Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 16/623,167

INTEGRAL BIOMATERIAL FOR REGENERATION OF BONE TISSUE AND FABRICATION METHOD THEREFOR

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Dec 16, 2019
Examiner
HAGOPIAN, CASEY SHEA
Art Unit
1617
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Seoul National University R&Db Foundation
OA Round
8 (Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
9-10
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allow Rate
304 granted / 558 resolved
-5.5% vs TC avg
Strong +33% interview lift
Without
With
+33.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
608
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
40.9%
+0.9% vs TC avg
§102
14.8%
-25.2% vs TC avg
§112
25.5%
-14.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 558 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s Amendment/Remarks filed 9/27/2025. 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 the Claims Claims 1 and 8 have been amended. Claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 13 are cancelled. No claims are newly added. Accordingly, claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12 and 14-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 8, 10, 12, 14-18 and 20 stand withdrawn from further consideration, without traverse. Claims 1, 3, 5 and 19 are currently under examination. Withdrawn Rejections Applicant’s amendment renders the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5 and 19 under 35 USC 103 over Gleeson, McKay and Lu moot. Specifically, the references teach a porous upper layer whereas the instant claims require “wherein the upper layer functions as a barrier membrane capable of inhibiting overgrowth of connective tissue by preventing the infiltration of connective tissue due to the absence of pores”. Thus, said rejection has been withdrawn. It is noted that the limitation regarding the absence of pores appears to be new matter (see new rejection below). Should the new matter be removed from the claims, the art rejection will be reconsidered and potentially reinstated. New Rejections In light of Applicant’s amendments, the following rejections have been newly added: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1, 3, 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. 37 CFR §1.118 (a) states that "No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of an application after the filing date of the application". Instant claim 1 recites, “wherein the upper layer functions as a barrier membrane capable of inhibiting overgrowth of connective tissue by preventing the filtration of connective tissue due to the absence of pores”. Applicant pointed to page 10, lines 7-12 of the specification as support which reads, the upper layer enables the bone graft material to be stably maintained on a bone defect site and realizes a natural bone tissue environment at a graft site by preventing the infiltration of epithelial tissue or connective tissue, thereby maximizing bone tissue regeneration capacity. However, there is no mention of an absence of pores. There is no explicit or implicit teaching in the original disclosure for a nonporous upper layer; the subject matter was not properly described as filed. Applicant is invited to identify the portion of the specification that teaches said limitation, as the examiner has not been able to locate the applicable disclosure. The claims within this rejection are examined as written by the applicant; at this time new matter must be considered as part of the claimed subject matter. Dependent claims 3, 5 and 19 do not remedy the new matter issue and as such said dependent claims suffer from the same deficiency. MPEP 2163.06 notes: "If new matter is added to the claims, the examiner should reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph - written description requirement. In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981)." MPEP 2163.02 teaches that "Whenever the issue arises, the fundamental factual inquiry is whether a claim defines an invention that is clearly conveyed to those skilled in the art at the time the application was filed...If a claim is amended to include subject matter, limitations, or terminology not present in the application as filed, involving a departure from, addition to, or deletion from the disclosure of the application as filed, the examiner should conclude that the claimed subject matter is not described in that application. MPEP 2163.06 further notes "When an amendment is filed in reply to an objection or rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, a study of the entire application is often necessary to determine whether or not "new matter" is involved. Applicant should therefore specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure". This is a new matter rejection. Correction is respectfully requested. Response to Arguments The arguments filed 9/27/2025 regarding the 103 rejection over Gleeson, McKay and Lu are moot in view of the withdrawn rejection discussed above. Pertinent Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yen et al. (US 2015/0230914 A1, Aug. 20, 2015, hereafter as “Yen”) teaches a dual layer composite material comprising a porous scaffold layer (lower layer) and a non-porous barrier film layer (upper layer), wherein the porous scaffold layer and the non-porous barrier film layer can both contain collagen (abstract; Fig. 1; [0007] and [0055]). However, Yen does not teach a bone mineral component or amount thereof; the collagen protein chains are aligned in the lower layer; 2-5 wt% collagen in the upper layer; a ratio of collagen in the upper layer to the lower layer being 0.5:1; and the collagen in the upper layer is cross-linked. Conclusion All claims have been rejected; no claims are allowed. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY HAGOPIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6097. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 am - 3:30 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, Sue Liu can be reached on 571-272-5539. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. Casey S. Hagopian Examiner, Art Unit 1617 /CARLOS A AZPURU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 16, 2019
Application Filed
Sep 14, 2021
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Dec 20, 2021
Response Filed
Apr 15, 2022
Final Rejection — §112
Jun 20, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 30, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 30, 2022
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Jul 20, 2022
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 21, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 03, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Mar 04, 2023
Response Filed
Jun 09, 2023
Final Rejection — §112
Aug 16, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 22, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 13, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 14, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 09, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jun 21, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 21, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jul 15, 2024
Response Filed
Oct 20, 2024
Final Rejection — §112
Jan 25, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 17, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Sep 29, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12569597
METHODS FOR FORMING STENTS MODIFIED WITH MATERIAL COMPRISING AMNION TISSUE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12551414
Systems And Methods For Delivering Active Agents
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12539213
GROWTH FACTOR TRANSDUCED CELL-LOADED CERAMIC SCAFFOLD FOR BONE REGENERATION AND REPAIR
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12527329
COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS RELATING TO INSECTICIDES
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12521258
ANTICOAGULANT COMPOUNDS AND METHODS AND DEVICES FOR THEIR USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

9-10
Expected OA Rounds
54%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+33.0%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 558 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month