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
Applicants’ election without traverse of SEQ ID NO: 1, all D-amino acids, not being covalently linked to a functional domain or support or coated on the surface of a medical device, not being covalently linked to a functional domain in the reply filed on 8/21/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-13 and 16-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-5 and 8-17 are pending.
Claims 1-5 and 14-15 read on the elected species and are under consideration.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 2-4, 7-9 and 18b are blurry and illegible. 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 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 3, whc5 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.
Claims 1-5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arnold et al. (Journal of Bacteriology, published online 4/9/2018, volume 200, Issue 13).
With respect to claims 1-5, Arnold et al. teach the antimicrobial peptide of NCR247 (Abstract, last para. of p. 2, , p. 3, Fig. 1-8). Arnold et al. teach NCR247 has the amino acid sequence of RNGCIVDPRCPYQQCRRPLYCRRR, which is identical to instantly claimed SEQ ID NO: 1. With respect to the limitation “wherein all the amino acid residues are D amino acids”, Arnold et al. teach isolation and purification of an all D-enantiomer NCR27, made up of only D-amino acids (p. 7, 1st para.). Therefore, Arnold et al. anticipates the limitations of claims 1-5.
With respect to claim 15, Arnold et al. teach the NCR247 in water, NaCl, or buffer (Fig. 7, 1st para. of p. 10, p. 14 materials and methods, Fig. 6, Fig. 8).
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold et al. as applied to claims 1-5 and 15 above, and further in view of Oh et al. (International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents; 52 (2018) 96-99).
Arnold et al. does not teach the NCR247 peptide is in a formulation with an anti-oxidant. However, the teachings of Oh et al. cure this deficiency.
Oh et al. teach a synergistic effect of octyl gallate (OG) in combination with an antimicrobial peptide (Abstract). Oh et al. teach that that the antioxidant enabled bacitracin at low concentration to inhibit MRSA biofilm formation and the combined treatment suppressed biofilm formation more effectively than treatment of each agent alone (Abstract).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to include an antioxidant in the formulation of the antimicrobial peptide, NCR247 because Oh et al. teach that an oxidant can act synergistically with an antimicrobial peptide and enhance its activity. There is a reasonable expectation of success given that Oh et al. experientially demonstrates the synergistic effect of adding an antioxidant.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA L MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Lianko Garyu can be reached at (571)270-7367. 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.
/TARA L MARTINEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1654
Prosecution Insights