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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/04/2025 (RCE 08/12/2025) has been entered.
Status
Applicant is advised that the Notice of Allowance mailed 02/03/2026 is vacated. If the issue fee has already been paid, applicant may request a refund or request that the fee be credited to a deposit account. However, applicant may wait until the application is either found allowable or held abandoned. If allowed, upon receipt of a new Notice of Allowance, applicant may request that the previously submitted issue fee be applied. If abandoned, applicant may request refund or credit to a specified Deposit Account.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2-11 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “the first and second polymer structures” in lines 4-5. There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation since claim 1 previously recites “one or more first polymer structures” and “one or more second polymer structures”. The limitation will be interpreted as “the one or more first polymer structures and the one or more second polymer structures” for consistency and clarity.
Claim 4 recites “first polymer structures” in line 2. This limitation is indefinite since without “the” or “said” preceding the limitation, it is unclear whether “first polymer structures” is referring to the first polymer structures previously recited in claim 1 above, or directed to different polymer structures.
Claim 4 recites “affinity comprises binding affinity”. The scope of this claim is indefinite since the term “comprises” conveys that the claimed affinity is open-ended to unrecited elements; however, claim 4 depends on claim 3, and claim 3 previously recites the affinity excludes elements (i.e., “the group consisting of”) other than “binding affinity, size affinity, conformation affinity, and combinations thereof.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 stands rejected as being dependent on claim 4.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the functional motif comprises an RGD (Arg-Gly-Asp) motif.” There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation since claim 5 depends on claim 4, and claim 4 previously recites plural functional motifs. The limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the functional motifs comprise
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the first and second polymer structures" in L2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation will be interpreted as “the one or more first polymer structures and the one or more second polymer structures” for consistency and clarity.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the second polymer structures" in L1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation will be interpreted the one or more second polymer structures” for consistency and clarity.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first polymer structures" in L1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation will be interpreted the one or more first polymer structures” for consistency and clarity.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second polymer structures" in L6+. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation will be interpreted the one or more second polymer structures” for consistency and clarity.
Claim 21 is unclear reciting “the dynamic polymer surface comprises a two-component polymer brush including first polymer structures comprising PAA domains grafted in between second polymer structures comprising PNIPAM domains” because it is unclear whether the first polymer structures comprising PAA domains and the second polymer structures comprising PNIPAM domains are directed to the one or more first polymer structures and/or the one or more second polymer structures, or different structures.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Mandal et al. (Thermoresponsive Micropatterned Substrates for Single Cell Studies. PLOS ONE 2012, 7(5)).
Regarding claim 1, Mandal et al. teach:
1. A dynamic polymer surface comprising:
a single polymer layer having alternating micropatterns of adhesive domains (e.g., adhesive zones) and environmental stimuli-responsive repulsive domains (e.g., non-adhesive/anti-adhesive PNIPAM regions; see Abstract “We described the design of micropatterned surfaces for single cell studies, based on thermoresponsive polymer brushes … made of poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) grafted at high surface density [which] display excellent protein and cell anti-adhesive properties (i.e., repulsive) … combined with temperature-dependent swelling properties of PNIPAM, allowing us to use the polymer brush as a microactuator which induces cell detachment when the temperature is reduced below 32°C.”; see also Fig. 9C showing a cell binding to the adhesive domains (two adhesive areas in blue) which alternate with the repulsive domains (shown as “swelling inducing cell detachment”)),
the adhesive domains comprising one or more first polymer structures (e.g., adhesive zones) wherein the one or more first polymer structures comprise a first polymer chosen from a polypeptide (since Mandal teaches the first polymer is fibronectin, and fibronectin is composed of polypeptides; see e.g., adsorbed protein in “Protein Coating” and “Protein and Cell Adhesion” sections), and wherein the one or more first polymer structures have an affinity for a target soft colloid particle (see e.g., cell throughout the reference as defined by the applicant’s specification at ¶ 0041), and
the repulsive domains comprising one or more second polymer structures wherein the one or more second polymer structures comprise a poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) (PNIPAM) (e.g., PNIPAM brushes), and wherein the one or more second polymer structures change from a retracted conformation to a swollen conformation in response to an environmental stimulus, such that application of the environmental stimulus changes the second polymer structures to the swollen conformation and does not activate the first polymer structures to a swollen conformation, such that the repulsive domains enlarge with respect to the adhesive domains, and wherein the one or more second polymer structures comprise polymer brushes (see Fig. 9C showing dynamic movement of the surface brushes between “collapsed” and “swollen” states. See also abstract “We describe the design of micropatterned surfaces for single cell studies, based on thermoresponsive polymer brushes … the temperature-dependent swelling properties of PNIPAM, allow us to use the polymer brush as a [dynamic] microactuator which induces cell detachment when the temperature is reduced below 32°C.”).
