Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/607,245

Patterned Hydrogel Devices and Methods for Neural Regeneration

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 28, 2021
Examiner
MCEVOY, THOMAS M
Art Unit
3771
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
The Trustees of Princeton University
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
704 granted / 994 resolved
+0.8% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+35.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
55 currently pending
Career history
1049
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
50.3%
+10.3% vs TC avg
§102
28.0%
-12.0% vs TC avg
§112
17.0%
-23.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 994 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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. Claims 1-9, 16, 24-26 and 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz et al. (US 2017/0312780) in view of Hadlock et al. (US 2001/0031974). Regarding claim 1, Schwartz et al. disclose a matrix for neuron regeneration (¶[0002], [0129]) the matrix comprising: a sheet (¶[0072]; Figure 1) having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, the second surface having a plurality of integrally formed ridges (¶[0036]; Figure 19E); wherein the sheet including the integrally formed ridges, comprises oligo(poly(ethylene glycol) fumarate) (¶[0012], [0129]). Schwartz et al. fail to disclose that the sheet has a spiral shape, such that the first surface of the sheet faces the second surface of the sheet. Schwartz et al. disclose that the sheet can be a tube-like structure which is rolled or rolled-up (¶[0013]). Hadlock et al. disclose a tube for neuron regeneration (Abstract; Figure 2C) being a spiral having a first surface (115) facing an opposite second surface (113). Hadlock et al. teach that the spiral geometry permits the formation of multiple functional layers lining the lumen of the tube for neuron growth (¶[0004]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and in view of Hadlock et al. to have formed the tube of Schwartz et al. as a spiral in order to permit the formation of multiple functional layers lining the lumen of the tube for neuron growth. Regarding claim 2, Schwartz et al. fail to disclose that the first surface includes a patterned surface, the patterned surface including a plurality of channels; and wherein the plurality of channels are substantially parallel. Shwartz et al. use the patterned second surface to promote the growth and alignment of neural cells (Abstract; ¶[0085], [0086]). Schwartz et al. effectively disclose that the cells can be grown on concave or convex surfaces (¶[0090]). Hadlock et al. teach using both the first and second surfaces of the spiral to grow neural cells (¶[0034]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and in view of Hadlock et al. to have provided the pattern of Schwartz et al. (having channels between the ridges) to both surfaces so that the neural cells could be grown on either surface, thus promoting increased cell growth. Regarding claim 3, Schwartz et al. disclose that each of the plurality of channels have a width and a depth; wherein the width is in a range of 10 μm to 80 μm (¶[0058], [0129]; Figure 20A; and elsewhere) and wherein the depth is in a range of 10 nm to 70 nm (¶[0034], [0036] and elsewhere). Regarding claim 4, Schwartz et al. disclose that the first surface includes a metal oxide layer, the metal oxide layer covering at least a portion of the second surface, and wherein the metal oxide layer includes a plurality of channels directed into the metal oxide layer, the plurality of channels being substantially parallel to each other (¶[0014], ¶[0055], [0073] and elsewhere; note that the channels do not cover the entire suface of the sheet - Figure 1). Regarding claim 5, Schwartz et al. disclose that the metal oxide layer comprises a material selected from the group consisting of titanium dioxide, zirconium dioxide, and combinations thereof (¶[0014], ¶[0055], [0073] and elsewhere). Regarding claim 6, Schwartz et al. disclose that the matrix comprises a self-assembled alkylphosphonate monolayer disposed on at least a portion of the metal oxide layer (Abstract). Regarding claim 7, the alkylphosphonate monolayer is disposed on the metal oxide layer, and wherein the alkylphosphonate monolayer further defines the plurality of channels, such that a height of each channel is defined by a height of the metal oxide layer and a height of the alkylphosphonate monolayer (Abstract of Schwartz et al.). Regarding claim 8, the metal oxide layer and the alkylphosphonate monolayer defines a patterned surface, and wherein the plurality of channels extend through the entirety of the patterned surface, such that the first surface of the sheet lines a bottom surface of each channel (Abstract, Figure 1 of Schwartz et al.). Regarding claim 9, Schwann cells are disposed on the alkylphosphonate monolayer, or within the plurality of channels (¶[0072], [0122] of Schwartz et al.). Regarding claim 16, in addition to the limitations already addressed above, Schwartz et al. disclose that the sheet comprises a hydrogel (¶[0129]). Regarding claims 24 and 25, the plurality of ridges are longitudinally spaced apart from each other at a first distance wherein the first distance is in a range of 0.1 mm to 2.0 mm (Figure 9 of Schwartz et al.). Regarding claim 26, the plurality of ridges are laterally spaced apart from each other at a second distance (Figure 21A of Schwartz et al. and elsewhere). Regarding claims 36-39, the claim limitations have effectively been addressed above. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 10-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, filed August 20th 2025 with regard to Schwartz et al. (WO 2019/036594) not being qualified as prior art have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection in view of Schwartz et al. has been withdrawn. Accordingly this Office action is non-final. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas McEvoy whose telephone number is (571) 270-5034 and direct fax number is (571) 270-6034. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00 am – 6:00 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, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Elizabeth Houston at (571) 272-7134. 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/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. /THOMAS MCEVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 28, 2021
Application Filed
Mar 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 20, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594069
Handle Assembly Providing Unlimited Roll
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12564405
BLOOD VESSEL COMPRESSION SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12558242
ANATOMIC NEEDLE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12544072
TISSUE ANCHOR FOR SECURING TISSUE LAYERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12544106
Puncture guide needle
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+35.6%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 994 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