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
Amendments
In the reply filed 05/26/2026, Applicant has amended claims 1-3, 8-9 and 16-17, and canceled claims 6-7 and 15.
Claim Status
Claims 1-5, 8-14 and 16-26 are pending.
Claims 3, 14 and 17-25 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to non-elected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/07/2025.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-13, 16 and 26 are considered on the merits.
Withdrawn Claim Objections
The prior objection to claim 2 because of minor informalities is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to the claim.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The prior rejection of claims 1-2, 4-13, 15 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Nair et al., (Sci Rep. 2019 January;9(1):1072, p. 1-20) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to incorporate limitations from original claims 6-7 and 15 into claim 1.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The prior rejection of claims 1-2, 4-13, 15-16 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair et al., in view of Murata et al., (Sci Rep. 2018 Oct 4;8(1):14839, p. 1-11) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to incorporate limitations from original claims 6-7 and 15 into claim 1.
New 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.
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 1-2, 4-5, 8-13 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair et al., (Sci Rep. 2019 January;9(1):1072, p. 1-20. Prior art of record) in view of Obreja et al., (Materiale Plastice. 2010; 47(1): 42-47).
With respect to claim 1, Nair teaches developing “gelatin-based colloidal gels from electrostatic interaction-mediated assembly of positively charged gelatin colloidal particles (from cationic gelatin A from porcine skin with isoelectric point ≈ 9) either through addition of electrolytes or negatively charged gelatin colloidal particles (from anionic gelatin B from bovine skin with isoelectric point ≈ 5), as described in Fig. 1. Neutralization of charge on the colloidal gelatin reduces the repulsive barrier and causes the particles to aggregate.” (e.g., p. 2, last para.) and teaches the colloid gels are for supporting endothelial cell networks (e.g., abstract). Thus, Nair teaches a cell support (i.e., the colloid gels) comprising: a base material containing a biocompatible substance (e.g., negatively charged gelatin colloidal particles from anionic gelatin B from bovine skin with isoelectric point ≈ 5); and gelatin particles (i.e., positively charged gelatin colloidal particles from cationic gelatin A from porcine skin with isoelectric point ≈ 9) held by the biocompatible substance of the base material (i.e., aggregated particles by neutralization of charge on the colloidal gelatin).
In regard to the gelatin particles carrying a reagent, Nair teaches the gelatin based material ensured that these gel are cell-compatible and degradable, as it is derived from collagen and contains cell-recognizable functionalities e.g. RGD for cell adhesion (p. 2, last sentence – p. 3, para 1), thus teaches the gelatin particles carry a reagent, e.g. RGD for cell adhesion.
In regard to a Coulomb interaction, as stated supra, Nair teaches electrostatic interaction-mediated assembly of positively charged gelatin colloidal particles through addition of negatively charged gelatin colloidal particles, and neutralization of charge on the colloidal gelatin reduces the repulsive barrier and causes the particles to aggregate (e.g., p. 2, last para.). Thus, Nair teaches a Coulomb interaction occurs between the biocompatible substance and the gelatin particles (i.e., the electrostatic interaction-mediated assembly) in a culture environment (e.g.,, see Figs 1 and 7).
In regard to a sum of charge being positive, Nair teaches the colloidal gel formed by gelatin A and gelatin B (“AB”) has an average potential of about 2 mV or about 0.3 mV (see p. 20, Fig S2 (b) “AB” at 4:1 with an average potential of about 2 mV and at 2:1 of about 0.3 mV). Thus, Nair teaches a sum of charges of the “AB” gels is positive (e.g., in the “AB” gel having a ratio of 4:1 or 2:1).
In regard to the above “AB” mixture of 4:1 or 2:1 being capable of forming a surface to which cells are attached (i.e., being capable of aggregating the gelatin particles to form a colloid gel with microstructural organization to which cells are attached), Nair first teaches the positively and negatively charged “colloidal gelatin particles are charge[d] and stable due to their respective surface charges” (p. 4, para 1) and teaches when they are mixed together, “neutralization of charge on the colloidal gelatin reduces the repulsive barrier and causes the particles to aggregate” (e.g., p. 2, last para.). Thus, Nair suggests neutralization of charge on the colloidal gelatin of “AB” 4:1 or 2:1, having an average potential of about 2 mV or about 0.3 mV neutralized from the zeta potential of 14.9 mV of gelatin A and -24.1 mV of gelatin B (see Figs 2a and S1), would cause the particles to aggregate. It is noted that although Nair teaches “when negatively charged gelatin B colloid was used to interact with gelatin A colloid, size increase and charge reduction occurred and the effective interaction occurred when the particle fractions were equal (i.e. 1:1) (Fig. S2b)” (p. 4, para 2), Nair does not teach that when the particle fractions are at 4:1 or 2:1, the gelatin A and B particles do not interact or do not form aggregates.
Furthermore, prior art Obreja teaches that the colloidal solutions stability is defined according to the average value of Zeta potential (p. 45, left col, last para), and teaches when the average zeta potential is between -5 to +5 mV, the colloid solutions have the least stability: “strong agglomeration & precipitation” (see p. 46, Table 3 “colloid solutions stability – zeta potential relation”, the last row).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have immediately expected that Nair’s gelatin “AB” mixture of 4:1 or 2:1, having a neutralized potential of about 2 mV or about 0.3 mV, would have had strong agglomeration and precipitation so that the gelatin particles would likely have aggregated to form a colloid gel for the cells to attach, as suggested by Nair and Obreja with a reasonable expectation of success, because Nair suggests neutralization of charge on the colloidal gelatin would cause the particles to aggregate (e.g., p. 2, last para.), and since Obreja teaches when the average zeta potential is between -5 to +5 mV, the colloid solutions have “strong agglomeration & precipitation” (see p. 46, Table 3, the last row).
With respect to claim 2, Nair teaches the colloid gel is formed by aggregation of gelatin colloidal particles mediated by electrostatic interaction with biocompatible substance, i.e., negatively charged gelatin particles from gelatin B (see e.g., Fig 1 bottom row). It is noted that the biocompatible substances are used to prepare the colloidal gel. Thus, Nair teaches the base material in the colloidal gel is a molded body of the biocompatible substance.
With respect to claim 4 and claim 5, as stated supra, Nair teaches a biocompatible substance of negatively charged gelatin particles from gelatin B (see e.g., Fig 1 bottom row), which is a polymer derived from a living body (i.e., from bovine skin, see p. 12, para. “Materials”) in claim 4 and is gelatin in claim 5.
With respect to claim 8 and claim 9, Nair teaches the colloidal gel formed by gelatin A and gelatin B (“AB”) at 4:1 has an average potential of about 2 mV, and the average + standard deviation is about 4 mV (see the error bar in Fig S2b bottom right panel 4:1 row). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have immediately expected that the zeta potential of the surface to which the cells are attached (i.e., the “AB” at 4:1) in a solution having a pH of 7.4 is more than 0 mV and 30 mV or less in claim 8, and is 4 mV or more and 15 mV or less in claim 9.
With respect to claim 10, Nair teaches the biocompatible substance of negatively charged gelatin particles from gelatin B (see e.g., Fig 1 bottom row) interacts with positively charged gelatin (A) colloidal particles, and the colloidal gel formed by gelatin A and gelatin B (“AB”) has a potential of about 2 mV (see p. 20, Fig S2 (b) “AB” at 4:1 with a potential of about 2 mV). Thus, Nair teaches the biocompatible substance of negatively charged gelatin particles from gelatin B is cationized.
With respect to claim 11, Nair teaches the zeta potential of the positive gelatin (A) colloidal particles is about 10 mV in HEPES buffer at pH 7 (see e.g., Fig 2 (b) rightmost panel), thus teaches the gelatin particles are cationized.
With respect to claim 12, directed to “wherein the biocompatible substance is a material selected according to an introduction ratio of the gelatin particles to be achieved for cells supported by the cell support”, this limitation is being examined under the broadest reasonable interpretation as “wherein the biocompatible substance is a material selected according to the cell support capability achieved by introduction of the gelatin particles”. Nair teaches different biocompatible substances are used in forming colloidal gels (see e.g. Fig 1) and tests the endothelial cell support capability achieved by introduction of the gelatin particles in the colloidal gels (e.g., p. 9, last section “Endothelial morphogenesis in colloidal gel” and Fig 7). Thus, Nair teaches the biocompatible substance is selected according to the cell support capability achieved by introduction of the gelatin particles.
