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 .
Priority
The instant application is the national stage entry of PCT/IB2021/057115 filed 3 August 2021. Acknowledgement is made of the Applicant’s claim of domestic priority to provisional US application 63/060,939 filed 4 August 2020.
Examiner’s Note
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 26 February 2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. The Examiner has re-weighed all the evidence of record. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application. In the Applicant’s response, filed 26 February 2026, it is noted that claim 1 has been amended. Support can be found in the claims as originally filed. No new matter or claims have been added.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-6 and 9-18 are pending.
Claims 9-18 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-6 are rejected.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liden et al. (US 2017/0354754) in view of Furlan et al. (US 5,785,983).
Liden teaches systems and methods for treating a wound comprising plasma, collagen, and other suitable material [0020]. In some embodiments, the cells and plasma can be added to the collagen and mixed, thus implying plasma-treated collagen [0037]. The collagen can be any suitable collagen for wound packing [0039]. The composition can comprise any other suitable agents that are capable of causing the wound packing to gel and/or thicken such as thrombin [0042]. The wound packing composition can be dressed with a suitable carrier such as gauze or hydra fibers (both fibrous materials) [0057].
Liden does not teach wherein the collagen is used in more than 50 wt% nor does it teach the pH.
Furlan teaches that because of insolubility, in order to obtain a homogenous structure, fibrous collagen is dispersed into dilute acetic acid solution of about pH 2.5 until this pH causes the fibers to swell into a gel (col 3, lns 5-11).
It would have been prima facie obvious to prepare the wound treatment of Liden which comprises collagen mixed with plasma and then applied to a fibrous substrate such as gauze or hydra fibers. The collagen layer can further comprise thickening agents, which can be interpreted as carriers, such as thrombin. Moreover, it would have been obvious to treat said collagen with pH 2.5 acetic acid to form an acidic gel of collagen which can then be applied to the fibrous substrate. Regarding the amount of collagen, since Liden is not specific on the concentration of collagen in the wound packing layer any concentration would have been obvious. As such, a collagen wound packing comprising collagen in 60 wt%, and cells, plasma, and thickening agents in the remaining 40 wt% would have been obvious.
The resulting wound packing applied as an acidic gel to a fibrous substrate renders obvious instant claims 1-6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues, on pages 5-6 of their remarks, that the prior art of Silver and Lauritzen do not teach, disclose, or suggest the claimed invention.
In response, Silver and Lauritzen have been removed as prior art in the above rejection. The Applicant’s arguments are thus considered moot and will not be further addressed.
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 ANDREW S ROSENTHAL whose telephone number is (571)272-6276. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm 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, Brian Kwon can be reached at 571-272-0581. 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.
/ANDREW S ROSENTHAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Prosecution Insights