`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313- 1450
`wwwnsptogov
`
`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
`
`”90
`”OW
`CStevenMcDaniel —
`c/0 Daffer McDaniel, LLP
`RAGHU, GANAPATHIRAM
`130' BOX 684908
`ART UNIT
`PAPER NUMBER
`Austin, TX 78768-4908
`652
`
`—1
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`11/08/2010
`
`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)
`
`

`

`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`12/243,755
`
`MCDANIEL ET AL.
`
`Examiner
`
`GANAPATHIRAMA RAGHU
`
`Art Unit
`
`1652 -
`
`-- 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 (6) 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)IXI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 28 October 2010.
`
`2a)IZI This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)I:I This action is non-final.
`
`3)I:I 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 EX parte Quayle, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`
`4)IZI Claim(s) 1-182 184 186 187 and 189 is/are pending in the application.
`
`4a) Of the above Claim(s) See Continuation Sheet is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`5)I:I Claim(s) _ is/are allowed.
`
`6)IXI Claim(s) 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 and 189 is/are rejected.
`
`7)IXI Claim(s) 2 and 189 is/are objected to.
`
`8)I:I Claim(s) _ are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`Application Papers
`
`9)I:I The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`10)I:I 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).
`
`11)I:I The oath or declaration is objected to by the Examiner. Note the attached Office Action or form PTO-152.
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)I:I Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)—(d) or (f).
`
`a)I:I All
`
`b)I:I Some * c)I:I None of:
`
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`
`
`3.I:I 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)
`
`4) D Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`1) D Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date. _
`2) D Notice of Draftsperson‘s Patent Drawing Review (PTO-948)
`5) I:I Notice of Informal Patent Application
`3) |:| Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08)
`
`6) D Other: _ U.S. Patent and Trademark OfficePaper No(s)/Mai| Date _.
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 08-06)
`Office Action Summary
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20101103
`
`

`

`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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/243,755
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 1652
`
`Application Status
`In response to the Office Action mailed on 04/28/10, Applicants’ response filed
`
`on 10/28/10 is acknowledged;
`
`in said response Applicants’ have amended claims 1,
`
`109, 155-182, 184, and 186 and canceled claim 188. Furthermore, Applicants’ in said
`
`response have indicated claim 190 is added herein, however examiner would like to
`
`point out that there is no claim numbered 190 and the only added new claim has been
`
`assigned number 189. Claims 1-182, 184, 186, 187 and 189 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 are withdrawn, as
`
`said claims are directed to non-elected inventions and 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 and 189 are now under consideration.
`
`Objections and rejections not
`
`reiterated from previous action are hereby
`
`withdrawn.
`
`Acknowledgment is made of a claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e)
`
`Priority
`
`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 10/01/2008l as the elected
`
`species “lysozyme” was only disclosed in US Provisional Application No.: 60/976,676
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/243,755
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 1652
`
`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: “...However, the instant application is CIP
`
`of US Patent Application 10/655,345 filed on 09/04/2003, which discloses the enzyme,
`
`lysozyme, at paragraph [0273]. That
`
`the composition of the claims comprises an
`
`enzyme is disclosed throughout the specification of US Patent Application 10/665,345,
`
`such as paragraphs [0120] and [0127] to [0132]. Applicants’ respectfully request that
`
`priority for “lysozyme” be corrected to at least the filing date of 09/04/2003 for US Patent
`
`Application 10/655,345 (see page 33 of Applicants’ REMARKS dated 10/28/10).
`
`ELM Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are found to be non-
`
`persuasive for the following reasons: At the outset for the record examiner would like to
`
`state that
`
`the original
`
`specification of US Patent Application10/655,345 filed on
`
`09/04/2003 does n_ot have any paragraph notations, therefore Applicants’ are advised in
`
`their response to cite the page number(s) and line number(s) where the asserted
`
`support
`
`can
`
`be
`
`found
`
`in
`
`the
`
`original
`
`original
`
`specification
`
`of US Patent
`
`Application10/655,345 filed on 09/04/2003. However, examiner was able to find the
`
`asserted paragraphs [0273], [0120] and [0127] to [0132] in USPGPUB 20040109853
`
`(publication of US Patent Application10/655,345). Perusal of [0273], [0120] and [0127]
`
`to [0132]
`
`in USPGPUB 20040109853 failed to show any support for Applicants’
`
`assertion of support in said paragraphs. Paragraph [0273] is drawn to a method of cell
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/243,755
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 1652
`
`lysis using lysozyme in host cells expressing the polypeptide of interest and does not
`
`recite “A coating composition comprising lysozyme”. Paragraph [0120] is drawn coating
`
`compositions comprising generic enzymes and not to “lysozyme”; paragraph [0127] is
`
`drawn to coating compositions comprising “oxidoreductase” and not to “lysozyme”; and
`
`paragraph [0132]
`
`is drawn to coating compositions comprising “ligase” and not to
`
`“lysozyme”. Therefore, examiner takes the position that
`
`the sections/paragraphs,
`
`Applicants’ are referring to in
`
`their REMARKS dated 10/28/10 is
`
`incorrect and
`
`misleading. 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.
`
`Withdrawn-Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 112-First Paragraph
`Previous rejection of 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 and
`
`186-187 with the recited elected species, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph,
`
`as failing to comply with the written description and enablement requirement, is being
`
`withdrawn due to claim amendments and persuasive arguments.
`
`Withdrawn-Claim Rejections 35 USC § 102
`Previous rejection of 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 and
`
`186-187 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by McDaniel et al.,
`
`(Prog. Org. Coatings., 2006, Vol. 55: 182-188),
`
`is being withdrawn due to claim
`
`amendments.
`
`Withdrawn-Claim Rejections 35 USC § 103
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/243,755
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 1652
`
`Previous rejection of 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 and
`
`186-188 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over 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) is being withdrawn due to claim amendments.
`
`Claim Objections
`Claims 2 and 189 is objected to, due to the following informality: Claims 2 and
`
`189 recite non-elected subject-matter. Appropriate correction is required.
`
`Maintained-Double Patenting 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 USPQZd 1226
`(Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQZd 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 and 189, with the
`
`recited elected species are provisionally rejected under the 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/243,755
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 1652
`
`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
`
`98 105-108 113-115 118-123 126-130 132-139 143 155 156 158 169 173 184
`
`186, 187 and 189 of the instant 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 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/243,755
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 1652
`
`Applicants’ have traversed the above rejection with the following
`
`arguments (see page 34 of Applicants’ REMARKS dated 10/28/10).
`
`“Applicants respectfully note the provisional
`
`rejection and 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.
`
`New-Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 103
`A Iicants’ amendments to claims have necessitated recastin
`
`the 103a
`
`obviousness rejection:
`
`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. 103(a), the
`This application currently names joint inventors.
`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 and 189, are
`
`rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over McDaniel et al.I jProg. Org.
`
`Coatings, 2006, Vol. 55: 182-1881, Bonaventura et al., (US Patent No.: 5,998,200 in
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/243,755
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 1652
`
`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 and 189, are
`
`directed to any coating compositions or paints comprising: i) an active enzyme having
`
`
`enz matic activities
`like
`li ase
`Isoz me
`libiase
`esterase
`h drolase...'
`ii
`an
`
`
`antimicrobial
`e tide com risin
`the se uence of SEQ ID NO: 40 and iii said coatin
`
`composition or paint having 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 compositions in
`
`construction products such as stucco, roof mastics, wall mastics and masonry coatings
`
`(column 4, lines 27-30).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/243,755
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 1652
`
`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 compositions or
`
`paints comprising:
`
`i) polypeptides having enzymatic activities like lipase,
`
`lysozyme,
`
`libiase, esterase, hydrolase... and ii) antimicrobial peptide having antimicrobial activity
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/243,755
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 1652
`
`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
`
`a_l., 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 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/243,755
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 1652
`
`ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical
`
`ras .
`
`If this leads to the antici ated success it
`
`is likel
`
`that
`
`roduct was not of
`
`innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
`
`In that instance the fact that a
`
`combination was obvious to tr mi ht 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 and 189,
`
`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 this rejection with the following arguments, said
`
`arguments are relevant
`
`for new rejection (see pages 55-61 of Applicants’
`
`REMARKS dated 10/28/10):
`
`(A) “...One skilled in the art would not consider a coating composition comprising
`
`an antimicrobial peptide comprising a peptide sequence of SEQ ID NO: 40...as per the
`
`amended claim 1... Edwards fails to teach or suggest incorporating such a sequence
`
`into a coating composition. A coating composition-the noun and not the gerund, as the
`
`gerund form describing application of a material is often used in Edwards...|t is noted
`
`that Examiner’s broad interpretation of the term “coating composition” to read on any
`
`liquid compositions is erroneous...Edwards is directed to only specific suitable carriers
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/243,755
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 1652
`
`and is not a coating composition as would be understood in the art...” (see pages 55-57
`
`of Applicants’ REMARKS dated 10/28/10).
`
`Reply (A): Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are found to be non-
`
`persuasive for the following reasons: Examiner has recast
`
`the rejection and the
`
`reference of McDaniel et al., 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 such, the disclosure of McDaniel
`
`
`et al., and the disclosure of an antimicrobial peptide by Edwards et al.,
`
`said
`
`antimicrobial peptide having 100% sequence homology to the antimicrobial peptide of
`
`the instant invention would certainly motivate a skilled artisan to combine the teachings
`
`and therefore renders the instant invention obvious i.e., 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.
`
`Furthermore, Applicants’ arguments
`
`“Edwards
`
`fails
`
`to teach or
`
`suggest
`
`incorporating such a sequence into a coating composition. A coating composition-the
`
`noun and not the gerund, as the gerund form describing application of a material
`
`is
`
`often used in Edwards...lt is noted that Examiner’s broad interpretation of the term
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/243,755
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 1652
`
`“coating composition” to read on any liquid compositions is erroneous” is considered to
`
`be an exercise in linguistic semantics rather than scientific reasoning for the following
`
`reasons: a disclosure may be express, implicit or inherent. This line of argument
`
`is supported by the sections of the MPEP. 2144 [R-6] Supporting a Rejection
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. 103.
`
`I. >< RATIONALE MAY BE IN A REFERENCE, OR REASONED FROM
`
`COMMON KNOWLEDGE IN THE ART, SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES, ART-
`
`RECOGNIZED EQUIVALENTS, OR LEGAL PRECEDENT
`
`The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly
`stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior
`art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill
`in
`the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case
`law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d
`347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55
`USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (setting forth test for implicit teachings); In re
`EliLi/ly & Co., 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (discussion of reliance
`on legal precedent); In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed.
`Cir. 1988) (references do not have to explicitly suggest combining teachings); Ex parte
`Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & lnter. 1985) (examiner must present convincing
`line of reasoning supporting reiection); and Ex parte Levengood, 28USPQ2d 1300 (Bd.
`Pat. App. & lnter. 1993) (reliance on logic and sound scientific reasoning).
`
`ll. >< THE EXPECTATION OF SOME ADVANTAGE IS THE STRONGEST
`
`RATIONALE FOR COMBINING REFERENCES
`
`The strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or
`impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on
`established have been produced by their combination.
`In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989,
`994-95, scientific principles or legal precedent,
`that some advantage or expected
`beneficial result would 217USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). >See also Dystar Textilfarben
`GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641,
`
`1651(Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Indeed, we have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to
`combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a
`whole, but when the improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of
`references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it
`is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster,
`lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient.
`Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or
`process is universal-and even common-sensical-we have held that there exists in these
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/243,755
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 1652
`
`situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of
`suggestion in the references themselves.”).
`
`Applicants further argue (B): “...Bonaventura et a|., Sherba et a|., and Dalla
`
`Riva Toma et a|., do not provide a skilled artisan any motivation to combine their
`
`compositions with the peptide of Edwards, nor does any of these references alone or in
`
`combination with the teachings of Edwards, provides reasonable expectation of
`
`success....” (see pages 58-58 of Applicants’ REMARKS dated 10/28/10).
`
`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:
`
`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 Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
`
`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.
`
`Eaxminer has provided references that provide a “string of continuity”,
`
`i.e.,
`
`i)
`
`McDaniel et a|., 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/243,755
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: 1652
`
`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 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/243,755
`
`Page 16
`
`Art Unit: 1652
`
`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 sai

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