With respect to claim 13, Nair teaches the colloidal gel is settled in a 96 well plate, and endothelial cells are seeded onto the colloidal gels (p. 14, para 1), thus teaches the base material has a two-dimensional shape.
With respect to claim 26, directed to a cell structure comprising the cell support and cells held by the cell support, as stated supra, Nair tests the endothelial cell support capability of the colloidal gels (e.g., p. 9, last section “Endothelial morphogenesis in colloidal gel” and Fig 7) and teaches endothelial cells are seeded onto the colloidal gels (p. 14, para 1). Thus, Nair teaches a cell structure comprising the cell support and cells held by the cell support.
Hence, the claimed invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Traversal:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/26/2026 are acknowledged.
Applicant argues that Nair discloses that, with the fraction of AB at 4:1, the colloidal gel is not formed, but the individual gelatin particles A and B are freely dispersed, because the size of AB at 4:1 or 2:1 is about 0.3-0.4 µm that is substantially the same as the individual gelatin particles A and B, and because Nair discloses that "size increase and charge reduction occurred and the effective interaction occurred when the particle fractions were equal (i.e. 1:1) (Fig. S2b)." (Remarks, p. 7-11, related to original claim 7 and claims 8-9).
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As a first matter, because of Applicant’s amendment to incorporate limitations from original claims 6-7 and 15 into claim 1, the prior 102 rejection has been withdrawn. However, as necessitated by amendment, a new ground of rejection has been made over Nair in view of Obreja as discussed above.
Specifically, regarding Applicant’s argument that in the fraction of AB at 4:1 or 2:1, the colloidal gel is not formed, but the individual gelatin particles A and B are freely dispersed based on the similar particle size of AB versus individual A or B, as stated supra, Nair clearly teaches when the positively charged and negatively charged gelatin particles A and B are mixed together, “neutralization of charge on the colloidal gelatin reduces the repulsive barrier and causes the particles to aggregate” (e.g., p. 2, last para.). Thus, Nair suggests neutralization of charge on the colloidal gelatin of “AB” at 4:1 or 2:1, having an average potential of about 2 mV or about 0.3 mV neutralized from the zeta potential of 14.9 mV of gelatin A and -24.1 mV of gelatin B, would likely cause the particles to aggregate.
It is noted that although Nair teaches “when negatively charged gelatin B colloid was used to interact with gelatin A colloid, size increase and charge reduction occurred and the effective interaction occurred when the particle fractions were equal (i.e. 1:1) (Fig. S2b)” (p. 4, para 2 and recited in Remarks), Nair does not teach that when the particle fractions are at 4:1 or 2:1, the gelatin A and B particles do not interact or do not form aggregates.
Furthermore, prior art Obreja teaches that the colloidal solutions stability is defined according to the average value of Zeta potential (p. 45, left col, last para), and teaches when the average zeta potential is between -5 to +5 mV, the colloid solutions have the least stability: “strong agglomeration & precipitation” (see p. 46, Table 3 “colloid solutions stability – zeta potential relation”, the last row).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have immediately expected that Nair’s gelatin “AB” faction at 4:1 or 2:1, having a neutralized potential of about 2 mV or about 0.3 mV, would likely have had strong agglomeration and precipitation so that the gelatin particles would have aggregated to form a colloid gel for the cells to attach, as suggested by Nair and Obreja.
PNG
media_image1.png
369
280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, regarding the particle size detected by dynamic light scattering (DLS), it is noted that the particle size of AB (at 1:1) detected by DLS (being about 1.2 µm in Figs 2c and S2b) is not consistent with the size of particle organization in AB colloid gel detected by fluorescence images (the equivalent diameter being about 125 µm in Fig 2d, attached). In other words, the particle size detected by DLS is not a faithful indicator of the aggregated particle organization in the colloid gel.
Applicant further argues that the instant invention demonstrates that when the biocompatible substance has a positive charge, the cells approach the biocompatible substance more easily, and ease of uptake of the gelatin particles by the cells and an adhesion strength of the cells to the base material can be enhanced (Remarks, p. 7).
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As stated supra, Nair, in view of Obreja, make obvious a cell support in which the biocompatible substance has a positive charge (see above). Thus, the argued benefits of the claimed cell support would be expected by the cell support of prior art.
