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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The amendments and arguments filed on 05/19/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 15-26 are now pending. Claims 1-14 are canceled; claims 20-21 are amended; claims 14-19 and 22-26 are withdrawn; claim 26 is new.
Claims 20-21 will be examined on the merits herein.
Further, newly submitted claim 26 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claim 26 is drawn to a method for preventing or treating of a disease, while claims 20-21 are drawn to a medical device. The details of the restriction are the same as those presented in the office action of 11/20/2025 and the restriction requirement of 06/03/2025.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 26 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous Office Actions are hereby withdrawn.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, and constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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.
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.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 20100254900 A1 (Campbell, 2010) in view of Tavanandi (2019).
In regards to claim 20, Campbell teaches a polymer composition that is useful in biological systems for stents and implants (see Campbell, abstract). The polymer composition is taught to comprise phycobiliproteins (see Campbell, paragraph 0119). The polymer composition is taught to be in the form of a hydrogel, which is dried onto a structure or surface, creating a film coating on the structure or surface (see Campbell, paragraphs 0104-0108). It is also taught that the composition is used to fabricate a coating on medical devices such as stents, heart valves, dental implants, among others (see Campbell, paragraph 0163).
In regards to claim 21, as the teachings of Campbell would yield an identical medical device as instantly claimed, the properties, such as being used to treat or prevent the diseases listed in claim 21, would be present since physical properties are not separable from the products themselves. It is also important to note that claim 21 claims a future intended use (for use in the prevention or treatment of a disease), however the future intended use of a product is not considered to contribute to the overall patentability of the instant invention, particularly when the product itself is claimed and that same product is taught in the prior art. Despite this, it is noted that Campbell teaches that the composition is used to treat restenosis (see Campbell, paragraph 0159).
Campbell is silent on the use of an extract of Arthrospira.
Tavanandi teaches that allophycocyanin is known to be extracted from Arthrospira plantensis (see Tavanandi, abstract; 2.4. primary extraction of A-PC). Allophycocyanin is one of the phycobiliproteins taught to be used in the teachings of Campbell (see Campbell, paragraph 0119; claim 89).
In regards to claims 20-21, 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 combine the teachings of Campbell and Tavanandi to yield the medical device as claimed as Campbell teaches the use of allophycocyanin, which is known to be a part of Arthrospira extract as discussed in Tavanandi. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose .... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings of Campbell with the extract of Tavanandi according to the known method of extracting allophycocyanin from Arthrospira to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in view of the modified grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
In regards to applicant’s argument that the claim is amended to remove phycobiliproteins and thus the claims are allowable, it is pointed out that the rejection is modified as necessitated by amendment to be over Campbell in view of Tavanandi. The teachings of these references have been described above and as such render the instant claims obvious. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings of Campbell with the extract of Tavanandi according to the known method of extracting allophycocyanin from Arthrospira to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
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 AYAAN A ALAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1213. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Bethany Barham can be reached at 571-272-6175. 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.
/ISIS A GHALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611
/A.A.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 1611
Prosecution Insights