With regard to limitations in claim 1 (e.g., wherein the one or more first polymer structures have an affinity for a target soft colloid particle, [...] wherein the one or more second polymer structures change from a retracted conformation to a swollen conformation in response to an environmental stimulus, such that application of the environmental stimulus changes the second polymer structures to the swollen conformation and does not activate the first polymer structures to a swollen conformation, such that the repulsive domains enlarge with respect to the adhesive domains, [...]); and
claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11 (e.g., the affinity of the adhesive domains for [...]; wherein the one or more third polymer structures change conformation in response to a second environmental stimulus such that, upon application of the second environmental stimulus, the third polymer structures swell and enlarge with respect to the adhesive domains and the environmental stimuli-responsive repulsive domains comprising the second polymer structures and have a greater surface height than the adhesive domains and the environmental stimuli-responsive repulsive domains comprising the second polymer structures, wherein the second environmental stimulus is different than the environmental stimulus that activates the second polymer structures [...], etc.),
these claim limitations are considered process or intended use limitations, which do not further delineate the structure of the claimed apparatus from that of the prior art. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962).
The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim." Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969).
Furthermore, "[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See In re Young, 75 F.2d *>996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)) (see MPEP § 2115).
Regarding claims 2, 6-9 and 11, Mandal et al. teach:
2. The dynamic polymer surface of claim 1, wherein the one or more first polymer structures are selected from the group consisting of: polymer brushes, grafted polymers, anchored polymers, polymer/polyelectrolyte multilayers, a polymer network, a polymer hydrogel thin film, and combinations thereof (see i.e., adsorbed protein in “Protein Coating” and “Protein and Cell Adhesion” sections), wherein the first and second polymer structures are the same or different types of polymer structures (see Fig. 9C and rejection in claim 1).
6. The dynamic polymer surface of claim 1, wherein the target soft colloid particle is a biological soft colloid particle selected from the group consisting of lipid vesicles, cells, cellular organelles, protein clusters and complexes, polymer capsules, and microgel particles (e.g., cell throughout the reference).
7. The dynamic polymer surface of claim 6, wherein the first and second polymer structures comprise biocompatible polymers (since preceding structures have been taught, the claimed biocompatibility is met).
8. The dynamic polymer surface of claim 1, wherein the environmental stimulus is selected from the group consisting of: temperature, pH, ionic strength, salinity, chemical concentration, light, magnetic field, electric field, ligand-protein interactions, mechanical forces or a combination thereof (see Fig. 9C showing thermally induced cell detachment wherein PNIPAM brushes swell upon the application of an environmental stimulus i.e., a change in temperature. See also Abstract “A proper choice of the adhesive pattern shapes, combined with the temperature-dependent swelling properties of PNIPAM, allow us to use the polymer brush as a microactuator which induces cell detachment when the temperature is reduced … .”).
9. The dynamic polymer surface of claim 1, wherein the second polymer structures comprise a temperature sensitive polymer that changes conformation in response to a change in environmental temperature (see Fig. 9C and “Thermally induced cell detachment” section).
11. The dynamic polymer surface of claim 1, wherein a portion of the environmental stimuli-responsive repulsive domains comprise one or more third polymer structures (see i.e., characterization of PNIPAM with varying number of monomers per chain, monomer size, and distance between anchoring sites, see “Brush characterization” section), and wherein the one or more third polymer structures capable of changing conformation in response to a second environmental stimulus such that, upon application of the second environmental stimulus, the third polymer structures swell and enlarge with respect to the adhesive domains and the environmental stimuli-responsive repulsive domains comprising the second polymer structures and have a greater surface height than the adhesive domains and the environmental stimuli-responsive repulsive domains comprising the second polymer structures (since structures have been taught, the claimed capability is met), wherein the second environmental stimulus is different than the environmental stimulus that activates the second polymer structures, and wherein the one or more third polymer structures comprise poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) (PNIPAM), polymers with lower critical solution temperature (LCST), pH-responsive polymers, salt responsive polymers, photoresponsive polymers, or any combinations thereof (see “Brush characterization” section).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 10 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandal et al. (Thermoresponsive Micropatterned Substrates for Single Cell Studies. PLOS ONE 2012, 7(5)) in view of Kim et al. (US 2018/0066299 A1; incorporated references US 6,284,284 B1 to Naughton; and US 2010/0047305 A1 to Naughton et al.).