In response to Applicant’s argument regarding claims 8-9 (Remarks, p. 10-11), as stated supra, Nair, in view of Obreja, make obvious a cell support (e.g., the colloidal gel formed by gelatin A and gelatin B (“AB”) at 4:1). Nair teaches this colloid gel has an average potential of about 2 mV, and the average + standard deviation is about 4 mV (see the error bar in Fig S2b bottom right panel). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have immediately expected that the zeta potential of the surface to which the cells are attached (i.e., the “AB” at 4:1) in a solution having a pH of 7.4 is more than 0 mV and 30 mV or less in claim 8, and is 4 mV or more and 15 mV or less in claim 9.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair et al., (Sci Rep. 2019 January;9(1):1072, p. 1-20. Prior art of record) in view of Obreja et al., (Materiale Plastice. 2010; 47(1): 42-47), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murata et al., (Sci Rep. 2018 Oct 4;8(1):14839, p. 1-11. Prior art of record).
Claim 16 is directed to the reagent being a molecular beacon.
However, although Nair teaches hydrogels have been designed to investigate the endothelial morphogenesis where the gels are designed with bioadhesive ligands (e.g. RGD), degradable linkages (e.g. MMP sensitive), and growth factors (p. 1, last para.), Nair and Obreja are silent on the reagent being a molecular beacon.
Murata teaches preparation of gelatin nanospheres (i.e., gelatin particles) incorporating molecular beacon to visualize cell apoptosis (e.g., title and abstract). Murata teaches besides proteins and low-molecular weight drugs, gelatin nanospheres are also applicable to the carrier of an imaging probe (p. 1, last para – p. 2, para 1), and teaches molecular beacon (MB), being a mRNA detectable activatable probe of a stem-loop structured nucleic acid derivative (p. 1, para. 2 of main text) can be incorporated into gelatin particles to visualize the cell biological functions such as apoptosis, and this may be a powerful tool to realize a prolonged visualization of apoptosis and other biological functions (p. 7, last para. of main text).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gelatin particle-based cell support suggested by Nair in view of Obreja, by combining incorporating a molecular beacon to the gelatin particles as suggested by Murata with a reasonable expectation of success. Since Nair teaches the gelatin nanoparticles (p. 12, last para. “Preparation of colloidal gelatin particles”) are designed with functionalities e.g. RGD and growth factors to support endothelial morphogenesis (p. 1, last para.), and since Murata teaches molecular beacon can be incorporated into gelatin nanospheres to visualize the cell biological functions such as apoptosis, and this may be a powerful tool to realize a prolonged visualization of apoptosis and other biological functions (p. 7, last para. of main text), one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine a molecular beacon to the gelatin nanoparticles of Nair in view of Obreja in order to visualize the cell biological functions as suggested by Murata.
Hence, the claimed invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Traversal:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/26/2026 are acknowledged and have been discussed above.
Withdrawn Provisional Double Patenting Rejections
The prior provisional rejection of claims 1-2, 4-13, 15-16 and 26 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 8-9, 11-12, 16-17, 19-23 and 25 of copending Application No. 18/026,482 (‘482) in view of Nair et al., (Sci Rep. 2019 January;9(1):1072, p. 1-20) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to incorporate limitations from original claims 6-7 and 15 into claim 1.
New Provisional Double Patenting Rejections
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-13, 16 and 26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 9, 11-12, 16-17, 20-23 and 25 of copending Application No. 18/026,482 (‘482) in view of Nair et al., (Sci Rep. 2019 January;9(1):1072, p. 1-20. Prior art of record) and Obreja et al., (Materiale Plastice. 2010; 47(1): 42-47). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Copending claims of ‘482 recite a cell-supporting body comprising a base material including a biocompatible substance and a gelatin particle retained on the base material, wherein the biocompatible substance is selected from the group consisting of collagen, gelatin and others (reference claim 1, related to instant claims 1, 4-5 and 12), the base material is a formed body of the biocompatible substance (reference claim 2, related to instant claim 2), the base material has a two-dimensional shape (reference claim 9, related to instant claim 13), the gelatin particle carries a reagent or an agent and wherein the reagent of the agent is a molecular beacon (reference claims 11-12, related to instant claims 1 and 16), a cell structure comprising the cell-supporting body according to claim 1 and a cell retained on the cell-supporting body (reference claim 16, related to instant claim 26).
However, copending claims are silent on a Coulomb interaction between the biocompatible substance and the gelatin particles in instant claim 1, nor recite the charges in instant claims 1 and 8-11.
Nair teaches gelatin based colloidal gels for supporting endothelial cell networks (e.g., abstract), thus teaches a cell-supporting body. Nair teaches developing gelatin-based colloidal gels from electrostatic interaction-mediated assembly of positively charged gelatin colloidal particles through addition of negatively charged gelatin colloidal particles (e.g., p. 2, last para.), thus teaches a Coulomb interaction occurs between the biocompatible substance of gelatin B and the gelatin particles (i.e., the electrostatic interaction-mediated assembly) in a culture environment (i.e., see Fig 1 for endothelial networks), related to instant claim 1. Nair teaches the colloidal gel formed by gelatin A and gelatin B (“AB”) at 4:1 has a potential of about 2 mV (see p. 20, Fig S2 (b) “AB” at 4:1 with a potential of about 2 mV), thus teaches a sum of charges of AB fraction at 4:1 is positive, related to instant claim 1. Nair clearly teaches when the positively charged and negatively charged gelatin particles A and B are mixed together, “neutralization of charge on the colloidal gelatin reduces the repulsive barrier and causes the particles to aggregate” (e.g., p. 2, last para.). Thus, Nair suggests neutralization of charge on the colloidal gelatin of “AB” at 4:1, having an average potential of about 2 mV neutralized from the zeta potential of 14.9 mV of gelatin A and -24.1 mV of gelatin B, would likely cause the particles to aggregate.
Furthermore, prior art Obreja teaches that the colloidal solutions stability is defined according to the average value of Zeta potential (p. 45, left col, last para), and teaches when the average zeta potential is between -5 to +5 mV, the colloid solutions have the least stability: “strong agglomeration & precipitation” (see p. 46, Table 3 “colloid solutions stability – zeta potential relation”, the last row).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have immediately expected that Nair’s gelatin “AB” at 4:1, having a neutralized potential of about 2 mV, would likely have had strong agglomeration and precipitation so that the gelatin particles would have aggregated to form a colloid gel for the cells to attach, as suggested by Nair and Obreja.
Nair teaches this colloid gel (AB at 4:1) has an average potential of about 2 mV, and the average + standard deviation is about 4 mV (see the error bar in Fig S2b bottom right panel). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have immediately expected that the zeta potential of the surface to which the cells are attached (i.e., the “AB” at 4:1) in a solution having a pH of 7.4 is more than 0 mV and 30 mV or less in instant claim 8, and is 4 mV or more and 15 mV or less in instant claim 9, and the biocompatible substance of negatively charged gelatin particles from gelatin B is cationized in instant claim 10. Nair teaches the zeta potential of the positive gelatin (A) colloidal particles is about 10 mV in HEPES buffer at pH 7 (see e.g., Fig 2 (b) rightmost panel), thus teaches the gelatin particles are cationized in instant claim 11.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cell-supporting body comprising a base material including a biocompatible substance gelatin and gelatin particles recited in copending application, by choosing anionic gelatin B as the biocompatible substance gelatin and choosing cationic gelatin A as the gelatin particles with a fraction of AB at 4:1 as suggested by Nair with a reasonable expectation of success. Since the copending application recites a cell-supporting body that comprises the same material as suggested by Nair, and since Nair reduces to practice the gelatin based colloidal gels formed with biocompatible negatively charged gelatin particles and the positively charged gelatin particles in the fraction ratio of AB at 4:1 that may form gelatin-based gels as suggested by Nair and Obreja (see above) for supporting endothelial cell networks (e.g., Nair, abstract), one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to choose the biocompatible substance gelatin and the cationic gelatin A particles in the ratio of AB at 4:1 as suggested by Nair and Obreja in order to obtain gelatin-based gels for supporting endothelial cell networks.
Since the instant application claims are obvious over cited application claims, in view of Nair and Obreja, said claims are not patentably distinct.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims in the copending application have not in fact been patented.
Response to Traversal:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/26/2026 are acknowledged and have been discussed above.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
No claims are allowed.
Examiner Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jianjian Zhu whose telephone number is (571)272-0956. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30AM - 4PM (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, James Douglas (Doug) Schultz can be reached on (571) 272-0763. 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.
/JIANJIAN ZHU/Examiner, Art Unit 1631
Prosecution Insights