DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 22, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11-14, 17, 20-21, 24, 27, 29-30 and 38-39 are pending. Claims 5, 7-8, 10, 15-16, 18-19, 22-23, 25-26, 28 and 32-37 are canceled. Claims 1-4, 6, 13 and 17 are amended.
Previous Rejections
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn as are those rejections and/or objections expressly stated to be withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Rejections Withdrawn
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
In light of the amendments to the claims the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention is withdrawn.
Rejections Maintained
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9, 11-14, 17, 20-21, 24, 27, 29-30 and 38-39 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace et al. US 6495127 (12/17/2002)(12/29/2022 IDS) in view of Arthur et al US 9452144 (9/27/2016) (12/29/2022 IDS) and Rhee et al. US 6166130 (12/26/2000) as evidenced by the specification is maintained.
Wallace discloses a composition that forms a matrix having a first polymer, a second branched polymer and a third polymer having reactivity to the second polymer and is at least partially crosslinked to the second branched polymer, wherein the second comprises a tissue-adhesive group, including NHS, vinyl-sulfone or maleimide. The matrix can be biodegradeable. (See Wallace claims 5 and 7).
In the composition there are two multifunctional synthetic polymers with the ability to crosslink, one having a nucleophilic group and the other a tissue adhesive group . (See claims 1 and 2). There is also taught to be an additional polymer, called a tensile strength enhancer. The tensile strength enhancer can be collagen, polyglycolide or polylactide. Polyglycolide and polylactide are polyesters. The tensile strength enhancer is the first polymer as called for in instant claim 1 and it can be a polyester, as called for in instant claim 1. Other organic tensile strength enhancers and inorganic tensile strength enhancers are described as suitable. Vicryl (polyglycolide:polylactide, 90:10) is described as particularly useful. (See col. 8, lines 24-31). Thus, a combination of polyesters is taught to be particularly useful in Wallace.
Wallace teaches the benefit of components that provide structure to the composition. Wallace describes that an aspect of the its invention is inclusion of the tensile strength enhancer, which can be comprised of a variety of compounds capable of forming a structure with the appropriate characteristics described throughout Wallace. These compounds include vicryl, glass wool, plastics, resins and fibers. Thus, the inclusion of unreactive polymers are contemplated to provide additional structure to the composition.
Polycaprolactones are also disclosed to be useful polymers and useful tensile strength enhancer polymers in the Wallace composition. (Se col. 7, lines 40-50). Polycaprolactones are called for in instant claim 14. Polycaprolactone for the first polymer is called for in claims 12, 14 and 27.
In Example 7 there is a composition of collagen (tensile strength enhancer/first polymer) and 4-armed tetraglutaryl-succinimidyl polyethylene glycol (second polymer) and 4-armed tetra-thiol polyethylene glycol (third polymer). Thus, there is a branched 4-armed polymer for the second and third polymer. The second and third polymer are branched as called for instant claim 1 and comprise four arms which falls within the three to ten arms called for in instant claims 4 and 6. Both the second and third polymer comprise polyethylene glycol as called for in instant claim 4. The nucleophilic group is thiol as called for in claims 3 and 4. A star polymer is called for in instant claim 7.
The third polymer is branched and contains a nucleophilic group as called for in instant claim 1. A branched 4-star polymer is a star polymer as called for in instant claim 7 and 4 arms falls within the three to ten arms called for in instant claim 7.
The third polymer has a nucleophilic group thiol which reacts with tissue-adhesive group NHS, which is covalently attached to the arms of the second polymer, to form crosslinking. The second and third polymers are polyethylene glycols and the molecular weight of polyethylene glycols is 100-100,000 Da. (See Examples 2 and 7). 100-100,000 Da overlaps with the from 10000 to 50,000 Da called for in instant claim 6.
In Example 7 Wallace discloses a ratio of the first polymer: second polymer of 8:1. 8:1 falls with the ratio range of claim 14.
In Example 7 collagen is the first polymer. Collagen has a molecular weight of around 300 kDa. Wallace teaches that the first polymer can be polyester or collagen. Since collagen with a molecular weight of around 300 kDa is exemplified as a first polymer in the Wallace composition, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be inclined to use a polyester such as polyglycolide (which is expressly taught to be suitable as the tensile strength enhancer (aka first polymer) with a similar molecular weight of around 300 kDa. 300 kDa falls within the between 100 kDa to 900 kDa called for in instant claim 1.
With respect to the molar excess of the tissue-adhesive group of the second branched polymer to the nucleophilic group of the third polymer in claim 1, it would be obvious to use the 8:1 ratio of the first polymer: second polymer with the second polymer to the third polymer.
