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 .
Status of Application
The Preliminary Amendment filed on 04/30/24 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-15 were amended.
New claims 16-20 were added.
Claims 1-20 are pending and included in the prosecution.
Priority
This Application is a 371 of PCT/CZ2022/050120 filed on 11/14/22. This Application also claims foreign priority to ep 212086409 filed on 11/16/21. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 04/30/24 and 05/23/24 are acknowledged. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the examiner is considering the information disclosure statements. Please see the attached copies of PTO-1449.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following reasons:
The disclosure contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Please see Page 21, line 6 of the instant specification. 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.
The disclosure contains the following informalities: On Page 3, line 25 and Page 5, line 31, the term, “quartemised” should be corrected to recite “quaternized.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 7, the term “quartemised” should be corrected to recite “quaternized.”
In claim 1, line 17, the period following “poly(s-caprolactone)” should be deleted.
In claim 1, lines 17, 19, and 24; claim 2, lines 3, 12, and 16; claim 5, lines 3, 7, and 12; and claim 6, lines 3 and 4, the term “polyethylene oxide)” should be corrected to recite either “poly(ethylene oxide)” or “polyethylene oxide” since the current recitation only has the right parenthesis.
In claim 1, lines 18 and 22; claim 2, lines 12 and 15; claim 5, lines 6, 11, and 15; and claim 6, line 3, the term “hexamethylenediisocyanate” should be corrected to recite “hexamethylene diisocyanate.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 10, and 12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, lines 5 and 7, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 10 recites the limitation "… wherein the singlet-oxygen-producing photosensitizer is selected from …" in line 2 (emphasis added). Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1 but claim 1 does not recite any singlet-oxygen-producing photosensitizer. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is recommended that claim 10 depend from claim 3.
Claim 12 recites the phrase “several single-oxygen-producing photosensitizers” in line 3 and the phrase “several NO radical photodonors” in line 8 (emphasis added). The term "several" in is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "several" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Notice for all US Patent Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013
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 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.
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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, 14-15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergerova et al. (CZ 2012-714 A3 – English Espacenet translation – “Bergerova”) in view of Santerre et al. (US 2017/0232142 A1 – “Santerre”).
The claimed invention is an antimicrobial photoactive nanofibrous polymer material which comprises polymer nanofibers comprising hydrophobic domains and hydrophilic domains, and at least one photoactive molecule encapsulated in the hydrophobic domains of the polymer nanofibers, said photoactive molecule being capable of releasing or generating antimicrobial active substance after irradiation by visible light.
Bergerova teaches a photoactive nanofibrous structure with antimicrobial properties (Abstract). The nanostructure comprises nanofibers of at least one type of polyurethane modified by at least one photosensitive compound, the molecules of which are linked with chains of polyurethane by a covalent bond (Abstract, [0011], [0018]). The molecules of the photosensitive compound comprise functional groups that are capable of reacting with the isocyanate groups (Abstract, [0018]). The antimicrobial nanostructure may contain at least two layers of nanofibers, each of which contains a different type of photosensitive compounds, and at least one layer of nanofibers is formed by a mixture of fibers of at least two different polyurethanes, each of which is modified with a different photosensitive compound ([0014]-[0016]). The antimicrobial nanostructure can advantageously exhibit antimicrobial activity under monochromatic light from an LED with a wavelength in the range of 650 to 690 nm, under illumination with visible light or even without access to light (dark cytotoxicity) ([0013]). The photosensitive compound includes phthalocyanines and derivatives thereof including Al and Zn phthalocyanines ([0011]). “A process for preparing the photoactive nanofibrous structure is characterized by preparation of modified polyurethane, whereby in the polyadduct synthesis process covalent bonds are formed by reaction of the isocyanate groups at the ends of the polyurethane chains with acid hydrogen of the functional groups, particularly amino-, hydroxy- or carboxy- groups of the photosensitive compound molecules. These covalent bonds ease the linkage of the molecules of the corresponding photosensitive compound with the polyurethane chains. Subsequently so prepared modified polyurethane is spun from solution in the electrospinning process under the formation of a layer of antimicrobial nanostructure” (Abstract). Example 1 discloses the preparation of an antimicrobial nanostructure prepared by an electrospinning process from phthalocyanine-modified polyurethane, tightly bound to the polyurethane chains by a covalent bond ([0037]-[0048]).
Bergerova does not expressly teach the polyurethane having monomeric units derived from hexamethylene diisocyanate, 1,4-butanediol and poly(ethylene oxide) as recited in instant claim 1.
Santerre teaches polyurethanes (Abstract) that are processed into many different forms including fibers ([0114]) and scaffolds prepared by nanofiber self-assembly ([0119]-[0120]) by electrospinning ([0126]). Polar non-ionic macromonomer polyurethanes are created in a nucleophilic addition reaction between an isocyanate and molecules containing hydroxyl (a polyol) or amino functional groups to create a urethane linkage, and a variety of isocyanates and polyols, each possessing unique functionalities and properties, can be used in the synthesis of polyurethanes ([0107]). The isocyanate compound may be hexamethylene diisocyanate ([0019]). The polyol includes 4-butanediol (or 1,4-butanediol) and polyethylene oxide (PEO) ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare a photoactive nanofibrous structure with antimicrobial properties which comprises electrospinning a polyurethane modified by a photosensitive compound, wherein the photosensitive compound includes Al and Zn phthalocyanines, as taught by Bergerova, in view of the nanofibers prepared by electrospinning which include polyurethanes which are created in a nucleophilic addition reaction between an isocyanate and molecules containing hydroxyl (a polyol), wherein the isocyanate compound is hexamethylene diisocyanate and the polyol is 4-butanediol (or 1,4-butanediol) and PEO, as taught by Santerre, and produce the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. Please see MPEP 2141(III) (B). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the polyurethane with hexamethylene diisocyanate, 1,4-butanediol, and PEO taught by Santerre in place of the polyurethane taught by Bergerova because Santerre teaches that the polyurethane based biomaterials have the advantage of better raw material availability as compared to natural materials ([0128]). Moreover, both references teach polyurethanes reacted with isocyanate groups as well as anti-microbial functions (Bergerova – Abstract and Santerre – [0132]). Santerre also teaches the advantage of biocompatibility ([0001] and claim 1).
From the 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 would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding instant claim 1, the limitation of an antimicrobial photoactive nanofibrous polymer material would have been obvious over the photoactive nanofibrous structure with antimicrobial properties (Abstract), as taught by Bergerova.
Regarding instant claims 1-2 and 5-6, the limitations of polymer nanofibers would have been obvious over the polyurethane (Abstract, [0011], [0018]) and the isocyanate groups (Abstract, [0018]), as taught by Bergerova in view of the polyurethanes created in a nucleophilic addition reaction between an isocyanate and a polyol ([0107]), wherein the isocyanate is hexamethylene diisocyanate ([0019]) and the polyol includes 4-butanediol (or 1,4-butanediol) and PEO ([0020]), as taught by Santerre. The limitation of the ratio between the PEO domain and the rest of the polymer chain (w/w) of 3 to 8 would have been an obvious variant over the polyurethanes created in a nucleophilic addition reaction between an isocyanate and a polyol ([0107]), wherein the isocyanate is hexamethylene diisocyanate ([0019]) and the polyol includes 4-butanediol (or 1,4-butanediol) and PEO ([0020]), as taught by Santerre, unless there is evidence of criticality or unexpected results.
Regarding instant claims 1, 3, and 12, the limitations of at least one photoactive molecule encapsulated in the hydrophobic domains of the polymer nanofibers would have been obvious over the at least one photosensitive compound which includes phthalocyanines and derivatives thereof including Al and Zn phthalocyanines ([0011]), as taught by Bergerova. Regarding instant claim 12, the limitation of the absorption spectra of the individual singlet-oxygen-producing photosensitizers overlapping in less than 70% of wavelength is a property associated with the photosensitizers and inseparable from them. Since the prior art teaches at least one or a combination of the same photosensitizers, the overlap in absorption spectra is also taught by the prior art.
Regarding instant claim 1, the limitation of said photoactive molecule being capable of releasing or generating antimicrobial active substance after irradiation by visible light would have been obvious over the antimicrobial nanostructure which exhibits antimicrobial activity under monochromatic light from an LED with a wavelength in the range of 650 to 690 nm, under illumination with visible light or even without access to light (dark cytotoxicity) ([0013]), as taught by Bergerova.
Regarding instant claims 7 and 8, the limitations of the combination of polymer nanofibers would have been obvious over the polyurethane (Abstract, [0011], [0018]) and the isocyanate groups (Abstract, [0018]), as taught by Bergerova in view of the polyurethanes created in a nucleophilic addition reaction between an isocyanate and a polyol ([0107]), wherein the isocyanate is hexamethylene diisocyanate ([0019]) and the polyol includes 4-butanediol (or 1,4-butanediol) and PEO ([0020]), as taught by Santerre, unless there is evidence of criticality or unexpected results.
Regarding instant claim 9, the limitation of the translucence would have been obvious over the polyurethane (Abstract, [0011], [0018]) and the isocyanate groups (Abstract, [0018]), as taught by Bergerova in view of the polyurethanes created in a nucleophilic addition reaction between an isocyanate and a polyol ([0107]), wherein the isocyanate is hexamethylene diisocyanate ([0019]) and the polyol includes 4-butanediol (or 1,4-butanediol) and PEO ([0020]), as taught by Santerre, since this a property associated with the polymer nanofiber material and inseparable from it.
Regarding instant claim 10, the limitation of phthalocyanine (ZnPc or AlPc) would have been obvious over the Al and Zn phthalocyanines ([0011]), as taught by Bergerova.
Regarding instant claims 14, 17, and 20, the limitations of a method for manufacturing the material of claim 1 (instant claim 14), further subjecting the produced nanofibers to chemical or physical treatment (instant claim 17), and electrospinning (instant claim 20) would have been obvious over the process for preparing the photoactive nanofibrous structure which is characterized by preparation of modified polyurethane, whereby in the polyadduct synthesis process covalent bonds are formed by reaction of the isocyanate groups at the ends of the polyurethane chains with acid hydrogen of the functional groups, particularly amino-, hydroxy- or carboxy- groups of the photosensitive compound molecules, wherein the covalent bonds ease the linkage of the molecules of the corresponding photosensitive compound with the polyurethane chains, and subsequently so prepared modified polyurethane is spun from solution in the electrospinning process under the formation of a layer of antimicrobial nanostructure (Abstract), as taught by Bergerova.
Regarding instant claim 15, the limitation of antimicrobial wound dressings would have been obvious over the wound healing applications ([0130]) including wound dressings ([0131]), as taught by Santerre.
Claims 4, 11, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergerova et al. (CZ 2012-714 A3 – English Espacenet translation – “Bergerova”) in view of Santerre et al. (US 2017/0232142 A1 – “Santerre”), as applied to claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, 14-15, 17, and 20 above, further in view of Dlugaszewska et al. (Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry Volume 172, July 2017, Pages 67-79 – “Dlugaszewska”).
Instant claim 4 is drawn to the material according to claim 1, wherein the photoactive molecule includes singlet-oxygen-producing photosensitizer and the material further comprises an iodide ion in the form of inorganic or organic iodide.
The teachings of Bergerova and Santerre are discussed above.
Bergerova and Santerre do not expressly teach an inorganic or organic iodide.
Dlugaszewska teaches the antimicrobial photodynamic activity of a phthalocyanine photosensitizer with an iodide salt, i.e., a quaternary iodide salt of magnesium (II) phthalocyanine (Abstract, Page 68, section 2.1, and Page 69 - Scheme 1). The results of the photodynamic antimicrobial effect study demonstrated that cationic phthalocyanine possesses excellent photodynamic activity against planktonic cells of both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare a photoactive nanofibrous structure with antimicrobial properties which comprises electrospinning a polyurethane modified by a photosensitive compound, wherein the photosensitive compound includes Al and Zn phthalocyanines, as taught by Bergerova, in view of the nanofibers prepared by electrospinning which include polyurethanes which are created in a nucleophilic addition reaction between an isocyanate and molecules containing hydroxyl (a polyol), wherein the isocyanate compound is hexamethylene diisocyanate and the polyol is 4-butanediol (or 1,4-butanediol) and PEO, as taught by Santerre, further in view of the use of a quaternary iodide salt of magnesium (II) phthalocyanine, as taught by Dlugaszewska, and produce the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because Dlugaszewska teaches that cationic phthalocyanine possesses excellent photodynamic activity against planktonic cells of both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria (Abstract).
Regarding instant claims 4, 11, and 18, the limitations of an iodide ion would have been obvious over the quaternary iodide salt of magnesium (II) phthalocyanine (Abstract, Page 68, section 2.1, and Page 69 - Scheme 1), as taught by Dlugaszewska.
Regarding instant claim 16, the limitation of adding at least one I3/I2 indirect photodonor to the solution or dispersion would have been obvious over the process for preparing the photoactive nanofibrous structure (Abstract), as taught by Bergerova, in view of the quaternary iodide salt of magnesium (II) phthalocyanine (Abstract, Page 68, section 2.1, and Page 69 - Scheme 1), as taught by Dlugaszewska.
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergerova et al. (CZ 2012-714 A3 – English Espacenet translation – “Bergerova”) in view of Santerre et al. (US 2017/0232142 A1 – “Santerre”), as applied to claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, 14-15, 17, and 20 above, further in view of Das et al. (Biomed. Mater. 8 (2013) 035003 pages 1-12 – “Das”).
Instant claim 13 is drawn to the material according to claim 1, which further contains magnetic or magnetizable particles which are encapsulated in the nanofibers or adsorbed on the nanofibers.
The teachings of Bergerova and Santerre are discussed above.
Bergerova and Santerre do not expressly teach magnetic or magnetizable particles.
Das teaches bio-based hyperbranched polyurethane/Fe3O4 nanocomposites as smart antibacterial biomaterials (Abstract). Magnetic nanoparticles (Fe3O4) are disclosed as having proven biocompatibility (Page 1, Col. 1, section 1), and imparting antibacterial activity to the polymer (Page 2, Col. 1, 1st full ¶). Polyurethane (PU) with biocompatibility, biodegradability and good mechanical properties was selected as the matrix for incorporation of magnetite Fe3O4 (Page 2, Col. 1, 1st full ¶). Figure 6 shows the antibacterial activity of Fe3O4 (Page 9, Col. 2, 1st ¶).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare a photoactive nanofibrous structure with antimicrobial properties which comprises electrospinning a polyurethane modified by a photosensitive compound, wherein the photosensitive compound includes Al and Zn phthalocyanines, as taught by Bergerova, in view of the nanofibers prepared by electrospinning which include polyurethanes which are created in a nucleophilic addition reaction between an isocyanate and molecules containing hydroxyl (a polyol), wherein the isocyanate compound is hexamethylene diisocyanate and the polyol is 4-butanediol (or 1,4-butanediol) and PEO, as taught by Santerre, further in view of the use of polyurethane/magnetic Fe3O4 nanocomposites as smart antibacterial biomaterials, as taught by Das, and produce the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because Das teaches the antibacterial advantage of using the polyurethane/magnetic Fe3O4 nanocomposites in comparison to the pristine system (Abstract, Figure 6, Page 9, Col. 2, 1st ¶).
Regarding instant claims 13 and 19, the limitations of the magnetic particles (instant claim 13) and the magnetic particles on the basis of maghemite or magnetite stabilized by polyethyleneimine (instant claim 19) would have been obvious over the polyurethane/magnetic Fe3O4 nanocomposites (Abstract, Figure 6, Page 9, Col. 2, 1st ¶), as taught by Das. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use various magnetic particles based on the teachings of Das and the recited magnetic particles in instant claim 19 would have been obvious variants unless there is evidence of criticality or unexpected results.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARADHANA SASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9022. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 6:30 am to 3:00 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, Robert A. Wax can be reached on 571-272-6023. 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.
/ARADHANA SASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615
