The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-15 are presented for examination Acknowledgment is made of the present application as a National Stage (371) entry of PCT /EP2022/056448 filed March 14, 2022 , which claims benefit of foreign application FR 2102533 filed March 15, 2021. Applicant’s Information Disclosure statement (IDS) filed September 12, 2023 has been received and entered into the present application. As reflected by the attached, completed copy form PTO-1449, the Examiner has considered the cited references. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim 3 -4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, claim 3 recites “derivatives” of xanthan; glucomannans and galactomannans. The MPEP §2163 states that the purpose of the written description requirement is to ensure that the inventor had possession, as of the filing date of the application, of the specific subject matter later claimed by him. In the case of chemical entities, Applicant's attention is further directed to Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568, 43 USPQ2d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1089, 118 S. Ct. 1548 (1998), which holds that an adequate written description requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties, "not a mere wish or plan for obtaining the claimed chemical invention." Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1566. Furthermore, for a broad generic claim, the specification must provide adequate written description to identify the genus of the claim. Although the genus can be adequately described if the disclosure presents a sufficient number of representative species that encompass the genus, if the genus has a substantial variance, the disclosure must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within that genus. See MPEP § 2163. While the MPEP does not define what constitutes a sufficient number of representative species, the courts have indicated what does not constitute a representative number of species to adequately describe a broad generic. For example, in In re Gostelli , the courts determined that the disclosure of two chemical compounds within a subgenus did not describe that subgenus. In re Gostelli , 872, F.2d at 1012, 10 USPQ2d at 1618. The Federal Circuit has adopted the standard set forth in the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications under the 35 U.S.C. 112.I "Written Description" Requirement ("Guidelines"), 66 Fed. Reg. 1099 (Jan. 5, 2001), which state that the written description requirement can be met by "showing that an invention is complete by disclosure of sufficiently detailed, relevant identifying characteristics," including, inter alia, "level of skill and knowledge in the art, partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics alone or coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between structure and function, and the method of making the claimed invention" Enzo Biochem , Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 296 F.3d 316, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Guidelines, 66 Fed. Reg. at 1106). Disclosure of any combination of such identifying characteristics that distinguish the claimed invention from other materials and would lead one of skill in the art to the conclusion that the applicant was in possession of the claimed species is sufficient. MPEP §2163. However, if a biomolecule is described only by a functional characteristic, without any disclosed correlation between function and structure of the sequence, it is “not sufficient characteristic for written description purposes, even when accompanied by a method of obtaining the claimed sequence.” MPEP §2163. The instant claims are ‘a derivative thereof” of xanthan, glucomannan and galactomannan. Level of skill and knowledge in the art: The level of skill in the art is high. Physical and/or chemical properties/Functional characteristics: The claimed composition is useful for the treatment of periodontal diseases. With regard to derivatives, Applicant has not set forth compounds or in the specification which Applicant considers derivatives of xanthan, glucomannan or galactomannan. Although the art recognizes the above definitions the terms are not explicitly defined by the specification in such a way as to demonstrate that the inventor had possession of the claimed ‘derivatives' of these compounds. Predictability of the Art: It is generally accepted in the art that formation of a particular ‘derivatives' for xanthan, glucomannan or galactomannan is unpredictable. As stated by Dorwald (Side Reactions in Organic Synthesis: A Guide to Successful Synthesis Design, Weinheim: WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA , 2005, Preface): “Most non-chemists would probably be horrified if they were to learn how many attempted syntheses fail, and how inefficient research chemists are. The ratio of successful to unsuccessful chemical experiments in a normal research laboratory is far below unity, and synthetic research chemists, in the same way as most scientists, spend most of their time working out what went wrong, and why. Despite the many pitfalls lurking in organic synthesis, most organic chemistry textbooks and research articles do give the impression that organic reactions just proceed smoothly and that the total synthesis of complex natural products, for instance, is maybe a labor-intensive but otherwise undemanding task. In fact, most syntheses of structurally complex natural products are the result of several years of hard work by a team of chemists, with almost every step requiring careful optimization. The final synthesis usually looks quite different from that originally planned, because of unexpected difficulties encountered in the initially chosen synthetic sequence. Only the seasoned practitioner who has experienced for himself the many failures and frustrations which the development (sometimes even the repetition) of a synthesis usually implies will be able to appraise such work. Chemists tend not to publish negative results, because these are, as opposed to positive results, never definite (and far too copious). Summary: In the instant case, Applicant has not disclosed the structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties of the numerous potential ‘derivatives' of xanthan, glucomannan or galactomannan. Although some functional characteristics are disclosed or would be known to a person of ordinary skill in the art, in the absence of a disclosed structure, there can be no correlation between the function and structure of the se claimed ‘derivatives' in the instant application. The description requirement of the patent statue requires a description of an invention, not an indication of a result that one might achieve if one made that invention. See In re Wilder, 736, F.2d 1516, 1521, 222 USPQ 369, 372-73 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (affirming rejection because the specification does “little more than outlin [e] goals appellants hope the claimed invention achieves and the problems the invention will hopefully ameliorate.”) Accordingly, it is deemed that the specification fails to provide adequate written description for the genus of the claims and does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the entire scope of limitations recited in claims 3-4. 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. 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. Claim (s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zal et al. (WO 2009/00753 2, cited in IDS; English translation attached) in view of Barritault (EP 3685822; reference cited in IDS; English translation attached) and Dagger et al. (WO 2020/10440; cited in IDS). Zal et al. teach a composition comprising Arenicola marina hemoglobin in a sodium alginate (polymer) solution at a concentration of 6 mg/ml (paragraph [0169]). This composition undergoes polymerization and a syringe is used for this application (paragraphs [0175] and [0176]). The composition is used for the treatment of ischemic wounds and or local infections caused by pathogens, particularly anaerobes, as well as the treatment of periodontal diseases (paragraphs [0031] and [0043]). The total dry weight of hemoglobin in the composition ranges from 0.1% (w/w) to about 60% (w/w) (paragraph [0097]). The total ratio of alginate to total weight of hemoglobin and matrix is from 40% (w/w) to about 99% (w/w) (paragraph [0064]). Zal et al. are silent on the presence of (1) a hydrophilic thickening polymer comprising at least one mannose unit and (2) hyaluronic acid. Barritault teaches the treatment of periodontal diseases with administration of a composition which compris es xanthan and sodium hyaluronate, a salt of hyaluronic acid ( Example 14 and Table 5 of translation) . The molecular weight of hyaluronic acid may range from 5000 to 3million daltons (paragraph [0097]). T he composition may comprise a concentration of 0.1 to 5% by weight of hyaluronic acid relative to the total weight of the composition (paragraph [0098]). Dagger et al. teach a composition comprising a gelling agent such as hyaluronic acid and a protein that is haemoglobin that is derived from Arenicola marina ( claim 11; paragraphs 40, 50 and 52) One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious before the effective filing date to formulate a composition comprising a Arenicola marina hemoglobin, hyaluronic acid or a salt thereof and a hydrophilic thickening polymer comprising at least one mannose unit. One would have been motivated to do so because each of the component s recited in claim 1 are known to be effective in a composition used for the treatment of periodont al diseases , per Zal et al. in view of Barritault . Further, a composition comprising hyaluronic acid and haemoglobin are known to be effective and stable in composition, per Dagger et al. As such, one would have a reasonable expectation of success that a composition comprising ( i ) at least one molecule chosen from an Annelid, globin, an Annelid globin protomer and an Annelid extracellular hemoglobin; at least one hydrophilic thickening polymer chosen from polymers of natural origin, comprising at least one mannose unit; and hyaluronic acid or a salt thereof would be effective for the treatment of periodontal diseases. Regarding claim 5, is a product-by-process claim because the process of obtaining hyaluronic acid by bacterial fermentation, does not further limit the structure of the hyaluronic acid itself . In a product-by-process claim the process is not a limitation that is examined. See In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972) (see also MPEP 2113). Regarding the amounts of each component recited in claims 5 and 7-12, optimization of ranges and parameters is a routine practice that would be prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to employe and reasonably would expect success. It would have been customary for an artisan of ordinary skill to determine the optimal amount of each component in order to achieve the best desired result. “In cases involving overlapping ranges, we and our predecessor court have consistently held that even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness… the existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to the applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious.” In re Peterson , 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003). CONCLUSION No claim has been found to be allowable. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANNA PAGONAKIS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3505 . The examiner can normally be reached 8AM – 4PM Monday – Friday. 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, Karin Ferriter can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-4509 . 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. /ANNA PAGONAKIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 6221