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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of the Information Disclosure Statement filed October 23, 2024. The Examiner has considered the references cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see the attached USPTO Form 1449.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202008011653 in view of Fournial et al. (FR 1052672) and KR 102317099 and Petersen-Braun et al. (WO 2009/062746).
DE 202008011653 teaches with regards to instant claims 1 and 14
a composition comprising 0.01% (w / v) to 1% (w / v) piroctone olamine, urea at a concentration from 0.001% (w / v) to 40%, hydrophilic solvent (i.e., ethanol as required by instant claims 1 and 4), as a gel (as required by instant claim 3) as an ointment for preventing infection (see translation, as required by instant claims 14-15).
However fails to teach the composition has viscosity agents.
Fournial et al. teach a composition comprising piroctone olamine, urea, hydrophilic solvents such as glycerol, ethanol and viscosity agent, polyacrylate based polymer (as required by instant claims 7-9). Additionally teachea the formulation comprises at least a minimum of 01% considered by the Examiner as essentially free (as required by instant claim 11)
However Fournial fails to teach the concentration of the polyacrylate cross polymer and also fails to teach that the polyacrylate crosspolymer is polyacrylate crosspolymer-6
KR 102317099 teaches a cosmetic composition using polyacrylate crosspolymer wherein the polyacrylate crosspolymer is polyacrylate crosspolymer-6, and dexapanthenol and wherein the composition is in a gel form (see translation) and obvious the composition in a container determined by the skilled artisan.
Petersen-Braun teaches a composition for antifungal therapy for infection (see abstract) comprising dexapanthenol at 2.5% or 5% (see translation, example 7)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would have been obvious to expand the teachings of DE 202008011653 to include Fournial, KR 102317099 to result in the instant claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success because One would have been motivated to combine these references and make the modification because they are drawn to same technical fields (constituted with same ingredients and share common utilities, and pertinent to the problem which applicant concerns about. MPEP 2141.01(a) and the result formulation/composition would have had a shear viscosity at room temperature by rotational rheometry at 100 1/s, ranging from about 0.1 to 10 Pa*s. as all the active agents are the same when combined and would have resulted in the instant claimed invention at the time of filing.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIRLEY V GEMBEH whose telephone number is (571)272-8504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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 at 571-272-0623. 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.
/SHIRLEY V GEMBEH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615 6/29/26
Prosecution Insights