DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 4 May 2026. Claims 34-36, 38-48, 50-55 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 34-36, 38-40, 42, 44, 50-53 and newly added claims 54-55.
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 Objections
Claims 34, 53 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 34 recites “the mesh or the filaments is coated” in lines 2-3. Examiner recommends amending to –the mesh or the filaments are coated—
-Claim 53 recites “to claim 34 into” in line 2. Examiner recommends amending to –to claim 34, into—
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 44 and 50-52 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 44 recites “nanostructured cellulose” in line 2. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from the nanostructured cellulose originally referenced in claim 34, line 3. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 50 recites “a structure” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether this is the same structure or a different structure than the originally referenced structure in claim 34, line 1. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 50 recites "A support structure ... mammal" in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether this claim depends on independent claim 34 since it does not contain reference to the limitations introduced in claim 34. Specifically, "structure" aside from a support structure is not required per the claim limitations and therefore, renders the claim indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 34-36, 38-44, 46, 50-54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pattinson (U.S. 10696034) in view of Nelson (U.S. 20210069378).
Regarding Claim 34, Pattinson teaches a structure comprising a mesh or filaments [Abstract; “deposited filament”], the mesh or filaments comprising thermoplastic material [Col 4, lines 47-50]—reference to thermoplastic polymer and [Abstract; “(1) printing…complete.”], and wherein the structure comprises an auxetic structure having a negative Poisson's ratio [Col 27, line 55]-discusses using auxetic mesh materials for the purpose of directing blood flow.
Pattinson is silent on wherein at least 50% of the mesh or the filaments is coated with a coating comprising nanostructured or microstructured cellulose. Nelson teaches wherein at least 50% of the mesh or the filaments is coated with a coating comprising nanostructured or microstructured cellulose [0134] and [0227].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to nanocellulose fibrils as taught by Nelson to coat the thermoplastic material as suggested by Pattinson, as Pattinson discusses considerations for thermoplastics related to conditions with limiting water vapor [Col 7, lines 51-55] with Nelson because Nelson teaches hydrophobicity concerns for coated nanocellulose [0136].
Regarding Claim 35, Pattinson teaches wherein the filaments are knitted, or woven [Col 11, lines 56-60].
Regarding Claim 36, Pattinson teaches wherein the structure comprises openings extending through the structure [Col 27, lines 22-27] and [Fig. 5, element 154 (peripheral region)].
Regarding Claim 38, Pattinson is silent on wherein a thickness of the coating is at least 10 nm. Nelson teaches wherein a thickness of the coating is at least 10 nm [0135].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the specified thickness as taught by Nelson for the coating as suggested by Pattinson, as Pattinson discusses adjusting thickness of the deposited filaments and adhesives used with the filaments [Col 4, lines 29-45] with Nelson because Nelson teaches the use of nanocellulose blends because of wide ranges of particle sizes present [0135].
Regarding Claim 39, Pattinson is silent on wherein a thickness of the coating is in the range of 20 to 500 nm. Nelson teaches wherein a thickness of the coating is in the range of 20 to 500 nm [0135].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the specified thickness as taught by Nelson for the coating as suggested by Pattinson, as Pattinson discusses adjusting thickness of the deposited filaments and adhesives used with the filaments [Col 4, lines 29-45] with Nelson because Nelson teaches the use of nanocellulose blends because of wide ranges of particle sizes present [0135].
Regarding Claim 40, Pattinson is silent on wherein a thickness of the coating is in the range of 50 to 150nm. Nelson teaches wherein a thickness of the coating is in the range of 50 to 150nm [0135].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the specified thickness as taught by Nelson for the coating as suggested by Pattinson, as Pattinson discusses adjusting thickness of the deposited filaments and adhesives used with the filaments [Col 4, lines 29-45] with Nelson because Nelson teaches the use of nanocellulose blends because of wide ranges of particle sizes present [0135].
Regarding Claim 41, Pattinson discloses “the structure comprises filaments or a mesh” set forth in claim 34 [Abstract; “deposited filaments”] and mesh [Col 5, lines 61-63].
Pattinson teaches that filaments or mesh making up the structure comprise cellulosic material, but is silent as to the method of spinning. The claimed phrase “obtained by a spinning process” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is, that the structure is made by a spinning process. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113.
Thus, even though Pattinson is silent as to the process used to make the structure, filaments or mesh, it appears that the product in Pattinson would be the same or similar as that claimed; especially since both applicant’s product and the prior art product is made of a structure containing cellulosic filaments and mesh.
Regarding Claim 42, Pattinson discloses “the mesh or the filaments” set forth in claim 34 [Abstract; “deposited filaments”] and mesh [Col 5, lines 61-63].
Pattinson teaches that filaments or mesh making up the structure comprise cellulosic material, but is silent as to the method of a printing process from a gel or a suspension comprising cellulosic material. The claimed phrase “from a cellulosic material by a printing process from a gel or a suspension comprising cellulosic material” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is, that the structure is made by a printing process or suspension. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113.
Thus, even though Pattinson is silent as to the process used to make the structure, filaments or mesh, it appears that the product in Pattinson would be the same or similar as that claimed; especially since both applicant’s product and the prior art product is made of a structure containing cellulosic filaments and mesh.
Regarding Claim 43, Pattinson teaches wherein the structure exhibits lateral expansion when subjected to tension [Col 4, lines 39-42]—where in-plane tension is interpreted to be tensioning that causes lateral expansion.
Regarding Claim 44, Pattinson is silent on wherein the coating comprises nanostructured cellulose. Nelson teaches wherein the coating comprises nanostructured cellulose [0134].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use nanocellulose as taught by Nelson as the structure coating as suggested by Pattinson, as Pattinson discusses considerations for thermoplastics related to conditions with limiting water vapor [Col 7, lines 51-55] with Nelson because Nelson teaches hydrophobicity concerns for coated nanocellulose [0136].
Regarding Claim 46, Pattinson teaches wherein the structure comprises openings that are configured to expand under load [Col 4, lines 39-42]—load is broadly interpreted to mean any force applied to the structure including pulling, tensions, etc.
Regarding Claim 50, Pattinson teaches a support structure [0204], wherein the support structure is configured to support a tissue or an organ of a mammal [Col 26, lines 32-34; “Printing onto a 3D template can also be enabled so that the fabric conformably matches a desired surface (e.g., a 3D printed model of a patient's organ).”] and [Col 1, lines 59-62]—discusses design considerations for variations in human tissue.
Regarding Claim 51, Pattinson teaches wherein the support structure is a pelvic organ prolapse mesh, a urinary incontinence sling or tape for a human, a breast reconstruction support structure, a hernia mesh, or a fecal incontinence support structure [Col 27, lines 19-22; “Such customization is can be important for complex meshes used in operations such as repairing pelvic organ prolapse or stress urinary incontinence where complication rates are currently very high.”] and [Col 27, lines 22-27]—which discusses adaptations made to the mesh to maintain certain portions of the device in the aforementioned applications.
Regarding Claim 52, Pattinson teaches wherein the structure is a support mesh, a support sling, or a support tape [Col 27, lines 46-51]—includes mention of an invention including a mesh medical implant.
Regarding Claim 53, Pattinson teaches a method of treating a mammal, [Col 1, lines 59-62]—discusses design considerations for variations in human tissue.
comprising implanting a structure according to claim 35, into a body of the mammal to support a tissue or an organ of the mammal [Col 27, lines 19-22; “Such customization is can be important for complex meshes used in operations such as repairing pelvic organ prolapse or stress urinary incontinence where complication rates are currently very high.”] and [Col 27, lines 46-51]—mentions an invention including a mesh medical implant.
Regarding Claim 54, Pattinson teaches wherein the thermoplastic material comprises nylon [Col 13, lines 4-7], polypropylene [Col 17, lines 44-46], polyethylene, polyurethane [Col 11, lines 22-23], polycaprolactone, polyethylene terephthalate or a combination thereof (not interpreted to be required by the limitation).
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pattinson (U.S. 10696034) in view of Nelson (U.S. 20210069378) and in further view of Martinez-Duarte (U.S. 20190112191).
Regarding Claim 45, Pattinson and Nelson are silent on wherein the nanostructured cellulose comprises cellulose produced by bacteria in a form of nanofibrils or wood-based cellulose which has been disintegrated to nanostructured cellulose. Martinez-Duarte teaches wherein the nanostructured cellulose comprises cellulose produced by bacteria in a form of nanofibrils or wood-based cellulose which has been disintegrated to nanostructured cellulose [0044]—includes reference to the use of bacterial cellulose and the nanofibril structure of bacterial cellulose.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use cellulose produced by bacteria as taught by Martinez-Duarte to creating the nanostructured cellulose as suggested by Pattinson and Nelson because Pattinson discusses the use of a bacterial cellulose preferred material [Col 16, lines 54-58] and Nelson which discloses disintegration considerations for the nanofibrils made of cellulose [ 0242] with Martinez-Duarte because Martinez-Duarte teaches the use of a dispersion of bacterial cellulose to effect entangling of nanofibrils [0040].
Claim(s) 47, 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pattinson (U.S. 10696034) in view of Nelson (U.S. 20210069378) and in further view of Li (WO 2019213134).
Regarding Claim 47, Pattinson and Nelson are silent on wherein the structure has a Young's Modulus of at least 700 MPa in a wet condition. Li teaches wherein the structure has a Young's Modulus of at least 700 MPa in a wet condition [0080]—Young’s modulus is about 1460 MPa, in which the components of the mixture include liquids at room temperature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to promote structural characteristics of the structure as taught by Li to incorporate into auxetic cellulose based material design as suggested by Pattinson, and Nelson, because Pattinson specific stiffness, strength and flexibility of the described materials [Col 17, lines 25-30] and Nelson which teaches a Young’s Modulus of 52.6 kPa [0355] with Li because Li teaches rendering a high chain stiffness during reactions to form the structure [Abstract].
Regarding Claim 48, Pattinson and Nelson silent on wherein the structure has tensile strength of at least 1.5 MPa in a wet condition. Li teaches wherein the structure has tensile strength of at least 1.5 MPa in a wet condition [0080]—Tensile strength is 62 MPa, in which the components of the mixture include liquids at room temperature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to promote structural characteristics of the structure as taught by Li to incorporate into auxetic cellulose based material design as suggested by Pattinson, and Nelson because Pattinson using pure cellulose with high tensile strength specifically for hernia repair [Col 17, lines 38-40] and Nelson which discloses stress/strain curves for compressive loads [0329] with Li because Li teaches the disadvantage of using conventional materials with tensile strength in tens of MPa as not having healable properties [0004].
Claim(s) 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pattinson (U.S. 10696034) in view of Asamoah, Akwasi. What are the ranges and basis of auxeticity in the phases of cellulose microfibrils. Material Science and Engineering Group, University of Exeter, 2017.
Regarding Claim 55, Pattinson teaches a structure [Abstract], wherein the structure comprises an auxetic structure having a negative Poisson's ratio [Col 27, line 55]-discusses using auxetic mesh materials for the purpose of directing blood flow, Pattinson is silent on wherein the auxetic structure comprises nanostructured cellulose. Asamoah teaches wherein the auxetic structure comprises nanostructured cellulose [Abstract].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize nanocellulose for an auxetic structure as taught by Asamoah to incorporate into auxetic structure as suggested by Pattinson, because Pattinson discusses using auxetic materials to direct blood flow [Col 27, lines 55-58] with Asamoah because Asamoah teaches using auxetic cellulose microfibrils to create materials with abilities to phase change, alongside photo-electromechanical properties [Conclusion].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 May 2026 with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 4 May 2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive however, new rejections are
presented in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed 4 May 2026 with respect to the rejection of
claims 34-35, 41-43, 46, and 50-53 under 35 U.S.C.102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive, however, new rejections are presented above in light of the amendments for claims 34-36, 38-44, 46, 50-53 and newly added claims 54-55 under 35 U.S.C. 103 citing Pattinson in view of Nelson. Regarding Claim 34, applicant contends that Pattinson does not teach wherein at least 50% of the mesh or the filaments is coated with a coating comprising nanostructured or microstructured cellulose. The examiner agrees that Pattinson does not teach this limitation and presents the new grounds of rejection citing Pattinson in view of Nelson for claim 34, in light of the amendment.
Applicant’s arguments filed 4 May 2026 with respect to the rejection of
claims 36, 38-40, 44, 45, and 47-48 under 35 U.S.C.103 have been fully considered and are persuasive, however, new rejections are presented above in light of the amendments for claims 36, 38-40, 44, 45, and 47-48 citing Pattinson in view of Nelson for claim 36 and 38-40, 44, citing Pattinson in view of Nelson and in further view of Martinez-Duarte for claim 45, and citing Pattinson in view of Nelson and in further view of Li for claims 47-48. Regarding claims 39-40, applicant contends that Oudekirk encompasses non-analogous art. Examiner notes that because of the amendment to independent claim 34 and additional amendments to the claim, the new combination of elements supports the new grounds of rejection citing Pattinson in view of Nelson for the referenced claims. Therefore, Oudekirk is no longer considered.
Regarding new claim 55, applicant contends that Pattinson does not disclose an auxetic structure comprising nanocellulose. Examiner presents a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection citing Pattinson in view of Asamoah for claim 55.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOKE NICOLE KOHUTKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm 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 Marmor II can be reached at 571-272-4730. 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.
/B.N.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights