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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-7 and 11, in the reply filed on 2/6/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 13 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/6/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/17/23 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO2016/040529 (“Vachon”).
The instant claims are drawn to a composition having antimicrobial activity, said composition being a polymeric salt of anionic polystyrene sulfonate and a cationic component which is selected from the group recited in the claims, as further specified in the claims.
Regarding claim 1, Vachon teaches polymeric compositions with antimicrobial and antiviral activity wherein the compositions comprise (anionic) polystyrene sulfonate and a counter (cationic component) ion such as silver, copper, or benzalkonium (see [00041], [00049], and [00066]). Vachon’s polymers may be incorporated in resins and paint coatings and can be applied to medical devices or air ductwork for instance.
Regarding claim 2, in view of the description at paragraph [0030] in the specification as filed which states that the polymeric salt of anionic polystyrene sulfonate (PSS) and positively charged “micellar derivatives” which contain for example benzalkonium cations and a silver complex which are electrostatically bonded to the sulfonate anions of the PSS matrix, Vachon teaches the claimed structure at least by its teaching of polystyrene sulfonate salts of silver, copper, or benzalkonium (PSS-BA) (page 110, line 25 for instance)(see also illustrations on page 27). As to claim 3, Vachon specifies in exemplary embodiments the association may be electrostatically surface-associated for instance (see [00009]).
As to claims 5-7, since a product and its properties are inseparable and since Vachon teaches the product claimed as outlined above, Vachon is considered to also teach the function further recited in claims 5-7, absent evidence to the contrary.
Accordingly, Vachon anticipates each and every limitation of claims 1-3 and 5-7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2016/040529 (“Vachon”) in view of WO2019/135136A1 (Bignozzi et al., “Bignozzi”) and “Zhu” (“Structure and Activity of the Camellia oleifera Sapogenin Derivatives on Growth and Biofilm Inhibition of Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli”, J. Agric. Food. Chem. 2019, 67, 14143-14151).
The instant claims are drawn to a composition having antimicrobial activity, said composition being a polymeric salt of anionic polystyrene sulfonate and a cationic component which is selected from the group recited in the claims, as further specified in the claims.
Regarding claim 1, Vachon teaches polymeric compositions with antimicrobial and antiviral activity wherein the compositions comprise (anionic) polystyrene sulfonate and a counter (cationic component) ion such as silver, copper, or benzalkonium (see [00041], [00049], and [00066]). Vachon’s polymers may be incorporated in resins and paint coatings and can be applied to medical devices or air ductwork for instance. Regarding claim 2, in view of the description at paragraph [0030] in the specification as filed which states that the polymeric salt of anionic polystyrene sulfonate (PSS) and positively charged “micellar derivatives” which contain for example benzalkonium cations and a silver complex which are electrostatically bonded to the sulfonate anions of the PSS matrix, Vachon teaches the claimed structure at least by its teaching of polystyrene sulfonate salts of silver, copper, or benzalkonium (PSS-BA) (page 110, line 25 for instance)(see also illustrations on page 27). As to claim 3, Vachon specifies in exemplary embodiments the association may be electrostatically surface-associated for instance (see [00009]). As to claims 5-7, since a product and its properties are inseparable and since Vachon teaches the product claimed as outlined above, Vachon is considered to also teach the function further recited in claims 5-7, absent evidence to the contrary.
As to claims 1-3 and 5-7 as addressed above, it is established that when a reference anticipates an invention, it necessarily renders such invention obvious as well. Anticipation is the “epitome of Obviousness”, In re Kalm, 378 F.2d 959, 962 (CCPA 1967).
As to claim 4, Vachon does not specify the silver complex instantly recited
Bignozzi and Zhu cures this deficiency.
Bignozzi teaches coordination complexes having antimicrobial activity wherein the coordination complexes constitute bi-coordinated silver (I) complex having a general formula Na+2[Ag+(L2-)(M2-)],wherein L is a ligand consisting of 2-mercaptobenzoic acid and M is a different ligand. While Bignozzi teaches the bicoordinated silver complex and the 2-mercaptobenzoic acid functionality, Bignozzi does not specify the particular MPA2- anion component further detailed in claim 4. Zhu cures this deficiency.
Zhu teaches antimicrobial activity of a plant derived compound, specifically a derivative of sapogenin which is 2-mercapto-4-methyl-5-thiazolyl acetyl group ligand. Zhu teaches this compound to destroy bacterial biofilm (see abstract, in particular).
Accordingly, both Bignozzi and Zhu are directed to 2-mercapto- containing silver complexes and while both pertain to antimicrobial compositions, it would have been prima facie obvious to substitute Zhu’s 2-mercapto-4-methyl-5-thiazolyl acetyl group ligand specifically for Bignozzi’s silver complex bicoordinated ligand component within Vachon’s functionalized ion-exchange polymer material, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so to achieve antimicrobial efficacy from a plant derived ligand as taught by Zhu in place of the structurally similar and more broadly defined bi-coordinated silver (I) complex of Bignozzi One reasonably would have expected success from doing so because to do so would have constituted a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results based on the close structural similarity between Bignozzi and Zhu’s bicoordinated anionic ligands in complex with silver cation.
See also that Vachon teaches the ion-exchange polymer salts to be constructed by ionic modification of the polymer salt to carry an ionic biologically active agent for example ionic silver substituted for a like-charged counter-ion in composite materials (see [00018] –[00021]; see also [000259]).
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2016/040529 (“Vachon”) in view of US8409608 (“Kim”).
The instant claims are drawn to a composition having antimicrobial activity, said composition being a polymeric salt of anionic polystyrene sulfonate and a cationic component which is selected from the group recited in the claims, as further specified in the claims.
Regarding claim 1, Vachon teaches polymeric compositions with antimicrobial and antiviral activity wherein the compositions comprise (anionic) polystyrene sulfonate and a counter (cationic component) ion such as silver, copper, or benzalkonium (see [00041], [00049], and [00066]). Vachon’s polymers may be incorporated in resins and paint coatings and can be applied to medical devices or air ductwork for instance (see [0009]); they may be used in wound healing for instance (see [000104]). Regarding claim 2, in view of the description at paragraph [0030] in the specification as filed which states that the polymeric salt of anionic polystyrene sulfonate (PSS) and positively charged “micellar derivatives” which contain for example benzalkonium cations and a silver complex which are electrostatically bonded to the sulfonate anions of the PSS matrix, Vachon teaches the claimed structure at least by its teaching of polystyrene sulfonate salts of silver, copper, or benzalkonium (PSS-BA) (page 110, line 25 for instance)(see also illustrations on page 27). As to claim 3, Vachon specifies in exemplary embodiments the association may be electrostatically surface-associated for instance (see [00009]). As to claims 5-7, since a product and its properties are inseparable and since Vachon teaches the product claimed as outlined above, Vachon is considered to also teach the function further recited in claims 5-7, absent evidence to the contrary.
As to claims 1-3 and 5-7 as addressed above, it is established that when a reference anticipates an invention, it necessarily renders such invention obvious as well. Anticipation is the “epitome of Obviousness”, In re Kalm, 378 F.2d 959, 962 (CCPA 1967).
As to claim 11, Vachon does not specify an alcoholic solution comprising the components addressed above in regard to claim 1.
Kim cures this deficiency. Kim teaches the state of the art with regard to antimicrobial wound dressings comprising silver complexes in aqueous solution (see abstract, in particular; see also column 5, lines 10-25). Kim teaches ethanol or isopropyl alcohol may be employed as organic solvents with ethanol particularly preferred because it leaves no residue and is harmless to humans (see column 5, lines 58-61).
Vachon and Kim both pertain to silver complexes in antimicrobial compositions. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate ethanol solvent taught by Kim as preferred in silver-complex containing compositions, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so to provide no undesired residue or harm to human users of topical formulations while achieving workable carrier functionality upon including an organic solvent. See also Kim claim 3.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREA B CONIGLIO whose telephone number is (571)270-1336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m..
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, Michael Hartley can be reached at 5712720616. 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.
/AUDREA B CONIGLIO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617