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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on September 15, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, and 12-16 are pending in the application. Claims 7, 9, and 15-16 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 13, line 7, “2-[(2-Amino-2-oxoethyl)amino]ethane-1-sulfonic acid” is improperly capitalized and should read “2-[(2-amino-2-oxoethyl)amino]ethane-1-sulfonic acid.”
Other instances of improper capitalization in claim 13 (lines 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 24, 25, 27) must be corrected.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Anthis et al (WO 2022/157198 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Anthis teaches a composition containing a hydrogel and an impregnating fluid, wherein the impregnating fluid contains a curable monomer/prepolymer (p.39 para. 6 – p.40 para. 1), wherein the hydrogel is photocrosslinked (p.27, para. 1-4; photoinitiator used in production of hydrogel). Anthis further teaches an embodiment wherein the prepolymer contained in the impregnating fluid the same as the prepolymer used to form the hydrogel (p.35, para. 2).
Anthis does not specify that the hydrogel comprises a remaining photoinitiator. However, chemical reactions as a whole do not go to 100% completion; therefore, there will necessarily be trace amounts of remaining photoinitiator present in the hydrogel.
Regarding Claims 3-5: Anthis teaches polyethylene glycol diacrylate (formed from a polyethylene glycol and a diacrylate) as a preferred prepolymer in both the crosslinked hydrogel (p.21, para. 3) and the impregnating fluid (p.26, para. 2).
Regarding Claim 6: Anthis teaches that the composition is used in preparation for wound repair (Abstract, suture or staple supports).
Claims 10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Anthis et al (WO 2022/157198 A1).
Regarding Claim 10: Anthis teaches a composition containing a hydrogel and an impregnating fluid, wherein the impregnating fluid contains a buffer (p.39 para. 3), wherein the hydrogel is photocrosslinked (p.27, para. 1-4; photoinitiator used in production of hydrogel).
Anthis does not specify that the hydrogel comprises a remaining photoinitiator. However, chemical reactions as a whole do not go to 100% completion; therefore, there will necessarily be trace amounts of remaining photoinitiator present in the hydrogel.
MPEP § 2111.02(II) states “the claim preamble must be read in the context of the entire claim. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” Therefore, the limitation of “recrosslinkable” in the preamble of Claim 10 is not given patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 12: Anthis teaches polyethylene glycol diacrylate (p.21, para. 3).
Regarding Claim 13: Anthis teaches phosphate buffer/PBS (p.39, para. 3).
Regarding Claim 14: Anthis teaches that the composition is used in preparation for wound repair (Abstract, suture or staple supports).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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.
Conclusion
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 CAITLIN N ILLING whose telephone number is (571)270-1940. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at (571)272-1197. 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.
/C.N.I./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights