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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 10/20/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/20/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joseph, Polymer 54 (2013) 4894-4901.
Joseph teaches an example where a block copolymer of poly[(2-dimethylamino)ethylmethacrylate]-block-poly[di(ethyleneglycol) methyl ether methacrylate] (“PDD”) is formed (pg. 4895) followed by dissolving the PDD in water and deposited on a substrate to form a film (pg. 4895-4896). Joseph teaches that poly(oligo-(ethylene glycol) methyl ether methacrylate) (“POEGMA”) has excellent biocompatibility (pg. 4894) and poly[di(ethyleneglycol) methyl ether methacrylate] is an example of a POEGMA. Water is a solvent. (2-dimethylamino)ethylmethacrylate meets claimed formula (1) when R1 is methyl, X1 is ethylene, and U1 and U2 are methyl groups. Di(ethyleneglycol) methyl ether methacrylate meets claimed formula (2) when R2 is methyl, X2 is ethylene, R3 is methyl and n1 is 2.
Joseph does not explicitly recite the biocompatibility is an ability to suppress adhesion of a protein. However, Joseph teaches a block copolymer using the same monomers as the examples in the instant specification, dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate and diethylene glycol methyl ether methacrylate. The instant specification shows that block copolymers of these two monomers give reduced protein adhesion (Table 3). Therefore, the block copolymers of Joseph have the same properties, including reduced adhesion of proteins. Case law holds that a material and its properties are inseparable. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Joseph does not explicitly recite the film is for a cell culture (claim 4) to obtain a cell aggregate (claim 5). However, these are intended uses of the composition and the composition of Joseph are capable of performing the claimed intended uses If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02, In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rubinsztajn (US 2010/0330674).
Rubinsztajn teaches cell culture support (abstract) which includes a copolymer coating on a substrate which may be a block copolymer such as poly(di(ethylene glycol)methylether methacrylate)-co-poly(diethylaminoethyl acrylate) (¶ 36). Rubinsztajn teaches an example where TRABC and water are combined which then forms a film of the TRABC (¶ 59, 61). Rubinsztajn teaches examples of TRABC include poly(di(ethylene glycol)methylether methacrylate)-co-poly(diethylaminoethyl acrylate) which meet the formulas of claim 1. As Rubinsztajn only teaches three species of TRABC (¶ 36), one of ordinary skill in the art would have instantly envisaged using poly(di(ethylene glycol)methylether methacrylate)-co-poly(diethylaminoethyl acrylate). A genus may be so small that, when considered in light of the totality of the circumstances, it would anticipate the claimed species or subgenus. See MPEP 2105, In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 133 USPQ 275 (CCPA 1962).
Rubinsztajn does not explicitly recite the biocompatibility is an ability to suppress adhesion of a biological substance. However, Rubinsztajn teaches a block copolymer using the similar monomers as the examples in the instant specification, dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate and diethylene glycol methyl ether methacrylate. The instant specification shows that block copolymers of these two monomers give reduced protein adhesion (Table 3). Therefore, the block copolymers of Rubinsztajn have the same properties, including reduced adhesion of proteins. Case law holds that a material and its properties are inseparable. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Rubinsztajn does not explicitly recite the film is for a base film (claim 4) to obtain a cell aggregate (claim 5). However, these are intended uses of the composition and the composition of Rubinsztajn are capable of performing the claimed intended uses If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02, In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
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, 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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubinsztajn (US 2010/0330674) in view of Otani (US 2016/0115435).
The discussion with respect to Rubinsztajn above is incorporated by reference.
Rubinsztajn does not explicitly recite the substrate includes a copolymer having the recurring units of claim 8.
However, Otani teaches a cell culture vessel (substrate) comprising a copolymer having a recurring unit containing
PNG
media_image1.png
98
106
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a recurring unit containing
PNG
media_image2.png
96
222
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(¶ 12-13) which meet the formulas of claim 8. Otani teaches the copolymer is used to form a film (¶ 82, 99) with a solvent that includes water (¶ 98).
It would have been obvious to use the copolymers having the recurring units of Otani because it provides suppressed elution of the coating into the culture and radiation resistance (¶ 10, 32, 109, 167).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT C BOYLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10am-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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/ROBERT C BOYLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764