DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of t/e previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/17/2026 has been entered.
Status of Application
The Examiner acknowledges receipt of the amendments filed on 2/17/2026 wherein claim 1 and 28 have been amended, claims 10 and 19-27 have been cancelled and claim 29 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-9, 11, 12, 28 and 29 are presented for examination on the merits. The following rejections are made.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments
Applicant’s amendment filed 2/17/2026 overcomes the rejection of claim 28 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 112(b). This rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/17/2026 regarding the rejection of claims 1-9, 11, 12 and 28 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 102(a)(1) over Troczynski et al. (US 2006/0199876), evidenced by Applicant’s published specification have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive and is MAINTAINED for the reasons of record in the office action mailed on 12/10/2025.
In regards to the 102(a)(1) rejection, Applicant asserts the following:
A) The claim has been amended to define the resin material. Troczynski’s does not disclose the claimed resins.
In response to A, the Examiner is not persuaded. The polymers of Troczynski include polylactic and polyglycolic acid (see claim 35) which are polyesters, methacrylate polymers (see [0031]), polyurethanes (see [0030]), ethylene vinyl acetate copolymers (a vinyl ester) (see [0084]). These polymers are understood to be resin materials as they overlap with the structures claimed and described by Applicant. The polymers of Troczynski, such as polylactic and polyglycolic acid, are identified as ‘resins’ by the instant specification (see [0058]) and would thus possess such a functionality/description despite not by the prior art.
Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-9, 11, 12, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Troczynski et al. (US 2006/0199876), evidenced by Applicant’s published specification.
Troczynski discloses an interconnected porous (see claim 7) polymer scaffold having a desired shape, the scaffold being made from a biocompatible polymer, such as polylactic acid and polyglycolic acid (see claim 35). Polylactic and polyglycolic acid are both polyesters and are identified as ‘resins’ according to Applicant’s specification (see [0058]). Troczynski’s scaffold possess pores having a pore diameter of 0.01 microns (see claim 4) (see instant claims 1, 4, 5 and 28) and a porosity of 5-70% (see claim 4) (see instant claim 8). Troczynski’s scaffold may be free of antimicrobial agent and antiviral agent (see claim 1) (see instant 9).
Regarding instant claim 2 and the requirement that the claimed structure have openings/pores that are ‘continuously coupled to each other’ and ‘independently coupled to some of the plurality of pores’, this is a clear feature of Troczynski which describes their scaffold as having ‘interconnected’ pores. The interconnected pores of the references would anticipate the claimed porous structure as they are both continuously and independently coupled.
Regarding the nature/properties of the scaffold, e.g. ‘antimicrobial activity or antiviral activity’ (see instant claims 1), having ‘antimicrobial or the antiviral activity even after the anti-pathogen structure is immersed in water of 25 degrees Celsius for 24 hours’ (see instant claim 3), ‘activity value’ (see instant claims 6 and 7) and ‘hardness’ (see instant claim 12), because the structure of the prior art is identical to that claimed (i.e. resin structure having surface opening (i.e. pores) that may be interconnected) it must have the same properties albeit unrecognized. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in composition, said composition must have the same properties, unless shown otherwise. See MPEP 2112.01.
The limitation of instant claim 1 (and 11) that recite, ‘…wherein the resin structure includes a skeleton that shapes a plurality of opening, and the skeleton has a substantially plane shape’, this appears to be another way of describing the anti-pathogen structure. That is to say, the anti-pathogen structure is that of the skeleton. Regarding the skeleton possessing particles coupled together and forming a shape, Troczynski states that their scaffold is to comprise bioceramic filler particles in a continuous phase and/or co-continuous phase (see instant claims 1 and 28). These bioceramic filler particles would be coupled together via proximity to form some shape. It is noted that instant claim 1 (nor claims 11 and 28) does not specify any shape other than the particles being coupled together which is itself broad as ‘coupled together’ encompasses any physical and chemical interaction which the bioceramic particles of Troczynski would certainly exhibit. Regarding the shape of the skeleton being a ‘substantially plane shape”, assuming the skeleton is synonymous to that of the structure, Figure 6 of the reference shows the porous coating as being flat and thus being substantially planar.
Regarding instant claim 29, the ‘consisting essentially of organic material’ limitation is not considered limiting as Applicant has not defined what compounds materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention. It is unclear if an something besides an organic material would materially impact the resulting composition. As Applicant has failed to provide a clear indication for ‘consisting essentially of', ‘consisting essentially of’ will be construed as equivalent to ‘comprising’. See MPEP 2111.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE A PURDY whose telephone number is (571)270-3504. The examiner can normally be reached from 9AM to 5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bethany Barham, can be reached on 571-272-6175. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A PURDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611