Wallace teaches that when appropriate ratios are used of the two components are utilized as described herein, the two molecules form multiple attachments to one another resulting in a three dimensional polymer matrix. Wallace teaches that this results in a matrix with greater overall strength. (See col. 6, lines 5-22). Wallace teaches towards the use of a ratio of 8:1 for two components, since Wallace teaches that this ratio between two components produces a matrix with greater strength. Thus, it would be obvious to use the 8:1 ratio of the first polymer: second polymer with the second polymer to the third polymer. If 8 times as much 4 armed tetrathiol polyethylene glycol was used than an 8 times molar excess of NHS groups would be used to thiol groups. With a ratio of 8:1 second polymer to the first polymer, the at least 10% molar excess is met as called or in instant claim 1.
Specifically, Wallace teaches that 10,000 molecular weight is particularly preferred. (See col. 7, lines 1-5). If 10,000 g/mol is the molecular weight of the 4 arm tetraglutaryl-succinimdyl PEG and 50 milligrams were used, than the moles would be 5 micromoles (moles = 0.050g/10000 g/mol = 0.000005 mol (5 micromoles)). There would be 20 micromoles of NHS reactive groups because a 4 armed PEG has four NHS groups per molecule. (4 x 5 micromoles, or 20 micromoles). If 8 times as much 4 arm tetraglutaryl-succinimdyl PEG (second polymer) were used as 4 armed tetrathiol PEG (third polymer), than there would be 160 micromoles of NHS groups and there would be an at least 10% molar excess of tissue adhesive groups as called for in instant claim 1.
Wallace teaches that 10,000 molecular weight is particularly preferred. (See col. 7, lines 1-5). If 10,000 g/mol is the molecular weight of the 4 armed tetrathiol PEG and 50 milligrams were used, than the moles would be 5 micromoles (moles = 0.050g/10000 g/mol = 0.000005 mol (5 micromoles)). There would be 20 micromoles of thiol groups because a 4 armed thiol has four thiol groups per molecule. (4 x 5 micromoles, or 20 micromoles).
Furthermore, Wallace teaches that when appropriate ratios are used of the two components are utilized as described herein, the two molecules form multiple attachments to one another resulting in a three dimensional polymer matrix. Wallace teaches that this results in a gel matrix with greater overall strength. (See col. 6, lines 5-22).
The matrix is biodegradable as called for in instant claim 17. (See Wallace claims 4, 5 and 7). Wallace teaches a matrix that comprises a tissue adhesive layer that contains the blended polymeric fiber as called for in instant claim 20. The matrix can be a solid as called for in instant claim 1. (See col. 11, lines 25-39).
In Table 13 Wallace teaches adhesion strength of 2 and 4 N which falls within the from 1 to 10 B adhesive strength called for in instant claim 24. Wallace teaches that its matrix can contain and deliver a drug which is a pharmaceutically active ingredient as called for in instant claim 29. (See Drug Delivery Section in column 15). Wallace teaches that its matrix can serve as a substitute for sutures which promote the bioadhesion of a biological tissue as called for in instant claim 30.
Wallace teaches polyethylene glycol copolymers for the second and third polymers as called for in instant claim 12. Wallace teaches fibers of 5 to 40 microns in diameter as tensile strength enhancers for combination with the fibers. (See col. 8, lines 15-25).
Wallace does not teach a matrix with pores of a particular size or a matrix of a particular thickness. Wallace does not expressly teach wherein either the second or third polymer are blended with the first polymer, so as to form a blended polymeric fiber. Wallace does not teach a process of making the matrix using an electrospinning apparatus. While Wallace teaches a molar excess, Wallace does not expressly teach reasons why a molar excess would be used. These deficiencies are made up for with the teachings of Arthur et al. and Rhee et al.
Arthur et al. (Arthur) discloses a fibrous tissue sealant in the form of a fibrous sheet comprising a first component which is a fibrous polymer containing electrophilic groups and a second component capable of crosslinking the first component when the sheet is exposed to an aqueous medium thereby forming a crosslinked hydrogel that is adhesive to biological tissue, thereby forming a crosslinked hydrogel that is adhesive to biological tissue. (See Abstract). Arthur teaches a matrix comprising a tissue adhesive layer wherein the tissue adhesive layer comprises the blended polymeric fiber. A blended polymeric fiber is called for in instant claim 1. Arthur teaches that its process and tissue sealant is suitable to supplement or replace surgical sutures. (See Abstract). The fibrous sheet can have pores with the size of about 3 microns to about 10 microns. (See Figure 2). About 3 microns to about 10 microns overlaps with the 0.5 to 100 micrometer called for in claim 20. About 3 microns to about 10 microns overlaps with the between 4 to 20 micrometers called for in claim 17.
Arthur teaches wherein the first and second polymers are blended together to form a blended polymeric fiber. (See col. 4, lines 59-65 and column 5, lines 48-49). The reactive groups (tissue adhesive groups) are an aldehyde and they are covalently bound to an arm of the second polymer as called for in claim 9. (See col. 5, lines 60-65; col. 11 lines 17-27). The polymers used as the third polymer have a nucleophilic group and the second and third polymers are crosslinked by reacting the nucleophilic group of the third polymer with the tissue adhesive group of the second polymer. (See col. 10, lines 56 to col 11, line 34).
The matrix may further comprise an additional fibrous polymer layer made of the third polymer which crosslinks to the tissue adhesive layer, thereby enhancing its stability as called for in claim 20. (See col. 16, lines 55-60).
Arthur teaches a process for manufacturing the blended polymeric fiber in which the first polymer and at least one of the second or third polymers are mixed with a solvent thereby obtaining a solution and the solution is provided into an electrospinning apparatus, yielding a layer of polymeric fibers. (See col 8, lines 25-41; col 9, lines 18-24 and col 16, lines 55-64). This process reads on that called for in claim 38-39.
Arthur teaches that electrospinning is a well-known method for spinning fiber forming polymers into fibers that is adaptable and well known in the art. (See col 8, lines 25-41; col 9, lines 18-24 and col 16, lines 55-64).
Rhee et al. (Rhee) teaches the use of varying molar ratios, such as molar excess, to control the crosslinking density and properties of polymer compositions. Rhee teaches that crosslinked synthetic polymers can be used to deliver charged compounds. Rhee teaches that if a molar excess of a synthetic polymer containing multiple electrophilic groups is used, the resulting matrix has a net negative charge and can be used to ionically bind and deliver positively charged compounds. (See col. 2, lines 35-65). Rhee teaches the use of a 4 armed succinimdyl glutarate PEG. (See Figure 4). Rhee also teaches the use of a tetrathiol PEG. (See col. 7, lines 12-27).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date making the Wallace matrix to use the 8:1 ratio of the first polymer: second polymer with the second polymer to the third polymer in order to have a gel matrix with greater overall strength as taught by Wallace and also to be able to the resulting matrix has a net negative charge and can be used to ionically bind and deliver positively charged compounds as taught by Rhee.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date making the Wallace matrix to mix the first polymer with the second or third polymer to obtain a solution and feed the solution into an electrospinning apparatus to obtain a layer of polymeric fibers in light of Arthur’s teaching that electrospinning is a well-known method for spinning fiber forming polymers into fibers that is adaptable and well known in the art.
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace et al. US 6495127 (12/17/2002)(12/29/2022 IDS) in view of Arthur et al US 9452144 (9/27/2016) (12/29/2022 IDS) and Rhee et al. US 6166130 (12/26/2000) as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9, 11, 13-14, 17, 20-21, 24, 27, 29-30 and 38-39 above and further in view of Manassa et al. WO2015/092797 (6/25/2015) (12/29/2022 IDS) and Loh et al. Three Dimension Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering Applications: Role of Porosity and Pore Size, Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2013 Jun 25; 19(6): 485-502 is maintained.
The teachings of Wallace in view of Arthur and Rhee are described supra. Wallace teaches that the first polymer can be polglycolide, a polyester. Wallace in view of Arthur and Rhee do not teach the melting point of the blended polymeric fiber. Wallace in view of Arthur and Rhee do not teach the porosity of the porous blended polymeric fibers layer. This deficiency is made up for with the teachings of Manassa et al. and Loh et al.
Manassa teaches a matrix made up of layers of viscoelastic polymer wherein each of the layers of the material is made independently of polymeric fibers for repairing damaged tissues and for tissue substitutes. (See claim 1 and Abstract). The polymeric fibers have a melting point above 40°Celsius. (See page 3, final paragraph; page 8 first para.; page 10 first para; page 32 first paragraph). Above 40 to 150 °C overlaps with 50 to 150°C as called for in instant claim 2. Manassa teaches that this temperature keeps the matrix in a solid state at body temperature. (See page 3, final paragraph; page 8 first para.; page 10 first para; page 32 first paragraph).
Wallace teaches fibers of 5 to 40 microns in diameter as tensile strength enhancers for combination with the fibers. While the diameter of the blended fibers is not taught, it would be obvious for the blended fibers to have this diameter in order to have consistency in fiber diameter. 5 to 40 microns overlaps with the 0.5 to 10 micrometers called for in instant claim 2.
With respect to the at least 50 mol% of the tissue-adhesive groups of the second branched polymer are unreacted called for in instant claim 1, with such a molar excess in using the 8:1 ratio of the second polymer to the third polymer, only approximately 13% of the tissue adhesive groups of the second branched polymer are reacted which means that the remaining 87% tissue adhesive groups are unreacted. This falls within the at least 50 mol% of the tissue adhesive groups being unreacted called for in instant claim 2.
Loh et al. (Loh) studied the ability of the porosity of scaffolds to direct cellular responses. (See Abstract). Loh determined that the porosity in the ranges of 75% porosity and above was necessary to most important cellular functions. (See Table 1). Their findings show that higher porosities were much more conducive to in vivo blood vessel infiltration. 75% porosity and above overlaps with the porosity of at least 60% called for in instant claim 2.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date making the Wallace in view of Arthur and Rhee matrix to have the blended polymeric fibers in light of Arthur’s teaching that a melting point above 40°Celsius in light of Manassa’s teaching that this is a suitable melting point range for matrices that are made up of polymeric fibers for tissue substitutes or tissue repair.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments of January 22, 2026, have been fully considered and are found to be mostly unpersuasive.
Applicants note the amendments to the claims and note where support for the amendments can be found. Applicants assert that the amendments to claim 2 address the indefiniteness rejection. The Office agrees and this rejection has been withdrawn above.
Applicants argue with respect to the obviousness rejection that Applicants note that a potential combination of Arthur, Rhee and Wallace a skilled artisan would not arrive at the claimed solid porous matrix composed of blended fibers having a non-reactive polyester as the first polymer and a molar excess of tissue adhesive groups relative to the nucleophilic groups.
Applicants assert that Wallace clearly reads on collagen as the “first polymer” and is therefore completely distinct from the instant claimed unreactive polyester. Applicants also argue that Wallace teaches that gels formed by reaction of 2 PEGs are weak and therefore to obtain a stronger gel it is necessary to have a first polymer with a reactivity to the 2nd and third polymer and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to use the instant claimed unreactive polyester.
Applicants assert that additional polymers other than collagen are inoperable.
Applicants take issue with Office’s position that it would be obvious to use the 8:1 ratio of the second polymer to the third polymer based on Wallace’s teaching that the 8:1 ratio is to be used with respect to the first polymer:second polymer. Applicants argue that since the first polymer is unreactive to the second and third polymers, this 8:1 ratio should not be guiding a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicants note that Wallace is silent regarding molar excess of the tissue adhesive groups over nucleophilic groups. Indeed, Example 7 of Wallace discloses obtaining the adhesive by reacting the two reactive polymers in a 1:1 molar ratio and Wallace teaches an equimolar ratio.
Applicants argue that Arthur’s teaching are not directed to a blended fiber, but rather to a hydrogel formed after application to the tissue and exposure to water. Applicants also note that Arthur teaches a matrix formed form two completely crosslinked polymers which do not contain intact tissue-adhesive groups.
Applicants argue that Rhee is solely directed to a kit for in -situ formation of a crosslinked matrix at the application site and is silent with respect to a porous solid matrix. Rhee is also silent with respect to a polyester as the 3rd polymer and with respect to a solid porous matrix.
Applicants arguments have been carefully reviewed and with respect to the obviousness rejection are found to be unpersuasive.
Applicants assertion that Wallace clearly reads on collagen as the “first polymer” and is therefore completely distinct from the instant claimed unreactive polyester is not found to be persuasive because Wallace teaches that the tensile strength enhancer can be collagen, polyglycolide or polylactide. Polyglycolide and polylactide are polyesters. Wallace expressly states “Suitable tensile strength enhancers include, inter alia, collagen fibers, polyglycolide fibers and polylactide fibers. . “ (col 8, lines 24-28). Thus Wallace explicitly teaches that polyesters are suitable tensile strength enhancers. Respectfully, Wallace’s disclosure is much more than that found in a single Example, Wallace Example 7.
Wallace also teaches the benefit of components that provide structure to the composition. Wallace describes that an aspect of the its invention is inclusion of the tensile strength enhancer, which can be comprised of a variety of compounds capable of forming a structure with the appropriate characteristics described throughout Wallace. These compounds include vicryl, glass wool, plastics, resins and fibers. Thus, the inclusion of unreactive polymers are desirable to provide additional structure to the composition. Applicants’ argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to use the instant claimed unreactive polyester because it would render the composition weak is not found to be persuasive because unreactive polymers are taught to be desirable in providing structure and strength to its compositions.
Applicants assertion that additional polymers other than collagen are inoperable is unpersuasive because it is expressly contradicted by the teachings of Wallace which state that polyglycolide fibers and polylactide fibers (both of which are polyesters) are suitable tensile strength enhancers. Other organic tensile strength enhancers and inorganic tensile strength enhancers are described as suitable. (See col. 8, lines 24-31). Vicryl (polyglycolide:polylactide, 90:10) is described as particularly useful. (See col. 8, lines 24-31). Thus, a combination of polyesters is taught to be particularly useful in Wallace.
Furthermore, Applicants assertion of inoperability not only contradict the express teachings of Wallace but they are more appropriately the subject of an Affidavit. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). Examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration include statements regarding unexpected results, commercial success, solution of a long-felt need and inoperability of the prior art.
Respectfully, in response to Applicant's arguments 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). Thus, since all of the claimed elements are found in the combined teachings of the references together, they do not need to be found in a single prior art reference. Thus, Rhee being directed to a kit for in -situ formation of a crosslinked matrix at the application site and being silent with respect to a porous solid matrix and silent with respect to a polyester as the 3rd polymer does not matter when these teachings are found in other prior art references and there is motivation to combine their teachings. It is worth noting that all of the prior art references relate to tissue adhesive compositions such as sealants that are used to treat tissues.
Applicants argument that Wallace is silent regarding molar excess of the second polymer (tissue adhesive groups) over the third polymer (nucleophilic groups) is not found to be persuasive because there is more disclosure than that found in a single Example, Wallace Example 7. Namely, Wallace teaches that when appropriate ratios are used of the two components are utilized as described herein, the two molecules form multiple attachments to one another resulting in a three dimensional polymer matrix. Wallace teaches that this results in a matrix with greater overall strength. (See col. 6, lines 5-22). Wallace teaches towards the use of a ratio of 8:1 for two components, since Wallace teaches that this ratio between two components produces a matrix with greater strength. Thus, it would be obvious to use the 8:1 ratio of the first polymer: second polymer with the second polymer to the third polymer. With a ratio of 8:1 second polymer to the first polymer, the at least 10% molar excess is met as called or in instant claim 1.
With respect to Applicants’ argument that they are claiming a fibrous mat but Wallace is teaching a gel matrix, it is noted that Applicants teach at paragraph [0146] that their fibers can be a semi-solid composition or a semi-liquid composition (e.g. a gel). Applicants therefore teach that their fibers can be in the form of a gel. (See [0146] of the instant specification). Applicants also teach that their fibers can be made by gel spinning when the fibers are in the form of a gel. (See [0265] and [0270]).
Applicants’ assertion that the secondary reference Arthur does not cure the deficiency of the primary reference is not found persuasive. Arthur teaches the blended polymeric fiber and the porous aspect of the fibrous sheet. Arthur teaches a matrix comprising a tissue adhesive layer wherein the tissue adhesive layer comprises the blended polymeric fiber. The fibrous sheet can have pores with the size of about 3 microns to about 10 microns. (See Figure 2).
Applicants’ argument that Arthur is silent regarding a blended polymeric fiber is also not found to be persuasive. Arthur teaches wherein the first and second polymers are blended together to form a blended polymeric fiber. (See col. 4, lines 59-65 and column 5, lines 48-49). The reactive groups (tissue adhesive groups) are an aldehyde and they are covalently bound to an arm of the second polymer as called for in claim 9. (See col. 5, lines 60-65; col. 11 lines 17-27). The polymers used as the third polymer have a nucleophilic group and the second and third polymers are crosslinked by reacting the nucleophilic group of the third polymer with the tissue adhesive group of the second polymer. (See col. 10, lines 56 to col 11, line 34). Arthur teaches the blended fiber composed of three different polymers as the porous tissue adhesive fibrous layer.
It should be noted that the property of superior tissue adhesiveness is suggested by the cited prior art. Wallace teaches very high tissue adhesiveness in its disclosure (See Example 3). Therefore, the properties appear to be taught and exemplified by the prior art.
See MPEP 716.02(e). The teachings of the prior art are consistent with expected beneficial results. Expected beneficial results are more indicative of obviousness than of unobviousness. “Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention, just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness thereof.” In re Gershon, 372 F2d 535, 538, 152 USPQ 602, 604 (CCPA 1967)(resultant decrease of dental enamel solubility accomplished by adding an acidic buffering agent to a fluoride containing dentrifice was expected based on the teaching of the prior art).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH CHICKOS whose telephone number is (571)270-3884. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Blanchard can be reached on 571-272-0827. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
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.
SARAH CHICKOS
Examiner
Art Unit 1619
/DAVID J BLANCHARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1619