-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 .
Applicant’s response dated June 2, 2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
This application claims benefit in provisional application 63/246,604 filed on 09/21/2021.
Claim Status
Claims 1-3, 7-12, 14-20, and 22-24 are pending. Claims 17-20 remain withdrawn. Claims
4-6, 13, and 21 were canceled. Claims 23 and 24 were amended. Claims 1-3, 7-12, 14-16, and 22-24 are examined.
Maintained Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 103
Modified as Necessitated by Amendment
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-12, 14-16, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Palchik (WO 2015/015500 Al Published February 5, 2015) and Denzinger
(CA 2,038,332 Published September 18, 1991) as evidenced by Sartomer (Technical Data Sheet
for SR610 polyethylene glycol (600) diacrylate, accessed from
(https://americas.sartomer.arkema.com/assets/arkema/TDS_SR610_MDl-11109-00-AM_en_WW.pdf, accessed on July 8, 2025, 1 page).
The claims encompass a polymerizable liquid for hydrogel article formation comprising a
compound of formula I or formula II; an acrylate component comprising one or more
hydroxyalkylacrylates; and water.
The teachings of Palchik are related to a hydrogel and methods of making (Abstract).
Paragraphs 0021 and 0022 describe methods of making the hydrogel where a monomeric or
oligomeric mixture is irradiated to form a hydrogel. The monomeric or oligomeric mixture
further comprises a solvent, where the solvent is water. The solvent is present at an amount of up
to 20% w/w of the reaction mixture (paragraphs 0023 and 0033). The mixture comprises 10-80
wt. % of monomers and oligomers (paragraphs 0039 and 0043). In some embodiments the
solvent is added to the mixture in a concentration of about 1-50 wt. %, where solvent includes
water (paragraph 0044). In one embodiment, the hydrogel is formed by mixing one or more
monofunctional monomers with one or more multifunctional monomers or oligomers
(paragraphs 0056 and 0060). The mixture comprises 1-50 wt. % of solvent such as water. The
monofunctional or multifunctional monomers or oligomers may be present in the mixture in a
concentration of 30% and up to 70% by weight (paragraph 0057). The mixture further comprises
a photoinitiator (paragraph 0058). Examples of monofunctional monomers include acrylate
monomers (paragraph 0079). Examples of acrylate monomers include 2-hydroxyethyl
acrylamide and 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate (paragraph 0081). Examples of multifunctional
monomers include tetraethylene glycol diacrylate and polyethylene glycol diacrylate (e.g.
SR610) (paragraph 0085). The photoinitiator is present in a concentration of 0.1-10 wt. %
(paragraph 00102). Tables 1 and 2 in paragraph 00157 describe compositions used for making
the hydrogel:
PNG
media_image1.png
222
767
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
123
607
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Palchik does not teach a compound having the structure of Formula I.
The teachings of Denziger are related to copolymers obtained by free radical
polymerization of (a) monoethylenically unsaturated dicarboxylic acids, (b) hydroxy-C2-C4-
alkyl acrylates and optionally (c) other water-soluble monoethylenically unsaturated monomers
(Abstract). The monomers of group (a) are present in the copolymer in the concentration of at
least 65% by weight (page 3 lines 15-30). Monomers of group (b) include 2-hydroxyethyl
acrylate, among others (paragraph bridging pages 3-4). Monomers of group (c) include acrylic
acid and acrylamide, among others (page 4 lines 8-34). The copolymers further comprise
monomers of group (d) in an amount of up to 5 wt. % based on the total amount of monomers
used in the polymerization. The monomers of group (d) are crosslinkers including polyethylene
glycol diacrylates derived from polyalkylene glycols of molecular weight of 96-2000, and
polyethylene glycol dimaleates of polyethylene glycol having a molecular weight of up to 2000
(page 5 lines 7-29). The monomers are subject to a polymerization initiated with a free radical
initiator such as azo compound and peroxides. This also includes redox systems. Preference is
given to sodium persulfate and hydrogen peroxide (page 6 lines 9-17). The initiators are used in
a concentration of 0.5-20 % by weight based on the monomers (page 6 lines 35-37). The
polymerization is carried out in an aqueous solution of the monomers. The concentration of the
monomers in the aqueous solution s 10-70 wt. % (page 7 lines 8-11).
