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 Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Objections Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a human a veterinary” should be “a human or a veterinary”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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) 16 , 19 , 25, and 27- 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kabanov et al. (US 2013/0017166) . Regarding claims 16 and 19: Kabanov et al. (US ‘166) discloses random copolymers of poly(2-oxazolines) of formula (I) [0019; 0038; 0044] prepared from a hydrophilic monomer (ex. 2-ethyl-2-oxazoline ( EtOx ) [0042]) and a hydrophobic monomer (ex. 2-butyl-2-oxazoline ( BuOx ) [0043]) , wherein butyl includes sec -butyl (2- sec -butyl-2-oxazoline) [0044]. Kabanov et al. (US ‘166) discloses a copolymer prepared from 2-ethyl-2-oxazoline ( EtOx ) [0042; 0081] and 2-butyl-2-oxazoline ( BuOx ) [0043; 0081] P(EtOx 50 -co-BuOx 20 ) [0082; Table 1]. Additionally, Kabanov et al. (US ‘166) discloses a copolymer prepared from 2-ethyl-2-oxazoline ( EtOx ) [0042; 0044; 0081] and 2- sec -butyl-2-oxazoline ( sec BuOx ) [0043-0044; 0081], t hereby affording P(EtOx 50 -co-secBuOx 20 ) [0044; 0082; Table 1]; corresponding to instant formula (I) with n = 20; m = 50; ( n+m ) = 70; R 1 = ethyl. If one of ordinary skill in the art is able to “at once envisage” the specific compound within the generic chemical formula, the compound is anticipated. One of ordinary skill in the art must be able to draw the structural formula or write the name of each of the compounds included in the generic formula before any of the compounds can be “at once envisaged.” One may look to the preferred embodiments to determine which compounds can be anticipated. In re Petering , 301 F.2d 676, 133 USPQ 275 (CCPA 1962) [see MPEP 2131.02]. “[E] ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe , 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [See MPEP 2113]. Regarding claim s 25 and 27: Kabanov et al. (US ‘166) discloses a molar ratio of secBuOx:EtOx of ~ 29:71 [Table 1] . Regarding claim 28: Kabanov et al. (US ‘166) discloses a solution of copolymer ( copoly (2-oxazoline)) conjugated with HRP [ 0069; 0078; 0082-0083]. Regarding claim 29: Kabanov et al. (US ‘166) discloses administering the copolymer ( copoly (2-oxazoline)) to a patient (human or animal subject) [0067-0079]. Regarding claim 30: K abanov et al. (US ‘166) discloses SDS-PAGE assay by mixing the modified HRP with loading buffer and load ing the mixture into the gel {casting process} [0083; 0085]. Regarding claim 31: Kabanov et al. (US ‘166) discloses MDCK cells were seeded in 96-well plates at a density of 20,000 cells/well in DMEM and the cells were exposed to the modified HRP [0083; 0090-0091]. Regarding claim 32: Kabanov et al. (US ‘166) discloses pharmaceutical preparations containing the copolymer ( copoly (2-oxazoline)) [00 67-0069 ]. Regarding claim 33: Kabanov et al. (US ‘166) discloses a tablet {3D structure} containing the copolymer ( copoly (2-oxazoline)) [0072]. Regarding claim 34: Kabanov et al. (US ‘166) discloses creams, gels, ointments, salves {coatings} containing the copolymer ( copoly (2-oxazoline)) [0072]. 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. 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. Claim(s) 17-18 , 22-24 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabanov et al. (US 2013/0017166) as applied to claim 16 above . Regarding claims 1 7-18 : Kabanov et al. (US ‘166) discloses the basic claimed c opolymer [as set forth above with respect to claim 16]; wherein Kabanov et al. (US ‘166) discloses the random copolymers of poly(2-oxazolines) of formula (I) wherein x and y are independently about 5 or more and less than about 300 [0044] {corresponding to x + y ~ 10 to 600}. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler , 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [See MPEP 2144.05]. Regarding claim 22: Kabanov et al. (US ‘166) discloses the basic claimed copolymer [as set forth above with respect to claim 16]; wherein Kabanov et al. (US ‘166) discloses the hydrophilic monomer can have R = methyl (ex. 2-methyl-2-oxazoline ( MeOx )) [0042; 0044]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted 2-methyl-2-oxazoline for 2-ethyl-2-oxazoline based on the invention of Kabanov et al. (US ‘166), and would have been motivated to do so since Kabanov et al. (US ‘166) discloses 2-methyl-2-oxazoline and 2-ethyl-2-oxazoline as hydrophilic monomer [0042; 0044]. Additionally, a n express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout , 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982) [see MPEP 2144.06]. Regarding claims 23-24 : Kabanov et al. (US ‘166) discloses the basic claimed copolymer [as set forth above with respect to claim 22 ]; wherein Kabanov et al. (US ‘166) discloses the random copolymers of poly(2-oxazolines) of formula (I) wherein x and y are independently about 5 or more and less than about 300 [0044] {corresponding to x + y ~ 10 to 600}. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler , 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [See MPEP 2144.05]. Regarding claim 26: Kabanov et al. (US ‘166) discloses the basic claimed copolymer [as set forth above with respect to claim 16]; wherein Kabanov et al. (US ‘166) discloses a molar ratio of secBuOx:EtOx of ~ 29:71 [Table 1]. Kabanov et al. (US ‘166) discloses the random copolymers of poly(2-oxazolines) of formula (I) wherein x and y are independently about 5 or more and less than about 300 [0044]. Kabanov et al. (US ‘166) does not specifically disclose a molar ratio of secBuOx:EtOx of about 50:50 to about 80:20 . However , in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler , 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [See MPEP 2144.05]. Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabanov et al. (US 2013/0017166) as applied to claim 19 above. Regarding claims 20-21: Kabanov et al. (US ‘166) discloses the basic claimed copolymer [as set forth above with respect to claim 19]; wherein Kabanov et al. (US ‘166) discloses the random copolymers of poly(2-oxazolines) of formula (I) wherein x and y are independently about 5 or more and less than about 300 [0044] {corresponding to x + y ~ 10 to 600}. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler , 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [See MPEP 2144.05]. Double Patenting 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claim s 16-28 , 30-31 and 33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/029391 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the device comprising the polymer PsecBuOx -stat- PAOx copolymer of formula (I) anticipates the instant claimed PsecBuOx -stat- PAOx copolymer of formula (I) of claims 16-24 , and 2D or 3D structure of claim 33. While Application No. 18/029391 does not specifically claim a molar ratio of PsecBuOx:PAOx of about 5:95 to about 95:5 (claim 25); a molar ratio of PsecBuOx:PAOx of about 50:50 to about 80:20 (claim 26); a molar ratio of PsecBuOx:PAOx of about 20:80 to about 50:50 (claim 27), in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler , 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [See MPEP 2144.05]. T he method of creating a 3D structure for cell growth employing the PsecBuOx -stat- PAOx copolymer of formula (I) of Application No. 18/029391 substantially overlaps in scope with the instant claimed fabrication method including the instant claimed PsecBuOx -stat- PAOx copolymer of formula (I) of claims 30-31 . While Application No. 18/029391 does not specifically claim electrospinning, fused deposition modelling, thermoforming or casting for step b) , it would have been obvious to have created the template by electrospinning, fused deposition modelling, thermoforming or casting, as claim 11 claim electrospinning, fused deposition modelling, thermoforming or casting for step b) [claim 11]. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. See attached form PTO-892. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MICHAEL F PEPITONE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3299 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7:00 AM - 3:30 PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mark Eashoo can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1197 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /MICHAEL F PEPITONE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767