`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313- 1450
`wwwusptogov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`
`
`
`
` F ING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`CONF {MATION NO.
`
`12/243,755
`
`10/01/2008
`
`C. Steven McDaniel
`
`5842—02001
`
`1750
`
`EXAMINER
`.
`C. Steven McDanIel —
`W1 —
`”90
`”598
`300 West Ave., Suite 1316
`RAGHU, GANAPATHIRAM
`Austin, TX 78701
`ART UNIT
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`1652
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`07/23/2013
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 12/243,755 MCDANIEL ET AL.
`
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`AIA (First Inventor to File)
`Office Action Summary
`
`1652GANAPATHIRAMA RAGHU [SENS
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTH(S) OR THIRTY (30) DAYS,
`WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`In no event however may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX () MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1 .704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1)IZI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 9 May 2011.
`El A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)|:l This action is non-final.
`2a)|Z| This action is FINAL.
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:| Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`5)IZI Claim(s) 1-182 184 186187189 and 190 is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s) See Continuation Sheet is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`is/are allowed.
`6)I:I Claim(s)
`7)|Z| Claim(s) See Continuation Sheet is/are rejected.
`8)|:I Claim(s)_ is/are objected to.
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`9)I:I Claim((s)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`hit
`:/'/\WNI.LIsnto. ov/ atentS/init events/
`
`
`
`h/index.‘s or send an inquiry to PPI-iieedback{®usgtc.00v.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)I:l The drawing(s) filed on
`is/are: a)I:I accepted or b)I:I objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)I:| Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)I:l All
`
`b)|:l Some * c)I:l None of the:
`
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.|:l Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.|:| Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) D Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`
`Paper N°ISI/Ma" Date' —
`PTO/SB/08
`t
`t
`St
`I
`D'
`1'
`r
`2 IZI I
`
`)
`4) I:I Other:
`Isc osure
`n orma Ion
`)
`a emen (s) (
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date 11/04/10 02/14/12.
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL—326 (Rev. 05-13)
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20130718
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`

`

`Continuation Sheet (PTOL-326)
`
`Application No. 12/243,755
`
`Continuation of Disposition of Claims: Claims withdrawn from consideration are 4-34,36-64,69,74,76,83-93,96,99-104,109-
`112,116,117,124,125,131,140-142,144-154,157,159-168,170-172 and 174-182.
`
`Continuation of Disposition of Claims: Claims rejected are 1-3,35,65-68,70-73,75,77-82,94,95,97,98,105-108,113-115,118—123,126-
`130,132-139,143,155,156,158,169,173,184,186,187, 189 and 190.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/243,755
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 1652
`
`Application Status
`A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114,
`
`including the
`
`fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection.
`
`Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114,
`
`and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the
`
`previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's
`
`submission filed on 05/09/11 has been entered.
`
`In
`
`response to FINAL-Office Action mailed on 11/08/10, applicants’
`
`response dated 05/09/11 is acknowledged;
`
`in said response applicants’ have
`
`added a new claim 190.
`
`Thus, claims 1-182, 184, 186, 187, 189 and 190 are pending in this
`
`application, claims 4-34, 36-64, 69, 74, 76, 83-93, 96, 99-104, 109-112, 116, 117,
`
`124, 125, 131, 140-142, 144-154, 157, 159-168, 170-172, and 174-182 remain
`
`withdrawn, as said claims are directed to non-elected inventions; and claims E,
`
`35 65-68 70-73 75 77-82 94 95 97 98 105-108 113-115 118-123 126-130
`
`132-139 143 155 156 158 169 173 184 186 187 189 and 190 are now
`
`under consideration.
`
`Objections and rejections not reiterated from previous action are hereby
`
`withdrawn.
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/04/10 and
`
`02/14/12 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the
`
`examiner has considered and initialed the IDS statement.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/243,755
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 1652
`
`Acknowledgment
`
`Maintained-Priority
`is made of a claim for domestic priority under 35
`
`U.S.C. 119(e)
`
`to the US Provisional Application No.: 60/976,676 filed on
`
`10/01/2007 and 60/409,102 filed on 09/09/2002. Applicants’ claim for the benefit
`
`of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
`
`This application is a CIP of 10/655,345 filed on 09/04/2003. However, please
`
`note that the instant claims are only granted the priority date of the instant
`
`application filed on 10/01/2008, as the elected species “lysozyme” was only
`
`disclosed in US Provisional Application No.: 60/976,676 filed on 10/01/2007 and
`
`the limitation in the amended claim 1 “...wherein the antimicrobial peptide
`
`comprises a peptide seguence of SEQ ID NO: 40 has been disclosed for the first
`
`time in the instant application filed on 10/01/2008.
`
`Applicants’ have traversed the granting of priority date for the claims
`
`under examination with the following arguments (see pages 32-36 of
`
`Applicants’ REMARKS dated 05/09/11):
`
`Applicants provide evidence in the passages below that any errors in
`
`correct citation of text in the REMARKS of the response dated 10/28/10 arose
`
`without deceptive intent on part of Applicants. Applicants have attached a copy of
`
`the specification of US Patent Application No 10/655,345 (“US 10/655,354”) as
`
`Exhibit A for the convenience of the Examiner in referring to the citations made
`
`here... Applicants maintain that
`
`this assertion is
`
`factually based and not
`
`misleading, as this text does disclose lysozyme as an example of enzymes...
`
`That the specific sentence disclosing lysozyme does not recite “a coating” in it is
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/243,755
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 1652
`
`immaterial in light of teachings of US 10/655,354 that explicitly disclose a coating
`
`with an enzyme, that “enzyme” encompasses any enzyme and that lysozyme is
`
`disclosed as an enzyme... In particular [0120] of USPGPUB 20040109853, found
`
`in US 10/655,354 at page 35, lines 7-11, states: “The selection of biomolecules...
`
`found in US 10/655,354 at page 35, line 20 to page 38, line 36 describe various
`
`enzymes...as these examples of enzymes genera and sub-genera specified by
`
`the disclosed EC Commission numbers encompass virtually all known enzyme
`
`species... Additionally evidenced herein, claims 1, 2, 8, 10, and 11 at page 262,
`
`lines 37, 24-25 and 31 -36 of US 10/655,354 filed on 09/04/2003 specify coatings
`
`with various enzymes...Applicants respectfully request that priority for at least
`
`“lysozyme” be corrected to at least the filing date of 09/04/2003 for US 10/655,
`
`354”.
`
`ELM Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are found to be
`
`non-persuasive for the following reasons: Applicants arguments are tangential
`
`and does not provide specifically any clear cut evidence regarding “A coating
`
`composition comprising lysozyme”. The cited sections by the applicants’ in US
`
`10/655,345 [sic “US 10/655,354”] with filing date of 09/04/2003 does not recite
`
`in proper context
`
`“A coating composition comprising lysozyme” and thus
`
`applicants’ have not provided any evidence regarding “A coating composition
`
`comprising lysozyme” and simply asserting “That the specific sentence disclosing
`
`lysozyme does not recite “a coating” in it is immaterial in light of teachings of US
`
`10/655,354 that explicitly disclose a coating with an enzyme,
`
`that “enzyme”
`
`encompasses any enzyme and that lysozyme is disclosed as an enzyme...” is
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/243,755
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 1652
`
`not persuasive. Therefore, the scope of the subject matter as claimed was not
`
`contemplated in the specification as originally filed,
`
`i.e., in US 10/655,345 with
`
`filing date of 09/04/2003 (see Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F .3d
`
`1320, 1326, 56 USPQ2d 1481, 1486 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The court noted that with
`
`respect to In Re Rusehing 379 F.2d 990, 154 USPQ 118 (CCPA 1967) that
`
`“Rusching makes clear
`
`that one cannot disclose a forest
`
`in
`
`the original
`
`application, and then later pick a tree out of the forest and say “here is my
`
`invention”. In order to satisfy the written description requirement, the blaze marks
`
`directing the skilled artisan to that tree must be in the originally filed disclosure.
`
`For the above cited reasons, please note that the instant claims are only
`
`granted the priority date of the instant application filed on 10/01/2008.
`
`Maintained-Double Parenting rejection
`
`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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting
`ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with
`this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope
`of a joint research agreement.
`Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal
`disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
`
`Claims 1-3 35 65-68 70-73 75 77-82 94 95 97 98 105-108 113-115
`
`118-123 126-130 132-139 143 155 156 158 169 173 184 186 187 189
`
`and 190, with the recited elected species are provisionally rejected under the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/243,755
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 1652
`
`judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
`
`unpatentable over claims 1-98 of McDaniel et al.,
`
`(US Application No.:
`
`12/696,651). An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate
`
`where the conflicting claims are not identical, but an examined application claims
`
`are not patentably distinct from the reference claims, because the examined
`
`claims are either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over reference
`
`claims. 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). Although the conflicting claims are not
`
`
`identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claims 1-3 35 65-68
`
`70-73 75 77-82 94 95 97 98 105-108 113-115 118-123 126-130 132-139
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`155143 the instant 156 158 169 173 184 186 187 189 and 190 of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`application are directed to a coating composition comprising an active enzyme
`
`and an antimicrobial peptide, wherein the antimicrobial enzyme comprises a
`
`lysozyme and the antimicrobial peptide having the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 40.
`
`Claims 1-98 of McDaniel et al.,
`
`(US Application No.: 12/696,651) are also
`
`directed to a coating composition comprising an active enzyme and an
`
`antimicrobial peptide, wherein the antimicrobial enzyme comprises a lysozyme
`
`and the antimicrobial peptide having the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 40, said SEQ
`
`ID NO: 40 of the reference McDaniel et al., (US Application No.: 12/696,651) has
`
`100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 40 of
`
`the instant application (see
`
`provided sequence alignment). The co-pending claims 1-98 of the reference
`
`application McDaniel
`
`et
`
`al.,
`
`(US Application No.: 12/696,651),
`
`therefore
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/243,755
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 1652
`
`encompass coating compositions which overlaps with the genus of
`
`instant
`
`claims. This
`
`is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejections,
`
`because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
`
`In support of their request for the above Double Patenting rejection
`
`be withdrawn, applicants’ provide the following arguments (see page 37 of
`
`Applicants’ REMARKS dated 05/09/11).
`
`“Applicants will file a terminal disclaimer to obviate the rejection upon
`
`receiving notice that some or all of the claims in the captioned application are
`
`allowed”.
`
`Reply: Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are found to be
`
`non-persuasive for
`
`the following reasons: None of
`
`the instant claims are
`
`allowable, therefore, the rejection is maintained.
`
`Maintained-Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 103
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for
`
`all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in
`section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
`such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived
`by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C.
`inventors.
`This application currently names joint
`103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time
`any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the
`obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly
`owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C.
`103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
`
`Claims 1-3 35 65-68 70-73 75 77-82 94 95 97 98 105-108 113-115
`
`118-123 126-130 132-139 143 155 156 158 169 173 184 186 187 189
`
`and 190, are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`McDaniel et al., jProg. Org. Coatings, 2006, Vol. 55: 182-188), Bonaventura et
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/243,755
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 1652
`
`al., (US Patent No.: 5,998,200 in IDS), Sherba et al., (US patent No.: 5,069,717,
`
`in IDS), Dalla Riva Toma, JM.,
`
`(US Patent No.: 6,054,504) and in view of
`
`Edwards D., (US patent No.: 6,020,312).
`
`Claims 1-3 35 65-68 70-73 75 77-82 94 95 97 98 105-108 113-115
`
`118-123 126-130 132-139 143 155 156 158 169 173 184 186 187 189
`
`and 190, are directed to any coating compositions or paints comprising: i) an
`
`active enzyme having enzymatic activities like lipase, lysozyme, libiase, esterase,
`
`
`h drolase...' ii an antimicrobial
`e tide com risin the se uence of SEQ ID NO:
`
`40 and iii
`
`said coatin
`
`com osition or
`
`aint havin
`
`the recited functional
`
`limitations.
`
`McDaniel et al.,
`
`(supra) disclose active enzymes and other bioactive
`
`molecules
`
`sequestered in paints
`
`and coatings
`
`including
`
`lysozyme
`
`and
`
`antimicrobial peptides (Abstract, page 187, column 2, and first paragraph).
`
`Bonaventura et al., (supra) teach antifouling compositions and methods
`
`for preventing fouling that comprises affixing biologically active chemical to a
`
`surface intended for use (coating composition or paint), wherein the chemical is
`
`an enzyme, said enzyme is a lysozyme (Abstract, Table III) and preparation of
`
`said coating compositions by immobilization in polyurethane (column 19,
`
`Example V; claims, columns 36-38).
`
`Sherba et al.,
`
`(supra) also teach a synergistic antialgal compositions
`
`comprising small molecules that have antialgal activity and lysozyme enzyme
`
`(Abstract), said compositions in the form antifouling compositions and use of said
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/243,755
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 1652
`
`compositions in construction products such as stucco, roof mastics, wall mastics
`
`and masonry coatings (column 4, lines 27-30).
`
`Dalla Riva Toma,
`
`JM.,
`
`(supra)
`
`clearly suggest various
`
`biostatic
`
`compositions comprising biostatic agents and methods for conjugating said
`
`biostatic agents to various functional groups of hydrophilic polymers, said
`
`functional group capable of
`
`reacting with and covalently bonding to an
`
`antimicrobial agent without effectively reducing antimicrobial property (Abstract);
`
`said hydrophilic polymer can be, but not
`
`limited to a polyurethane, a maleic
`
`anhydride, a polyol, a polyamine, an acrylate, an ethylene oxide or modified
`
`forms of said polymers (column 3, line 29-34) and suitable solvents (column 3,
`
`lines 45-50) and claims (columns 12-18).
`
`
`McDaniel et al. Bonaventura et al., Sherba et al., and Dalla Riva Toma,
`
`JM., are silent regarding said coating compositions comprising an antimicrobial
`
`peptide having the peptide sequence of SEQ ID NO: 40.
`
`Edwards D., (supra) disclose the isolation and structure of an antifungal
`
`peptide having 100% sequence homology to SEQ ID NO: 40 of the instant
`
`invention (see provided sequence alignment), said reference also teaches the
`
`use of said peptide in various compositions as an antimicrobial agent (Abstract)
`
`in the form of coating mixture comprising a noninterfering carrier and an effective
`
`quantity of
`
`the antimicrobial composition (columns 7 and 10), method for
`
`encapsulation of said antimicrobial peptide (columns 27-28).
`
`Hence, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`to combine the teachings in
`
`the cited references to generate a coating
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/243,755
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 1652
`
`compositions or paints comprising: i) polypeptides having enzymatic activities like
`
`lipase,
`
`lysozyme,
`
`libiase, esterase, hydrolase... and ii) antimicrobial peptide
`
`having antimicrobial activity against any microorganism and iii) said antimicrobial
`
`polypeptide comprising the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 40. Motivation to do so
`
`derives from the fact that coating compositions or paints comprising non-toxic
`
`antimicrobial/antifouling agents such as enzymes and antimicrobial peptides
`
`have wide use in various industrial applications. The expectation of success is
`
`high, because methods and design for producing coating compositions or paints
`
`comprising:
`
`i) polypeptides having enzymatic activities like lipase,
`
`lysozyme,
`
`libiase, esterase, hydrolase... and ii) antimicrobial peptide having antimicrobial
`
`
`activity against any microorganism were well known in the art (McDaniel et al.
`
`Bonaventura et al., Sherba et al., and Dalla Riva Toma, JM.,) and iii)
`
`the
`
`structure of the key antimicrobial peptide comprising the sequence of SEQ ID
`
`NO: 40 is also well known in the art (Edwards D.,).
`
`Given this extensive teaching in prior art Le, a coating compositions or
`
`paints comprising:
`
`i) polypeptides having enzymatic activities
`
`like
`
`lipase,
`
`lysozyme,
`
`libiase, esterase, hydrolase... and ii) antimicrobial peptide having
`
`antimicrobial activity against any microorganism and iii)
`
`said antimicrobial
`
`polypeptide comprising the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 40, as taught by the instant
`
`invention is not of innovation but of ordinary skill in the art and the expectation of
`
`success for a process for production of a coating compositions or paints
`
`comprising:
`
`i) polypeptides having enzymatic activities like lipase,
`
`lysozyme,
`
`libiase, esterase, hydrolase... and ii) antimicrobial peptide having antimicrobial
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/243,755
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 1652
`
`activity against any microorganism and iii)
`
`said antimicrobial polypeptide
`
`comprising the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 40 and use of the same in various
`
`industrial applications as disclosed in the instant invention is extremely high Le,
`
`“a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within
`
`his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that
`
`product |was| not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
`
`In that
`
`instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was
`
`Obvious under § 103.”KSR, 550 U.S. at, 82 USPQZd at 1397”.
`
`
`Therefore, Claims1-3 35 65-68 70-73 75 77-82 94 95 97 98 105-
`
`108 113-115 118-123 126-130 132-139 143 155 156 158 169 173 184
`
`
`186
`187
`189 and 190, are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over McDaniel et al., (Prog. Org. Coatings, 2006, Vol. 55: 182-
`
`188), Bonaventura et al., (US Patent No.: 5,998,200 in IDS), Sherba et al., (US
`
`patent No.: 5,069,717, in IDS), Dalla Riva Toma, JM., (US Patent No.: 6,054,504)
`
`and in view of Edwards D., (US patent No.: 6,020,312).
`
`Applicants’ have traversed the above 103(a)
`
`rejection with the
`
`following arguments (see pages 37-43 of Applicants’ REMARKS dated
`
`05/09/11):
`
`Applicants’ argue (A) “...Applicants submit that, as described above in
`
`the remarks for the priority of the instant application, the instant application is a
`
`Continuation in Part of US Patent application 10/655,345 filed on 09/04/2003,
`
`which discloses coatings and paintings comprising enzyme(s) which includes
`
`lysozyme as it
`
`is a disclosed enzyme...McDaniel et al.,
`
`is removed from the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/243,755
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 1652
`
`rejection from the rejection’s “string of continuity” in combining teachings of
`
`McDaniel et al., Bonaventura et al., Sherba et al., and Dalla Riva Toma, JM., in
`
`view of Edwards D...” (see page 39 of Applicants’ REMARKS dated 05/09/11).
`
`Reply (A): Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are found to
`
`be non-persuasive for the following reasons: Examiner continues to maintain that
`
`the reference of McDaniel et al.,
`
`
`is valid and provides Teaching, Suggestion
`
`and Motivation for preparing enzyme based additives for paints and coatings,
`
`and as a proof of principle have shown active enzymes and other active
`
`biomolecules sequestered in paints and coatings and have reported the design
`
`and characterization of biological additives for
`
`latex coatings which impart
`
`catalytic detoxification or biodefensive capabilities to surfaces (Abstract, page
`
`182 and entire document). As argued above by the examiner, applicants
`
`arguments are tangential and does not provide specifically any clear cut
`
`evidence regarding “A coatin
`
`com osition com risin
`
`l 502 me”. The cited
`
`sections by the applicants’ in US 10/655,345 [sic “US 10/655,354”] with filing date
`
`of 09/04/2003 does not recite in proper context
`
`“A coating composition
`
`comprising lysozyme
`
`and thus applicants’ have not provided any evidence
`
`regarding “A coating composition comprising lysozyme” and simply asserting
`
`“That the specific sentence disclosing lysozyme does not recite “a coating” in it is
`
`immaterial in light of teachings of US 10/655,354 that explicitly disclose a coating
`
`with an enzyme, that “enzyme” encompasses any enzyme and that lysozyme is
`
`disclosed as an enzyme...” is not persuasive. Therefore, the scope of the subject
`
`matter as claimed was not contemplated in the specification as originally filed,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/243,755
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 1652
`
`Le, in US 10/655,345 with filing date of 09/04/2003 (see Purdue Pharma L.P.
`
`v. Faulding Inc., 230 F .3d 1320, 1326, 56 USPQ2d 1481, 1486 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`The court noted that with respect to In Re Rusching 379 F.2d 990, 154 USPQ
`
`118 (CCPA 1967) that “Rusching makes clear that one cannot disclose a forest
`
`in the original application, and then later pick a tree out of the forest and say
`
`“here is my invention”. In order to satisfy the written description requirement, the
`
`blaze marks directing the skilled artisan to that tree must be in the originally filed
`
`disclosure. For the above cited reasons, please note that the instant claims
`
`are only granted the priority date of
`
`the instant application filed on
`
`10/01/2008 and thus the reference of McDaniel et al.: is relevant/valid and
`
`the reiection is maintained.
`
`Applicants further argue (B):
`
`Applicants find Bonaventure et al.,
`
`does not teach, suggest, or provide any motivation for combining an antimicrobial
`
`peptide of interest of the present claims in any of its compositions. Applicants find
`
`that Sherba et al. does not
`
`teach, suggest or provide any motivation for
`
`combining an antimicrobial peptide... Applicants find that Dalla Riva Toma JM.
`
`does not teach, suggest or provide any motivation for combining an antimicrobial
`
`peptide of the present claims...” (see page 40 of Applicants’ REMARKS dated
`
`05/09/11).
`
`Reply (B): Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are found to
`
`be non-persuasive for the following reasons: Contrary to applicants’ arguments,
`
`examiner continues to hold the following position: Eaxminer has provided
`
`references that provide a “string of continuity”,
`
`i.e.,
`
`i) McDaniel et al., provides
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/243,755
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 1652
`
`Teaching, Suggestion and Motivation for preparing enzyme based additives
`
`for paints and coatings, and as a proof of principle have shown active enzymes
`
`and other active biomolecules sequestered in paints and coatings and have
`
`reported the design and characterization of biological additives for latex coatings
`
`which impart catalytic detoxification or biodefensive capabilities to surfaces; ii)
`
`Bonaventura et al., (supra) teach antifouling compositions and methods for
`
`preventing fouling that comprises affixing biologically active chemical to a surface
`
`intended for use (coating composition or paint), wherein the chemical is an
`
`enzyme, said enzyme is a lysozyme (Abstract, Table III) and preparation of
`
`said coating compositions by immobilization in polyurethane (column 19,
`
`Example V; claims, columns 36-38);
`
`iii) Sherba et al.,
`
`(supra) also teach a
`
`synergistic antialgal compositions comprising small molecules that have
`
`antialgal activity and lysozyme enzyme (Abstract), said compositions in the
`
`form antifouling compositions and use of said compositions in construction
`
`products such as stucco,
`
`roof mastics, wall mastics and masonry coatings
`
`(column 4, lines 27-30), iv) Dalla Riva Toma, JM., (supra) clearly suggest various
`
`biostatic compositions comprising biostatic agents and methods for conjugating
`
`said biostatic agents to various functional groups of hydrophilic polymers, said
`
`functional group capable of
`
`reacting with and covalently bonding to an
`
`antimicrobial agent without effectively reducing antimicrobial property (Abstract);
`
`said hydrophilic polymer can be, but not limited to a polyurethane, a maleic
`
`anhydride, a polyol, a polyamine, an acrylate, an ethylene oxide or modified
`
`forms of said polymers (column 3, line 29-34) and suitable solvents (column
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/243,755
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: 1652
`
`3, lines 45-50) and claims (columns 12-18) and v) Edwards D., (supra) disclose
`
`the isolation and structure of an antifungal peptide having 100% sequence
`
`homology to SEQ ID NO: 40 of the instant invention (see provided sequence
`
`alignment), said reference also teaches the use of said peptide in various
`
`compositions as an antimicrobial agent (Abstract) in the form of coating mixture
`
`comprising a noninterfering carrier and an effective quantity of the antimicrobial
`
`composition (columns 7 and 10), column 8 teaches various versions of
`
`compositions comprising said antimicrobial peptide in the form of creams,
`
`ointments,
`
`sprays,
`
`fogs, mists, powders
`
`i.e.,
`
`said antimicrobial peptide
`
`incorporated into various preparations comprising various solvents, said peptide
`
`is stable and active and therefore examiner considers Edwards D., as analogous
`
`art; method for encapsulation of said antimicrobial peptide, especially methods
`
`for stabilizing the peptide, encapsulation of peptides in microspheres (columns
`
`25-28; Example Xlll, Example XV) and a skilled artisan would recognize that said
`
`antimicrobial peptide will be amenable to be incorporated into paints and
`
`coatings.
`
`Therefore, examiner continues to hold the cited combination of references
`
`indeed render the instant invention prima facie obvious and thus;
`
`i) Applicants’ arguments are directed against the references individually,
`
`one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
`
`rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d
`
`413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Mere/<61 00., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ
`
`375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/243,755
`
`Page 16
`
`Art Unit: 1652
`
`ii) Moreover, the objectives of the cited references need not be the same
`
`as the instant invention to be used in an Obviousness rejection. So long as the
`
`motivation or suggestion to combine the teaching of the cited references is
`
`known or disclosed in the prior art and is obvious to one skilled in the art. This is
`
`sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
`
`Applicants further argue (C):
`
`The applicability of peptides taught by
`
`Edwards D is only limited to materials for use on plants and animal, and
`
`moreover,
`
`this applicability is further limited to particular types of carriers, as
`
`evidenced by Edwards D. teaching away from other carrier materials that may
`
`interfere with peptide, as described in column 7 of Edwards D., shown below:...”
`
`(see pages 40-41 of Applicants’ REMARKS dated 05/09/11).
`
`Reply (C): Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are found to
`
`be non-persuasive for the following reasons: Applicants’ are very selective in
`
`citing certain sections of Edwards D., reference i.e., “as described in column 7 of
`
`Edwards D., shown below:...”. However, Edwards D., has clearly envisaged the
`
`use of said ant-microbial peptides in various preparations and applicants’ are
`
`direct

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket