Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/155,295

3D PRINTED BANDAGES

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jan 22, 2021
Examiner
THOMPSON, CAMIE S
Art Unit
1786
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
University of the Sciences
OA Round
6 (Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
7-8
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
958 granted / 1310 resolved
+8.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
57 currently pending
Career history
1367
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
40.4%
+0.4% vs TC avg
§102
28.0%
-12.0% vs TC avg
§112
20.1%
-19.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1310 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Applicant’s amendment and accompanying remarks filed January 6, 2026 are acknowledged. Examiner acknowledges amended claims 1, 9, 14 and 18. Examiner acknowledges cancelled claims 2-4, 15 and 17. The rejection of claims 1, 5-8, 12, 14, 16 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ladet et al., U.S. Pre Grant Publication 2009/0004239 is overcome by Applicant’s amendment. 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. Claims 1, 5-9, 12-14, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocco et al., U.S. Pre Grant Publication 2020/0253713 in view of Suzuki et al., JP 2002-200176 Regarding claims 1, 9, 12 and 18, Rocco discloses composite scaffold devices coated with PEG 400 [0101]. Paragraph 0161 discloses that the that the textile support structure comprises PLLA fibers. Paragraph 0020 discloses that composite scaffold comprises a textile support structure [0160]. Paragraph 0125 discloses that the composite scaffold can include additives including biologics such as seeded cells and bioactive agents wherein the bioactive agents can include growth factors, therapeutics and extracellular matrices. With the bioactive agents being added to the textile structure that is coated with PEG 400, the bioactive agents are combined with the PEG 400. Paragraph 0210 and Figure 2D disclose a surgical mesh. The abstract of Rocco discloses that the reinforcement is used for repair of tissues. Rocco illustrates a 3D mesh in Figure 1A. The manner in which the 3D mesh is manufactured is given minimal patentable weight. Rocco discloses a planar 3D mesh as claimed by Applicant. The manner in which the 3D mesh in Rocco is manufactured has the same structure as claimed by Applicant. Rocco is silent to the PLLA fibers being fused. Suzuki discloses a 3D net structure in Figure 1. Paragraph 0006 discloses a fabric formed of bioabsorbable fibers such as PLLA fibers. Paragraph 0010 discloses that the fabric is coated with polyethylene glycol wherein the coating can further include a drug [pharmaceutical compound]. Paragraph 0012 discloses that the intersections of the fibers may be joined or bonded at one or more points by using heat fusion [0015]. Suzuki discloses body tissue [0001]. Additionally, Suzuki discloses that the fabric made of bioabsorbable material has large expansion force and high flexibility. Rocco and Suzuki are analogous art in that both references discloses fabrics of PLLA fibers coated with PEG for tissue repair. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would utilize the fused PLLA fibers of Suzuki as the fabric/;textile composite structure of Rocco for the benefit of obtaining a coated fabric or textile having enhanced large expansion force and high flexibility. The combination of Rocco and Suzuki teach the claimed invention but fails to teach wherein the PEG coated on fused PLLA fibers improves flexibility and decreases the crystallinity of the 3D printed mesh as compared to a corresponding uncoated 3D printed mesh mat. It is reasonable to presume that the wherein the PEG coated on fused PLLA fibers improves flexibility and decreases the crystallinity of the 3D printed mesh as compared to a corresponding uncoated 3D printed mesh mat is inherent to the combination of Rocco and Suzuki. Said presumption is based upon Rocco’s disclosure of a composite scaffold devices coated with PEG 400 [0101]. Paragraph 0161 discloses that the that the textile support structure comprises PLLA fibers. Paragraph 0020 discloses that composite scaffold comprises a textile support structure [0160]. Paragraph 0125 discloses that the composite scaffold can include additives including biologics such as seeded cells and bioactive agents wherein the bioactive agents can include growth factors, therapeutics and extracellular matrices. With the bioactive agents being added to the textile structure that is coated with PEG 400, the bioactive agents are combined with the PEG 400. Paragraph 0210 and Figure 2D disclose a surgical mesh. The abstract of Rocco discloses that the reinforcement is used for repair of tissues. Rocco illustrates a 3D mesh in Figure 1A. The manner in which the 3D mesh is manufactured is given minimal patentable weight. Rocco discloses a planar 3D mesh as claimed by Applicant. The manner in which the 3D mesh in Rocco is manufactured has the same structure as claimed by Applicant. Rocco is silent to the PLLA fibers being fused. Suzuki discloses a 3D net structure in Figure 1. Paragraph 0006 discloses a fabric formed of bioabsorbable fibers such as PLLA fibers. Paragraph 0010 discloses that the fabric is coated with polyethylene glycol wherein the coating can further include a drug [pharmaceutical compound]. Paragraph 0012 discloses that the intersections of the fibers may be joined or bonded at one or more points by using heat fusion [0015]. Suzuki discloses body tissue [0001]. Additionally, Suzuki discloses that the fabric made of bioabsorbable material has large expansion force and high flexibility. Rocco and Suzuki are analogous art in that both references discloses fabrics of PLLA fibers coated with PEG for tissue repair. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would utilize the fused PLLA fibers of Suzuki as the fabric/;textile composite structure of Rocco for the benefit of obtaining a coated fabric or textile having enhanced large expansion force and high flexibility. Burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. Fitzgerald, In re, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). Regarding claims 5-8, 16, 19, paragraphs 0125-0129 of Rocco disclose that the that the composite scaffold can be combined with additives to enhance various characteristics of the scaffold including biologics including seeded cells and bioactive agents. Paragraph 0126 discloses that the bioactive agents such as growth factors, therapeutics and extracellular matrices can be added to the scaffold either before or after the formation of the microporous matrix [combined with the microporous matrix]. Paragraph 0135 discloses that PEG [polyethylene glycol] can be used for the microporous matrix. Paragraph 0127 discloses that suitable growth factors include fibroblast growth factor, vascular endothelial growth factor and epidermal growth factor. Paragraph 0129 discloses therapeutics such as antibiotics and anti-inflammatories. Claim 6 depends upon claim 5 which recites growth factor. Rocco discloses growth factors in paragraph 0126. Rocco satisfies the limitation of claim 6 as it depends on claim 5 which recites growth factors. Regarding claims 13 and 19-20, paragraph 0125 of Rocco discloses that the composite scaffold can be combined with additives to enhance various characteristics of the scaffold including biologics including seeded cells. Also, paragraph 0125 discloses suitable seeded cells such as mesenchyn stem cells. Regarding claim 14, the preamble “skin graft” is intended use. See MPEP 2111.02. Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocco et al., U.S. Pre Grant Publication 2020/0253713 in view of Suzuki et al., JP 2002-200176 as evidenced by Polysciences, Poly-L-lactic Acid. Regarding claim 10, Polysciences, Poly-L-lactic acid provides evidence that PLLA has a molecular weight of about 100,000 g/mol [100 kDa]. 1 kDa = 1000 g/mol. Regarding claim 11, Polysciences, Poly-L-lactic acid provides evidence that PLLA has a melting temperature ranging from 173 °C to 178 °C. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the present claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMIE S THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1530. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Jennifer Boyd, can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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. /CAMIE S THOMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 22, 2021
Application Filed
Sep 29, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 03, 2024
Response Filed
Apr 28, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Jul 31, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 01, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 13, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 02, 2024
Response Filed
Mar 24, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jul 28, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 29, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 06, 2026
Response Filed
Jan 28, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601090
CLOSED LOOP RECYCLING IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600171
COMPOSITE COMPRISING A METAL REINFORCING ELEMENT AND AN ELASTOMER COMPOSITION CONTAINING AN ADHESION PROMOTING RESIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595655
INSULATION PRODUCTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590388
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING A MULTI-PLY SEPARABLE FILAMENT YARNS AND MULTI-PLY SEPARABLE TEXTURED YARN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590192
FIBRE-REINFORCED RESIN, POROUS STRUCTURE, AND MOLDED MEMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+10.5%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1310 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