The teachings of Denzinger and Palchik and related to liquid compositions comprising a
photoinitiator, water, an acrylate monomer, and polyethylene glycol diacrylate crosslinker,
wherein the compositions are intended for polymerization and it would have been obvious to
have combined their teachings because they are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claims 1-3, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a mixture
for making a hydrogel, the mixture comprising one or more monofunctional monomers, one or
more multifunctional monomers, a solvent, and a photoinitiator, with a reasonable expectation of
success because Palchik teaches a mixture intended for making a hydrogel wherein the mixture
comprises one or more monofunctional monomers, one or more multifunctional monomers or
oligomers, a solvent, and a photoinitiator. It would have been obvious to have selected 2-
hydroxyethyl acrylate as the one or more monofunctional monomers because Palchik teaches 2-
hydroxyethyl acrylate as a suitable monofunctional monomer. It would have been obvious to
have selected polyethylene glycol diacrylate SR610 as the multifunctional oligomer because
Palchik teaches polyethylene glycol diacrylate SR610 as a suitable multifunctional oligomer. It
would have been obvious to have selected water as the solvent because Palchik teaches water as
a suitable solvent. As evidenced by Sartomer, SR610 is polyethylene glycol (600) diacrylate,
which corresponds to 13 ethylene glycol repeating units. It would have been obvious to have
modified Palchik's composition by replacing polyethylene glycol (600) diacrylate with
polyethylene glycol (mw up to 2000) dimaleate, with a reasonable expectation of success
because it was known from Denzinger that polyethylene glycol diacrylate and polyethylene
glycol dimaleate are known as suitable crosslinkers of acrylate monomers such as 2-
hydroxyethyl acrylate, and replacing one equivalent with another to obtain predictable results
supports obviousness. PEG having a molecular weight of up to 2000 contains up to 45 ethylene
glycol repeating units, which meets the requirements of the claimed compound of formula I.
It would have been obvious to have used the crosslinker in a concentration of 30 wt.%
because Palchik teaches using SR610 in a concentration of 30 wt.% based on the total
polymerization mixture (Experiment No. 3 in Table 1). The claimed concentration ranges of the
compound of Formula I in claims 1 and 3 are obvious because they encompass 30 wt.%.
Regarding claim 7, it would have been obvious to have used 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate
monomer in the composition in a concentration from 30 wt.% to 70 wt.%, with a reasonable
expectation of success because Palchik teaches that monomers are present in the composition in
range of 30-70 wt.% based on the total weight of the composition. The claimed concentration
range is obvious because it overlaps with the prior art range.
Regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious to have formed the liquid composition
with water in a concentration of 1-50 wt. %, with a reasonable expectation of success because
Palchik teaches 1-50 wt.% as a suitable concentration range of water in the liquid composition.
Regarding claim 9, it would have been obvious to have formed the liquid formulation
with an additional monomer such as acrylic acid, with a reasonable expectation of success
Palchik teaches forming the polymer form a combination of monomers including acrylates and
acrylic acid (paragraphs 0078 and 0081).
Regarding claim 10, it would have been obvious to have varied the concentrations of 2-
hydroxyethyl acrylate and the additional monomer acrylic acid in a range of up to 70 wt. % as
long as the combined concentration of the two falls in the range of 30-70 wt. % based on the total
weight of the composition. Palchik does not require specific monomers to be present in a specific
concentration range, however Palchik teaches that monomers are present in a range of 30-70 wt.
%. It would have been obvious to have varied the concentration of each monomer in range of up
to 70 wt. % as long as the combined concentration falls within Palchik' s total monomer
requirement. The concentration range in claim 10 is obvious because it overlaps with a range of
up to 70 wt. %.
Regarding claim 11, it would have been obvious to have added a pigment to the liquid
composition because Palchik teaches that the polymer composition further comprises additives
such as pigments (paragraph 00104), and the skilled artisan would have understood that the
pigment would have to be added to the polymerization mixture in order to forma a polymer fiber
that comprises a pigment.
Regarding claim 12, Palchik teaches a composition comprising water in a concentration
of 1-50 wt.%, monomers in a concentration of 30-70 wt.% and crosslinker in a concentration of
30 wt.%. It would have been obvious to have added a pigment in a concentration of up to 39 wt.
% because the lowest concentration ranges of the required components water, monomers, and
crosslinker add up to 61 wt.%, which means that the remainder of the composition may
comprise other components such as additives including a pigment. The claimed concentration
range is obvious because it overlaps with the prior art range of up to 39 wt. %. The skilled artisan
would have been capable of determining suitable concentrations of each component through
routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 14, it would have been obvious to have added the photoinitiator in a
concentration of 0.1-10 wt. % of an uncured composition mixture based upon the weight of the
composition, with a reasonable expectation of success because Palchik teaches said
concentration range as suitable (paragraph 00102). The claimed range is obvious because it
overlaps with the prior art range.
Claims 15 and 16 describe properties of a material obtained when the liquid composition
of claim 1 is polymerized. Palchik' s modified liquid composition contains the same elements as
claimed, and it would have been reasonable to expect a material obtained from Palchik' s liquid
formulation to have the same properties as a material obtained by polymerization of the claimed
liquid formulation, when the claimed and Palchik's liquid formulations are polymerized under
identical conditions.
Regarding claim 22, it would have been obvious to have used 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate
monomer in the composition in a concentration from 30 wt.% to 70 wt.%, with a reasonable
expectation of success because Palchik teaches that monomers are present in the composition in
range of 30-70 wt.% based on the total weight of the composition. The claimed concentration
range is obvious because it overlaps with the prior art range.
It would have been obvious to have formed the liquid composition with water in a
concentration of 1-50 wt. %, with a reasonable expectation of success because Palchik teaches 1-
50 wt. % as a suitable concentration range of water in the liquid composition.
Regarding claims 23 and 24, it would have been obvious to have selected 2,2-dimethoxy-2-phenylacetophenone as the photoinitiator with a reasonable expectation of success because Palchik teaches 2,2-dimethoxy-2-phenylacetophenone as a suitable photoinitiator (paragraph 00100). 2,2-Dimethoxy-2-phenylacetophenone is a benzil ketal and benzil dimethyl ketal.
The specification was reviewed and there is no evidence that claimed combinations of
elements and concentration ranges are critical. The claimed invention is obvious because
combining prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results supports
obviousness.
Response to Arguments
Arguments submitted in the remarks dated June 2, 2026 were fully considered but
are not persuasive for the following reasons.
Examiner maintains examiner’s response to applicant’s arguments filed on October 16, 2025.
The general teachings in Palchik do not provide suitable crosslinker concentrations and the examiner relied on the exemplified composition for concentration of SR610 crosslinker that is useful for making a hydrogel. It is proper to use a reference for all of its teachings. The lack of water in exemplified composition does not mean crosslinker concentration from exemplified composition cannot be applied to a composition that contains water. There is no teaching in Palchik or any other reference of record that would have lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that exemplified concentration of crosslinker SR610 is only applicable to compositions that do not contain water. The instant specification was reviewed and there is no evidence that the claimed concentration of crosslinker in the presence of water is critical.
Arguments against Denzinger’s teaching related to use of crosslinker are not persuasive because Denzinger teaches “To modify the copolymers, it is possible to include monomers of group (d)… The monomers of group (d) are crosslinkers…” (page 5 lines 7-10). Copolymers are made from monomers (a) and (b) and/or (c) (paragraph bridging pages 2-3). Based on this teaching it is apparent that the crosslinker (d) is used to crosslinkers copolymers formed from monomers (b) which include 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate. It is irrelevant how much monomer (b) is present in the copolymer.
Denzinger is relied upon to show that polyethylene glycol (up to 2000) dimaleate is a known crosslinker alternative to Palchik’s SR610 and replacing one alternative with another to obtain predictable results supports obviousness. Denzinger’s teaching of crosslinker concentration is irrelevant and does not take away from Palchik’s teaching of crosslinker concentration. The rejection is based on replacing one crosslinker with another in Palchik’s composition because the crosslinkers were known as equivalent crosslinkers. The skilled artisan would have had no reason to modify the concentration of crosslinker recommended by Palchik because the crosslinker was replaced with its equivalent. Prior art was considered in its entirety.
There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in replacing Palchik’s crosslinker with Denzinger’s crosslinker because Denzinger’s crosslinker was known as suitable for crosslinking acrylate monomers such as 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate. Palchik requires the multifunctional monomer or oligomer to contain at least two unsaturated C-C bonds that can participate in free radical polymerization, such as PEG diacrylate (paragraph 0050). Denzinger’s PEG dimaleate meets this requirement because it contains two unsaturated C-C bonds that can participate in free radical polymerization and Denzinger teaches using PEG dimaleate to crosslink polymers made from acrylate monomers using water as a solvent.
Amendments in claims 23 and 24 were considered and the rejection was modified to address the amendments.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Alma - Pipic whose telephone number is (571)270-7459. The
examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm. 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, Michael Hartley can be reached on 571-272-0616. 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.
/ALMA PIPIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights