed on a first surface thereof and claims 1-7, 10, 12-14, and 17-18 in the reply filed on 3/19/26 is acknowledged.
Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/19/26. Restriction is therefor made final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 08/23/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed.
The copy of non-patent literature reference #6 titled “Clean, Treat and Protect Wound Care Kit” provided in the file wrapper is not legible, so it was not considered. Applicant is advised to submit a new copy. The rest of the IDS has been considered.
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 7, 12, and 13 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.
Claim 7 recites “the antiseptic formulation comprises an antiseptic active ingredient and an analgesic;” however, claim 1, upon which claim 7 depends, already claims “benzalkonium chloride” (a species of antiseptic active ingredient) and “lidocaine hydrochloride” (a species of analgesic). Therefore, it is unclear what claim 7 is claiming, and claim 7 is broader than claim 1, so claim 7 is indefinite.
Claim 12 recites “the antibiotic formulation comprises an antibiotic agent;” however, claim 1, upon which claim 12 depends, already claims “a combination of polymyxin B sulfate and at least one additional component selected from the group consisting of bacitracin zinc, neomycin sulfate or mixtures thereof,” which is an antibiotic agent. Therefore, it is unclear what claim 12 is claiming when it refers to “an antibiotic agent,” and that aspect of claim 12 is broader than claim 1, so claim 12 is indefinite. Claim 13 is dependent on claim 12, so it’s rejected under 112(b) as well for the same reasons. For prior art purposes, claim 12 will be interpreted as “the method of claim 1 wherein the antibiotic formulation comprises a combination of polymyxin B sulfate and at least one additional component selected from the group consisting of bacitracin zinc, neomycin sulfate or mixtures thereof; and further comprises a local anesthetic.”
Further, claim 13 recites that “the antibiotic agent comprises polymyxin B sulfate, bacitracin zinc, neomycin sulfate or mixtures thereof,” which is different from what is claimed in claim 1: “a combination of polymyxin B sulfate and at least one additional component selected from the group consisting of bacitracin zinc, neomycin sulfate or mixtures thereof.” Therefore, it is unclear what claim 13 is referring to, so it is indefinite. For prior art purposes, claim 13 will be interpreted as “the method of claim 12 wherein the antibiotic formulation comprises a combination of polymyxin B sulfate and at least one additional component selected from the group consisting of bacitracin zinc, neomycin sulfate or mixtures thereof; and the local anesthetic comprises pramoxine hydrochloride.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 claims “the antiseptic formulation comprises an antiseptic active ingredient and an analgesic;” however, claim 1, upon which claim 7 depends, already claims “benzalkonium chloride” (an antiseptic active ingredient) and “lidocaine hydrochloride” (an analgesic). Therefore, claim 7 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 10, 12-14, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson from the Wayback Machine dated 2022 in view of Scamilla (US 6599525 B2), Horn (US 20200061002 A1), Shinault (US 5407670 A), Isaac from the Wayback Machine dated 2021, and UPMC 2021, as evidenced by Sybridge 2021.
Regarding all the aforementioned claims, Johnson teaches a method to clean, treat and cover wounds (page 2), which reads on the instantly claimed method of treating a wound. Johnson teaches (1) cleaning with an antiseptic to remove dirt and debris, (2) treating with antibiotic ointment to help prevent infection, and (3) protecting to cover and prevent scabs and re-injury (page 1). Regarding step (1), Johnson shows that the antiseptic is applied directly to the wound (Page 1, graphic). Regarding step (2), Johnson teaches the Neosporin + Pain Relief Cream provides dual antibiotic infection protection (page 4, Product Description), so it reads onto the instantly claimed antibiotic formulation. Johnson further teaches the cream contains neomycin, polymyxin B, and pramoxine hydrochloride (page 4, Product Description). Pramoxine hydrochloride reads onto the instantly claimed local anesthetic. Regarding step (3), Johnson teaches the affected area may be covered with a sterile bandage (page 5, Directions).
Regarding instant claim 6, Johnson teaches a review by user K. Chan stating that when my son got a nasty cut on his forehead, we cleaned out the wound with soap and water, then with Neosporin Wound Cleanser for kids, then applied the Pain Relief Dual Action Cream twice daily under a bandage (page 8). Cleaning out the wound with soap and water reads on the instantly claimed step of washing the wound with soap and water. The step occurred before cleaning with Neosporin Wound Cleanser for kids, then applying the Pain Relief Dual Action Cream twice daily under a bandage, therefore it reads on the instantly claimed step occurring prior to steps a) through c).
Johnson teaches application to the affected area 1-3 times daily (page 5, Directions) and that one should stop use and ask a doctor if you need to use longer than one 1 week (page 4, Safety Information), which implies repeated use for multiple days.
Johnson does not teach that the antiseptic formulation comprises benzalkonium chloride and lidocaine hydrochloride. Johnson does not teach the specific forms of neomycin and polymyxin that are instantly claimed: neomycin sulfate and polymyxin B sulfate, although it does teach neomycin and polymyxin. Johnson does not clearly teach that the bandage is adhesive and comprises a flexible sheet of material comprising an absorbent pad and an adhesive disposed on a first surface thereof, although it does teach a covering step and a bandage.
Regarding instant claims 1d, 2, 3, 17d, 18d, Johnson does not specifically teach repeating steps a-c for at least two, three, or four additional, consecutive days, though it does teach repeated application.
Regarding instant claim 4, Johnson does not teach the antiseptic formulation is a liquid.
Regarding instant claim 6, Johnson does not teach a step of washing the surrounding skin tissue.
Regarding instant claim 14, Johnson does not teach that the antibiotic formulation is applied to the adhesive bandage prior to covering the wound with the adhesive bandage.
Scamilla teaches a bandage which reads on the instantly claimed adhesive bandage. The bandage comprises: a. an absorbent substrate that reads on the instantly claimed absorbent pad, e. a backing material that reads on the instantly claimed flexible sheet of material; and f. a layer of adhesive on one surface of said backing material that reads on the instantly claimed adhesive disposed on a first surface thereof (claim 1). Scamilla teaches backing materials useful in the bandages of the invention include monolithic films, apertured films. In the case of films, the backing may be composed of any of the polymers known to be useful as backing materials. Such polymers include plasticized PVC (column 10, lines 13-18). As evidenced by Sybridge, Scamilla’s plasticized PVC reads onto the instantly claimed flexible sheet of material because flexible PVC is created by adding plasticizers, such as phthalates, to the rigid form of PVC (Page 2, What is Polyvinyl Chloride?).
Regarding instant claim 14, Scamilla teaches a coating of an ointment-like composition 115 (Figure 6 and column 11, lines 58-59). The ointment reads on the instantly claimed antibiotic formulation because Scamilla teaches that the coating of a composition having an ointment feel contains d. a second active ingredient (claim 1), and said active ingredients are selected from neomycin sulfate, polymyxin-B sulfate, zinc bacitracin, pramoxine (claim 3). Scamilla teaches that the occlusive composition 115 (ointment) is applied to substrate material 110 (Figure 6 and column 12, lines 41-42), which reads on the instantly claimed antibiotic formulation is applied to the adhesive bandage prior to covering the wound with the adhesive bandage.
Horn teaches a topical composition (claim 1) comprising lidocaine hydrochloride (claim 3) and benzalkonium chloride (claim 12, claim 15) that reads on the instantly claimed antiseptic formulation.
Regarding instant claim 4, Horn teaches its compositions may be used in topical liquids [0182], which reads onto the instantly claimed antiseptic formulation being a liquid.
Shinault teaches an ointment for the topical treatment of wounds comprising a mixture of polymyxin, bacitracin, neomycin (claim 1) wherein said polymyxin is in the form of polymyxin B sulfate (claim 2), said bacitracin is in the form of bacitracin zinc (claim 3), and said neomycin is in the form of neomycin sulfate (claim 4).
Regarding instant claim 6, Isaac teaches washing the surrounding skin with soap and water (page 3, Open Wounds step 1b.). Regarding instant claims 1d, 2, 3, 17d, 18d, UPMC teaches you should keep a wound covered for about five days, change the bandage daily, and reapply petroleum jelly with each change of bandage (Page 1, When to stop covering a wound). These steps read on the instantly claimed repeating steps a-c for at least two, three, or four additional, consecutive days when combined with Johnson. About five days falls within the instantly claimed range of at least two (or three or four) days, and reads on the phrase additional and consecutive with routine optimization.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to improve the sterile bandage of Johnson with the features of the adhesive bandage of Scamilla and also to apply the ointment (antibiotic formulation) to the bandage first as taught by Scamilla in order to increase the efficiency of wound healing. Johnson teaches covered wounds heal faster than if left uncovered (page 3). Scamilla teaches the use of an ointment in conjunction with a bandage is effective at promoting wound healing (column 1, lines 49-53). Use of Scamilla's teaching to improve Johnson's bandage is an obvious modification and within the purview of the skilled artisan. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the results predictable because as taught by Scamilla, after treatment with an ointment, wounds are typically covered with an adhesive bandage (column 1, lines 48-49), so similar results would be expected.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to improve the antiseptic formulation of Johnson with the specific compounds lidocaine hydrochloride and benzalkonium chloride, and have the formulation be a topical liquid, both as taught by Horn, in order to prevent infection. Johnson teaches treatment is to help prevent infection (page 3). Horn teaches in a preferred embodiment, the present invention is further directed to methods of reducing infections [0087]. Use of Horn's teachings to improve Johnson's antiseptic formulation is an obvious modification and within the purview of the skilled artisan. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the results predictable.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to take the neomycin and polymyxin B taught by Johnson, and substitute those antibiotics of Johnson with the neomycin sulfate and polymyxin B sulfate as taught by Shinault. Simple substitution of one known antibiotic for another of Shinault in wound care is an obvious modification and within the purview of the skilled artisan.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the step of washing the wound as taught by Johnson with the step of washing the surrounding skin as taught by Isaac for the advantage of preventing infection. Johnson teaches treatment is to help prevent infection (page 3). Isaac teaches wound cleaning substantially reduces the chance of later infection (page 4, Discussion). Use of Isaac's teachings to improve Johnson's method of treating a wound to prevent infection is an obvious modification and within the purview of the skilled artisan. There would be a reasonable expectation of success given both teachings involve wound cleaning.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to perform Johnson’s antiseptic and antibiotic steps, and then repeat application as taught by Johnson for multiple days as taught by UPMC, as well as repeat bandage changes as taught by UPMC, for the advantageof reducing scabs and scarring. Johnson teaches covering wounds helps prevent scabs, which may cause scarring (page 3). UPMC teaches that if you keep the wound covered and moist, you're less likely to end up with a scab. Because scabs can sometimes lead to scars, keeping a wound covered and moist will also reduce your chance of scarring (page 1, Do scabs heal faster when moist or dry?). The use of UPMC's teachings to improve Johnson's repeated applications and method to reduce scabs and scarring are obvious modifications and within the purview of the skilled artisan. There would be a reasonable expectation of success because both teachings are in wound care.
At the time of filing, the person of ordinary skill in the art would know that UPMC's range of days is obvious over the instant claims. Therefore, UPMC obviates that presently claimed. "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists" (See MPEP 2144.05 (I) regarding obviousness of ranges).
At the time of filing, the person of ordinary skill in the art would know that UPMC’s range of days is obvious over the instant claims. It would be obvious to adjust the about five days taught by UPMC to match that of the claimed invention, and also make the days additional and consecutive as instantly claimed, because it would be considered routine optimization. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144).
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson from the Wayback Machine dated 2022 in view of Scamilla (US 6599525 B2), Horn (US 20200061002 A1), Shinault (US 5407670 A), and UPMC 2021, as evidenced by Sybridge 2021, further in view of Dumville 2015.
As applied above, Johnson, Scamilla, Horn, Shinault, and UPMC as evidenced by Sybridge teach the limitations of claim 1.
Horn further teaches its compositions may be used in topical liquids [0182], which reads onto the instantly claimed antiseptic formulation being a liquid.
Johnson, Scamilla, Horn, Shinault, and UPMC as evidenced by Sybridge do not teach that the step of cleansing the wound further comprises applying the liquid antiseptic formulation to a carrier and then cleansing the wound with said antiseptic bearing carrier.
Dumville teaches cleansing the skin at the operation site with an antiseptic and that a dedicated instrument may be used, e.g. a sponge, or X‐ray detectable swab, adapted for the purpose. Further, antiseptic agents are referred to as "antiseptics" and can be applied in the form of liquids. The solution should be applied using friction, and extend from the incision site to the periphery (page 3 (using provided page numbers at bottom right corner), Description of the intervention). The dedicated instrument reads on the instantly claimed carrier, and the incision site reads on the instantly claimed wound.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of treating a wound taught by Johnson, Scamilla, Horn, Shinault, and UPMC as evidenced by Sybridge by adding the carrier step as taught by Dumville in order to prevent infection. Johnson teaches treatment is to help prevent infection (page 3). Dumville teaches preoperative skin antisepsis using antiseptics is performed to reduce the risk of SSIs (surgical site infections) by removing soil and transient organisms from the skin (page 1, Background). Use of Dumville's teachings to improve Johnson's method of treating a wound to prevent infectionis an obvious modification and within the purview of the skilled artisan. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the results predictable.
Conclusion
Claims 1-7, 10, 12-14, 17-18 are rejected.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLY S LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-8235. 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, Bethany P Barham can be reached at 571-272-6175. 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.
/BETHANY P BARHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1611
/ALLY S LIU/Examiner, Art Unit 1611
Prosecution Insights