Regarding claims 4-5 & 10, Mandal et al. do not explicitly teach: 4. The dynamic polymer surface of claim 3, wherein first polymer structures comprise functional motifs having the characteristic of being complementary to and capable of reversibly binding complementary motifs. 5. The dynamic polymer surface of claim 4, wherein the functional motif comprises an RGD (Arg-Gly-Asp) motif. 10. The dynamic polymer surface of claim 9, wherein the first polymer structures comprise a polyacrylic acid (PAA).
Kim et al. teach: A dynamic polymer surface comprising:
a single polymer layer (i.e., micro and nano patterned substrate/biomimetic culture platform, Abstract and throughout the reference) having alternating micropatterns (see i.e., alternating patterned “cell adherent region” (cell permissive region/migration pathways) and “cell non-adherent region” (non-exposed surfaces of the nanopatterned substrate) in Figs. 1B-1C, 8A-10 & ¶ 0013, 0250-0253+) of adhesive domains (see i.e., “cell adherent region” (cell permissive region/migration pathways) in Figs. 1B-1C, 8A-10 & ¶ 0013, 0250-0253+; see also ¶ 0190-0199, Tables 1, 2 & RGD domains ¶ 0192 for example) and repulsive domains (see ¶ 0138-0146, 0209-0212+ and Table 2 for example),
the adhesive domains comprising one or more first polymer structures (see i.e., polyethylene glycol (PEG), polyethylene glycol-gelatin methacrylate (PEG-GelMA) and chemical variants thereof and hydrogel arrays. Others include, but are not limited to poly(urethane acrylate) (PUA), poly(lactic-co-glycolic) acid (PLGA) or poly(methyl methacrylate (PMMA). ¶ 0138; see also [...] acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), acrylic, celluloid, cellulose acetate, ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA), ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVAL), fluoroplastics (PTFEs, including FEP, PFA, CTFE, ECTFE, ETFE), ionomers kydex, a trademarked acrylic/PVC alloy, liquid crystal polymer (LCP), polyacetal (POM or Acetal), polyacrylates (Acrylic), Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), polyacrylonitrile (PAN or Acrylonitrile), polyamide (PA or Nylon), polyamide-imide (PAI), polyaryletherketone (PAEK or Ketone), polybutadiene (PBD), polybutylene (PB), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), Polycyclohexylene Dimethylene Terephthalate (PCT), polycarbonate (PC), polyhydroxyal kanoates (PHAs),polyketone (PK), polyester polyethylene (PE), polyetheretherketone (PEEK), polyetherimide (PEI), polyethersulfone (PES), polysulfone polyethylenechlormates (PEC), polyimide (PI), polylactic acid (PLA), polymethylpentene (PMP), polyphenylene oxide (PPO), polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), polyphthalamide (PPA), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), polysulfone (PSU), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyvinylidene chloride (PVDC), polyolefin, and spectralon. ¶ 0210) and wherein the one or more first polymer structures capable of having an affinity for a target (see i.e., one or more growth factors, lipids, fatty acids, steroids, cytokines, hormones, or nucleic acid molecules that further promote or modulate migration of a cell, e.g., a tumor cell. In some embodiments, the ECM component coating comprises one or more growth factors, chemokines and/or chemoattractants selected from, for example, stromal-derived chemokine stromal-derived factor-1 (SDF-1), epidermal growth factor (EGF), platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), placental growth factor (PlGF), transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β), VEGF, VEGF-A, HGF/SF (hepatocyte growth factor), monocyte chemotactic protein (MCP1) also known as CC chemokine ligand 2 (CCL2), FGF, CCL5, CXCL8/IL-8, bFGF [FGF-2], angiopoietins, and/or mechanotaxins or secreted proteases. In some embodiments, the ECM component coating comprises at least one or more of EGF, PDGF or HGF. In some embodiments, the ECM component coating comprises members of the cadherin family, e.g., E-cadherin, VE-cadherin, nectins, β-catenin or plakoglobin (γ-catenin) and the like. ¶ 0190; [...] one or more agents selected from the group consisting of sphingosine phosphate or an analog thereof, fluoric acid, zFADvmk, cardiotropin, or a growth factor selected from the group consisting of FGF, HGF, IGF1, SDF1a, EGF, angiopoietin, BMP, erythropoietin (EPO), GDNG, c-GSF, GDF9, HDNF, GDF, thrombopoietin, TGFα, TGFβ, TNFα, PIGF, PDGF, interleukins IL1-IL17 and VEGF, CS1, RGD, domains in extracellular matrix proteins that bind to integrin receptors, and others well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art that promote or participate in cell/matrix interactions. ¶ 0192; see also list of agents in Tables 1-2 in ¶ 0196-0197 for example; see also incorporated reference ¶ 0191, US 6284284 Naughton teaching a substrate modified with various adherent layers throughout the reference), and
the repulsive domains comprising one or more second polymer structures (see i.e., in addition, the structure can comprise at least one conducting polymer selected from poly(pyrrole)s, poly(acetylene)s, poly(thiophene)s, poly(aniline)s, poly(fluorene)s, Poly(3-hexylthiophene), polynaphthalenes, poly(p-phenylene sulfide), poly(N-Isopropylacrylamide) (PIPAAm), and poly(para-phenylene vinylene)s. In some cases, the polymer structure comprises an integral pattern of the polymer and molecular remnant traces of poly(N-Isopropylacrylamide). In some embodiments, the polymer structure is composed of, or comprises at least one biological hydrogel selected from fibrin, collagen, gelatin, elastin and other protein and/or carbohydrate derived gels or synthetic hydrogel selected from polyethylene glycol, polyvinyl alcohol, polyacrylamide, poly(N-isopropylacrylamide), poly(hydroxyethyl methacrylate) and other synthetic hydrogels, and combinations thereof. ¶ 0144-0145+; see also Table 2 and incorporated reference ¶ 0191, US 2010/0047305 Naughton et al. i.e., Hydrogels have the advantage of selective trigger of polymer swelling. Depending on the composition of the polymer network, swelling of the microparticle may be triggered by a variety of stimuli, including pH, ionic strength, thermal, electrical, ultrasound, and enzyme activities. Non-limiting examples of polymers useful in hydrogel compositions include, among others, those formed from polymers of poly(lactide-co-glycolide); poly(N-isopropylacrylamide); poly(methacrylic acid-g-polyethylene glycol); polyacrylic acid and poly(oxypropylene-co-oxyethylene) glycol; and natural compounds such as chrondroitan sulfate, chitosan, gelatin, fibrinogen, or mixtures of synthetic and natural polymers, for example chitosan-poly (ethylene oxide). ¶ 0073) wherein the one or more second polymer structures capable changing (see ¶ 0211-0212 for example) from a retracted conformation to a swollen conformation in response to an environmental stimulus (see incorporated reference ¶ 0191, US 2010/0047305 Naughton et al. i.e., Hydrogels have the advantage of selective trigger of polymer swelling. Depending on the composition of the polymer network, swelling of the microparticle may be triggered by a variety of stimuli, including pH, ionic strength, thermal, electrical, ultrasound, and enzyme activities. Non-limiting examples of polymers useful in hydrogel compositions include, among others, those formed from polymers of poly(lactide-co-glycolide); poly(N-isopropylacrylamide); poly(methacrylic acid-g-polyethylene glycol); polyacrylic acid and poly(oxypropylene-co-oxyethylene) glycol; and natural compounds such as chrondroitan sulfate, chitosan, gelatin, fibrinogen, or mixtures of synthetic and natural polymers, for example chitosan-poly (ethylene oxide). ¶ 0073), and wherein the one or more second polymer structures comprise polymer brushes (see i.e., polymers such as poly(pyrrole)s, poly(acetylene)s, poly(thiophene)s, poly(aniline)s, poly(fluorene)s, Poly(3-hexylthiophene), polynaphthalenes, poly(p-phenylene sulfide), poly(N-Isopropylacrylamide) (PIPAAm), and poly(para-phenylene vinylene)s. In some cases, the polymer structure comprises an integral pattern of the polymer and molecular remnant traces of poly(N-Isopropylacrylamide). In some embodiments, the polymer structure is composed of, or comprises at least one biological hydrogel selected from fibrin, collagen, gelatin, elastin and other protein and/or carbohydrate derived gels or synthetic hydrogel selected from polyethylene glycol, polyvinyl alcohol, polyacrylamide, poly(N-isopropylacrylamide), poly(hydroxyethyl methacrylate) and other synthetic hydrogels, and combinations thereof. ¶ 0144-0145, see also 0210-0212; and incorporated reference US 2010/0047305 Naughton et al. ¶ 0070-0073).
wherein the one or more first polymer structures are selected from the group consisting of: polymer brushes, grafted polymers, anchored polymers, polymer/polyelectrolyte multilayers, a polymer network, a polymer hydrogel thin film, and combinations thereof, wherein the first and second polymer structures are the same or different types of polymer structures (see ¶ 0138, 0190-0192, 0209-0212, 0235, 0519, Tables 1, 2 in ¶ 0196-0197; incorporated reference US 6284284 Naughton for example).
wherein the affinity of the adhesive domains for the target soft colloidal particle selected from the group consisting of: binding affinity, size affinity, conformation affinity, and combinations thereof (see ¶ 0138, 0190-0192, 0209-0212, 0235, 0519, Tables 1, 2 in ¶ 0196-0197; incorporated reference US 6284284 Naughton for example).
wherein the affinity comprises binding affinity and wherein first polymer structures comprise functional motifs having the characteristic of being complementary to and capable of reversibly binding complementary motifs on the target soft colloid particle (see ¶ 0190-0199, Tables 1, 2 & RGD domains ¶ 0192; incorporated reference US 6284284 Naughton for example).
wherein the functional motif comprises an RGD (Arg-Gly-Asp) motif (see ¶ 0192 for example).
wherein the target soft colloid particle is a biological soft colloid particle selected from the group consisting of lipid vesicles, cells, cellular organelles, protein clusters and complexes, polymer capsules, and microgel particles (¶ 0077-0083, 0338-0341+).
wherein the first and second polymer structures comprise biocompatible polymers (¶ 0074, 0138+; see also incorporated reference ¶ 0191, US 2010/0047305 Naughton et al. ¶ 0070-0073).
wherein the environmental stimulus is selected from the group consisting of: temperature, pH, ionic strength, salinity, chemical concentration, light, magnetic field, electric field, ligand-protein interactions, mechanical forces or a combination thereof (see ¶ 0138-0146, 0209-0212+; see also incorporated reference ¶ 0191, US 2010/0047305 Naughton et al. ¶ 0073).
wherein the second polymer structures comprise a temperature sensitive polymer that changes conformation in response to a change in environmental temperature (see ¶ 0209-0212+; see also incorporated reference ¶ 0191, US 2010/0047305 Naughton et al. ¶ 0073).
wherein the first polymer structures comprise a polyacrylic acid (PAA) (see incorporated reference ¶ 0191, US 2010/0047305 Naughton et al. ¶ 0073).
wherein a portion of the repulsive domains comprise one or more third polymer structures (see i.e., In some embodiments, more than 1, or more than 2, or more than 3 or more than 3 but less than 10 different ECM proteins are used in the ECM component coating, e.g., a combination of collagen and laminin, etc. ¶ 0189; and ¶ 0135-0146, 210+ for example), and wherein the one or more third polymer structures capable of changing conformation in response to a second environmental stimulus (see ¶ 0211-0212; see also incorporated reference ¶ 0191, US 2010/0047305 Naughton et al. ¶ 0073), and wherein the one or more third polymer structures comprise poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) (PNIPAM), polymers with lower critical solution temperature (LCST), pH-responsive polymers, salt responsive polymers, photoresponsive polymers, or any combinations thereof (see ¶ 0211-0212; see also incorporated reference ¶ 0191, US 2010/0047305 Naughton et al. ¶ 0071-0073).
a two-component polymer brush including first polymer structures comprising PAA domains grafted in second polymer structures comprising PNIPAM domains (see incorporated reference ¶ 0191, US 2010/0047305 Naughton et al. ¶ 0070, 0073).
Regarding claims 4, 5 and 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the polymer surface of Mandal et al., with the use of functional motifs and polyacrylic acid (PAA), as taught by Kim et al. to promote cell adhesion and to permit cell migration (Kim et al. ¶ 0061, 0192+).
Regarding claim 21, Mandal et al. do not explicitly teach: 21. The dynamic polymer surface of claim 10, wherein the dynamic polymer surface comprises a two-component polymer brush including first polymer structures comprising PAA domains grafted in between second polymer structures comprising PNIPAM domains.
See Kim et al. above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a two-component polymer brush including first polymer structures comprising PAA domains grafted in second polymer structures comprising PNIPAM domains, as taught by Kim et al./Naughton et al., for the advantage of selective trigger of polymer swelling (Naughton et al. ¶ 0073). The Supreme Court has articulated a number of exemplary rationales that support a conclusion of obviousness including Rationale E. “Obvious To Try” – Choosing From a Finite Number of Identified, Predictable Solutions, with a Reasonable Expectation of Success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “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 USPQ2d at 1397. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant is encouraged to amend the claims to include additional structural elements of the polymer surface. Applicant is thanked for their thoughtful amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEAN KWAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7072. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH, 4:30 am - 2:30 pm EST.
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, CHARLES CAPOZZI can be reached at (571)270-3638. 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.
/DEAN KWAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
DEAN KWAK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights