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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Priority
PNG
media_image1.png
106
926
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1 and 9 have partially obscured text as shown with the Examiner added arrows below:
Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
286
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 9
PNG
media_image3.png
266
390
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is a space between the comma and “thereof”:
PNG
media_image4.png
96
210
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 8 recites “a salts”. That is grammatically awkward and should be “a salt”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a natural phenomenon without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a pharmaceutical composition comprising an adsorbent carbon material (Claim 1). The scope of the carbon material includes “soot” (Claim 2). Wildfire soot is known to be adsorptive (See Abstract in: Jelavic et al. Peer Community Journal, Vol. 2 (2022), article e80: 17 pages: “The large adsorption capacities and strong binding of DNA to soot and charcoal…”). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because soot is naturally produced from the burning of wood, such as from a forest fire, that would produce a plurality of dry soot particles/powder. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because characterizing the soot particle in terms of diameter, pore volume and micropore diameter does not alter the fact that it is still soot. Soot landing in a puddle of water that contains trace amounts of metal ions would read on an aqueous excipient of claim 9 with an element of claim 12. Soot would naturally have oxygen functional groups from the combustion of wood in the presence of oxygen of claim 11. Therefore, the claims as a whole adds nothing significantly more to the product of nature soot itself. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and do not qualify as eligible subject matter.
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites in part: “an antibacterial medicine, an antiviral medicine, a benzene-ring medicine, an anticoagulant medicine, a thrombolytic medicine...” The function of the medicine is provided by the preceding term. Thus, “an antibacterial medicine” is a medicine with antibacterial function. However, a benzene-ring is not a function but a structure. A medicine does not have a benzene-ring function. Benzene itself is a carcinogen and not considered a medicine. Consequently, the term “a benzene-ring medicine” is confusing to the Examiner. The specification does not clarify the issue and only mentions “benzene-ring” once [0032] with no further clarification or species provided. The Examiner suggests deleting the term.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1)(a) as being anticipated by Ko et al. (US9999598).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Ko et al. disclose a pharmaceutical composition comprising adsorbent activated carbon fiber powder carrying silver and copper particles with a BET surface area of 980 m2/g (Example 2, column 4, lines 35-58; claim 1). (See MPEP 2131.03: A specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range.) The limitations of “for improving respiratory damage” and “improving respiratory system damage” have been considered but have not been given patentable weight. There is no terminology in these limitations that would limit the structure of the claimed invention and they merely state the intended use of the composition. An intended use will not limit the scope of the claim because it merely defines a context in which the invention operates. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Consequently, the prior art composition which recites the same components as instantly claimed can also be used for improving respiratory damage.
Regarding claim 3, Ko et al. disclose other carbonaceous materials including an activated carbon powder, a charcoal material, a bamboo charcoal granule, a carbon black, a graphite powder, an expanded 15 graphite powder, a graphene, a nano carbon powder (Claim 3).
Regarding claim 7, Ko et al. disclose thermal drying of the powder (Example 2, column 4, line 47-48).
Regarding claim 9, Ko et al. disclose adding an additive (Claim 9), which reads on adding an excipient.
Regarding claim 10, Ko et al. disclose antibacterial silver particles (Example 2, column 4, lines 35-58; Claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, Ko et al. disclose the presence of acidic or basic groups on the carbonaceous material (Claim 1) and the activated carbon fiber would inherently have the same groups as claimed, due to the manufacturing process, whether Ko et al. recognized it or not.
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.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skogvall (WO2009067067) and Foxwell et al. (US20090297499) and Ko et al. (US9999598) as evidenced by PubChem Activated Charcoal ([online] retrieved on 2/4/26 from: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Activated-Charcoal; 3 pages).
Applicant claims:
PNG
media_image5.png
234
1106
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
(MPEP 2141.03)
MPEP 2141.03 (I) states: “The “hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art’ to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art.” Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988). The level of skill is that of a pharmaceutical research scientist, as is the case here, then one can assume comfortably that such an educated artisan will draw conventional ideas from pharmaceutical formulation methods and techniques— without being told to do so.
In addition, the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level (MPEP 2141.03(II)).
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Regarding claims 1, 3 and 9-10, Skogvall teach administration of a pharmaceutical composition of 1-10% w/w elemental iodine on activated charcoal, a carbon material, to a human or animal for producing bronchorelaxation (Claims 1, 9-10 and 33; Example 1-3) where the human or animal has COPD or asthma (Claims 2, 28 and 34-35) in the form of a tablet with disintegrant excipient (Claim 5). Skogvall teach that activated charcoal has a very large surface area; 1 gram has a surface area of 300-2000 m2 (Page 3, lines 32-34), which overlaps the claimed range of from 300 to 3000 m2/g. Activated charcoal is reasonably interpreted to be synonymous with activated carbon and is administered from 0.10 g to 100 g daily or from 1.5 mg/kg to 1400 mg/kg (Page 5, lines 26-31; claims 18-23). Administration of the pharmaceutical composition of Skogvall naturally improves respiratory system damage from the COPD or asthma. Iodine is an antiseptic and thus at least an antibacterial medicine of instant claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, activated charcoal inherently has hydroxyl, carbonyl and carboxylic functional groups as inherent features from the production process (See PubChem, page 3, 4.1.10).
Regarding claim 12, Skogvall teach adding a bromide salt (a source of halogen ions) as well as calcium bromide, lithium bromide, ammonium bromide and magnesium bromide (a source of metal magnesium ions) (Claims 24-25, 30-32 and 36-38; Example 5) and read on “cation compounds” as defined by Applicant (Specification [0033]: “cation compounds (such as compounds containing calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, like calcium carbonate or calcium phosphate)”).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-8 and 12, Ko et al. teach the functional equivalents of activated carbon fiber, an activated carbon powder, a charcoal material, a bamboo charcoal granule, a carbon black, a graphite powder, an expanded graphite powder, a graphene, a nano carbon powder (Claim 3) with a BET surface area of the carbonaceous material is of 10-2500 m2/g (Claim 5) and particle size of 1 nm to 500 microns (Claim 6). Ko et al. teach adding metals (Claim 1) and is in the form of capsules, tablets, powders, suspensions or emulsions (Column 2, lines 44-61).
Regarding claims 1-10, Foxwell et al. teach that charcoal is useful for treating inflammatory conditions such as COPD and SARS [0016], which are conditions associated with respiratory damage. Foxwell et al. teach: “Activated charcoal typically has particle sizes of 0.05 to 2 mm, a specific surface area of 500 to 2000 m2/g and a specific pore volume of 0.2 to 2.0 ml/g determined in the range of a pore radius of not more than 80 A.” [0019] Foxwell et al. teach pharmaceutical dosage forms such as capsules, tablets, powders, solutions and aqueous suspensions [0033] with buffers [0035]. Foxwell et al. teach activated charcoal in combination with other pharmaceutically active agents such as microbiocidal agents (Claims 7-12 and [0025-0027]). Foxwell et al. teach formulation with buffers, salts, antioxidants and anti-inflammatory agents [0035] and administration of the activated charcoal in saline (Examples 2-3, [0067, 0071]).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02) and Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
The difference between the instant application and Skogvall is that Skogvall do not expressly teach in one embodiment a pharmaceutical composition wherein said carbon material has a specific surface area (BET) ranging from 300 to 3000 m2/g, a mean particle diameter from 0.1 to 500 microns, a volume in pores ranging from 0.1 to 3.0 ml/g, a micropore diameter ranging from 1-500 nm and formulated as an aqueous suspension at a concentration from 0.001-1wt% in normal saline, buffers or isotonic saline solution or dry powder with all the carbon materials of instant claim 3. This deficiency in Skogvall is cured by the teachings of Ko et al. and Foxwell et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the activated charcoal of Skogvall with a specific surface area (BET) ranging from 300 to 3000 m2/g, a mean particle diameter from 0.1 to 500 microns, a volume in pores ranging from 0.1 to 3.0 ml/g, a micropore diameter ranging from 1-500 nm and formulated as an aqueous suspension at a concentration from 0.001-1wt% in normal saline, buffers or isotonic saline solution or dry powder with all the carbon materials of instant claim 3, as suggested by Ko et al. and Foxwell et al., and produce the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because for the following sound articulated reasoning with rational underpinning based upon the evidence. First of all, the specific surface area taught by Skogvall overlaps the claimed range to render it obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I): In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Secondly, it is understood that the activated charcoal of Skogvall has some physical particle size, porosity and micropore diameter measurements to provide the BET value. However, while Skogvall is silent on a mean particle diameter from 0.1 to 500 microns, a volume in pores ranging from 0.1 to 3.0 ml/g and a micropore diameter ranging from 1-500 nm, the secondary references of Ko et al. and Foxwell et al. provide guidance for the artisan to select values within the claimed ranges with a reasonable expectation of success. Thirdly, while Skogvall do not expressly teach as an aqueous suspension or dry powder with all the carbon materials of instant claim 3, the secondary references render obvious tablet, powder and aqueous suspension formulations and the functional equivalence of the claimed species of carbon materials. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Moreover, “Where two known alternatives are interchangeable for a desired function, an express suggestion to substitute one for the other is not needed to render a substitution obvious." In re Fout 675 F.2d 297, 301 (CCPA 1982). Consequently, the ordinary artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success of formulating the composition of Skogvall as a dry powder or 0.001-1% aqueous suspension with any of the claimed carbon materials claimed. Especially given that Skogvall already suggest administration of different concentrations of the activated charcoal and it would require no undue experimentation to formulate a 0.001-1% aqueous suspension in view of the combined references. Pharmaceutical dose has been recognized as a result-effective parameter susceptible to routine optimization. See, e.g., Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 809 (Fed. Cir. 1989). In fact, Skogvall teach obtaining iodinated activated charcoal from Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., which was mixed with other excipients prior to form a tablet. (Page 8, Example 3). Prior to compression, it would appear that Skogvall had a dry powder of iodinated activated charcoal in hand. The selection of an aqueous carrier of normal saline, buffers or isotonic saline solution are obvious conventional choices to the pharmaceutical artisan in this art to make the suspension as the artisan would desire a biocompatible carrier. As noted above, Foxwell et al. teach formulation with buffers and administration of the activated charcoal in saline (Examples 2-3, [0067, 0071]). Accordingly, the combined teachings of the references would have suggested the claimed limitations to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skogvall (WO2009067067) and Foxwell et al. (US20090297499) and Ko et al. (US9999598) as evidenced by PubChem Activated Charcoal ([online] retrieved on 2/4/26 from: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Activated-Charcoal; 3 pages), as applied to claims 1-12 above, and further in view of Boucher et al. (US20140109899).
Applicant claims:
PNG
media_image6.png
416
1108
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The references of Skogvall, Foxwell et al. and Ko et al. are discussed in detail above.
Boucher et al. teach treatment of asthma and COPD [0274, 0282-0283, 0286, 0309] with, for example, 5-alpha reductase inhibitors, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, bronchodilators, alternative medicines, antiasthmatic, anticoagulants, antifungals, antiseptics, anti-infectives, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, decongestants, mucolytics, thrombolytics, expectorants, therapeutic vaccines, TNF alpha inhibitors, antibodies and vitamins [0307]. Boucher et al. also teach using metallic cations such as lithium, zinc, iron (magnetic), calcium and magnesium [0213]. Boucher et al. teach administration using a gas source (propellant) (Claims 24, 35-36).
The difference between the instant application and Skogvall, as modified by Foxwell et al. and Ko et al., is that Skogvall, as modified by Foxwell et al. and Ko et al., do not expressly teach adding all the medicines of claim 10 or the elements of claim 12 to the pharmaceutical formulation or the use of a propellant. This deficiency in Skogvall, as modified by Foxwell et al. and Ko et al., is cured by the teachings of Boucher et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the medicines of claim 10 and the elements of claim 12 and a propellant to the pharmaceutical composition of Skogvall, as modified by Foxwell et al. and Ko et al., as suggested by Boucher et al., and produce the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because Skogvall teach and suggest treating COPD and asthma and the ordinary artisan would co-administer known medicaments that a known to treat COPD and asthma, such as those suggested by Boucher et al., with a reasonable expectation of success. The Examiner notes that Boucher et al. teach alternative medicines which would appear to render obvious Chinese medicinal extracts as an alternative medicine to the ordinary artisan in this art. See MPEP 2144.06(I) COMBINING EQUIVALENTS KNOWN FOR THE SAME PURPOSE “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition which is to be used for the very same purpose.” With regard to the propellant limitation, Bouchard et al. teach and suggest a delivery apparatus with a gas source (propellant) to delivery the medicament. It would then be obvious to formulate the pharmaceutical composition of Skogvall, as modified by Foxwell et al. and Ko et al., with a propellant for administration to the subject, as suggested by Bouchard et al., with a reasonable expectation of success.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103.
From the combined 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 was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the combined references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
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 1 and 3-12 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 32, 41-32 of copending Application No. 17335124. The copending has the same inventor in common. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending is also directed to:
PNG
media_image7.png
544
782
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
366
782
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The scope of adjuvant includes metals [0027] and the scope of excipient in the copending includes salts such as sodium chloride and calcium carbonate that can provide cations and anions [0028]. MPEP 804: “The portion of the specification of the reference that describes subject matter that falls within the scope of a reference claim may be relied upon to properly construe the scope of that claim.”
The same material taught in the copending will also have oxygen functional groups.
Accordingly, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the obvious variation of the instantly claimed subject mater over the copending subject matter.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5-6, 9, 11 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 9999598. The patent has a common inventor. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the method of the patent uses a carbonaceous material is an activated carbon fiber, an activated carbon powder, a charcoal material, a bamboo charcoal granule, a carbon black, a graphite powder, an expanded graphite powder, a graphene, a nano carbon powder, or a carbon powder with metal particles (Claims 1 and 3) with a BET of 10-2500 m2/g (Claim 5), a particle size of 1 nm to 500 microns (Claims 6 and 12), a pore radius of more than 0 but less than 2.5 nm (Claim 11) and further comprises an additive (Claim 9). Because the patent renders obvious the pharmaceutical composition, then the intended use for improving respiratory damage is implicit in the composition. While the patent does not expressly teach that the carbon material has a mean particle diameter of 0.1 to 500 microns, it does teach a size of 0.1 to 500 microns which would include a mean particle diameter as claimed. While the patent does not expressly teach the pore volume claimed, it would appear to be an inherent property of the claimed carbon materials. Especially given that the pore diameter is within the claimed range of from 1-500 nm. Formulation as a dry powder appears to be an obvious variation of the copending application.
The same material taught in the copending will also have oxygen functional groups.
Accordingly, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the obvious variation of the instantly claimed subject matter over the copending subject matter.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
There is a vast body of art on adsorbent carbonaceous materials. The Examiner has carefully compared the references with one another and with the applicant’s disclosure to avoid an unnecessary number of rejections over similar references. The examiner is not called upon to cite all references that may be available, but only the "best." (See 37 CFR 1.104(c).) Multiplying references, any one of which is as good as, but no better than, the others, adds to the burden and cost of prosecution and should therefore be avoided. See MPEP 904.03.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Von Blucher (US5275154) teaches an activated charcoal composition with a particle diameter of 0.1 to 1 mm (Abstract; claim 1) impregnated with silver, copper or chromium (Claims 15-16) and an enzyme (Claim 17) and has an internal surface area of 600-2000 m2g (Column 5, lines 18-20). The hood/gas mask (Claims 19-20) implicitly improves respiratory system damage by adsorbing toxic gases (Column 1, lines 12-20).
Ke et al. (GB2486713) teach pharmaceutical compositions of a carbon material and a water-containing carrier (Abstract; claim 1) where the carbon material can be various carbons such as active carbon (Claim 14) and has a BET of 200-2000 m2/g (Claims 12-13 and 17) and further comprise metals (Claim 5) and antibiotics (Claims 10-11, 19-20).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERNST V ARNOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-8509. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-3:30.
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, Brian Y Kwon can be reached at 571-272-0581. 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.
/ERNST V ARNOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613