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 .
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
The term “main component” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “main component” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is unclear what quantity of carboxymethyl cellulose must be present.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Visage (US 2010/0221301 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10, Le Visage teaches a method and product of forming a porous body by preparing an aqueous solution of at least one polysaccharide and one cross-linking agent, freezing the solution, and sublimating the frozen solution before the crosslinking occurs, so that the crosslinking of the polysaccharide occurs during the sublimation step (p. 1, [0012]-[0018]). The polysaccharide may be cellulose (p. 2, [0034]). A further antimicrobial agent, including silver ion, may be added (pp. 2-3, [0042]). The resultant gel may be freeze-dried (p. 3, [0047]). Le Visage teaches addition of the crosslinker prior to freezing, and requires that any crosslinking in aqueous solution take place after the freeze-drying step (p. 3, {0048]). However, Le Visage also teaches that cross-linking may take place after ice particles are sublimed in the drying process (p. 3, [0052]). While Le Visage adds the cross-linking agent before the drying step, cross-linking may still be performed after drying, resulting in a process that mirrors the claimed method. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the ingredients and cross-linking step of Le Visage to arrive at the claimed invention, and because of the art-recognized equivalence for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06. Additionally, selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claims 2, 6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Visage in view of Takigami (US 2008/0070997 A1).
Regarding claims 2, 6, and 8-9, Le Visage remains as applied to claim 1 above. However, Le Visage is silent as to use of carboxymethyl cellulose with citric acid. In the same field of endeavor, Takigami teaches a carboxymethyl cellulose gel with added acid crosslinker, which may be oxalic acid or citric acid, that further may be dried (p. 2, [0038]; p. 3, [0046]; p. 4, [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the method of Le Visage and the ingredients of Takigami to arrive at the claimed invention, and to prepare an environmentally-friendly gel and porous body, as taught by Takigami (p. 1, [0006]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH K AMATO whose telephone number is (571)270-0341. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 4:30 pm M-F.
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, Rob Jones can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
ELIZABETH K. AMATO
Examiner
Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights