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 .
Claims 1-15 are pending in this application, Claims 13-15 are acknowledged as withdrawn, Claims 1-12 were examined on their merits.
The objection to the Abstract of the Disclosure for not being of sufficient length to describe the disclosure has been withdrawn due to the Applicant’s submission of a new Abstract in the reply filed 05/18/2026.
The objections to Claims 9 and 12 because of minor informalities have been withdrawn due to the Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 05/18/2026.
The separate rejections of Claims 1-12, 1, 6 and 9 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inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention, have been withdrawn due to the Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 05/18/2026.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Haigh et al. (2016), cited in the IDS, in view of Hoogenboom et al.
(2017), of record, Everaerts et al. (2020), cited in the IDS and Hochleitner et al. (2014), of record.
Haigh et al. teaches providing a polymer (polycaprolactone/PCL) (Pg. 98, Column 1, Section 3.1);
melt electrospinning/writing (MEW) a 3D microfiber (e.g. microfilament) template/scaffold from the PCL (Pg. 94, Fig. 1 and Pg. 97. Fig. 4 and Pg. 98, Section 3.1) having a diameter of 23 ± 1 µm (within the claimed range of 0.5 to 5000 µm) (Pg. 95, Column 2, Lines 17-19);
applying an aqueous oxazoline pre-copolymer hydrogel (PEtOx-ButenOx) to the PCL template/scaffold to embed the template/scaffold in the hydrogel and cross-linking the pre-copolymer (Pg. 96, Fig. 3 and Pg. 85, Column 2, Lines 1-6 and Fig. 2 and Pg. 98, Section 3.2);
and removing/sacrificing the PCL template to create multiple microchannels (Pg. 96, Fig. 3 and Pg. 98, Section 3.2), reading on Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11.
Haigh et al. further teaches that the process may provide opportunities for applications, such as cell scaffolds for tissue engineering (Pg. 98, Column 1, Lines 23- 27).
The teachings of Haigh et al. were discussed above.
Haigh et al. did not teach a method wherein the template polymer is the PsecBuOx-stat-PAOx polyoxazoline copolymer of Claim 1;
wherein the polyoxazoline co-polymer is represented by Formula I; wherein the R1 is ethyl, as required by Claim 2;
wherein the step of removing the template comprises placing the template in an aqueous medium and decreasing the temperature of the template to below the LCST of the polyoxazoline polymer, as required by Claim 9;
or wherein the temperature is decreased to below 10 °C, as required by Claim 10.
Hoogenboom et al. teaches the statistical copolymerization of poly(2-oxazolines) to accurately control the hydrophilic-hydrophobic balance of the copolymer chains incorporating of inert and more hydrophobic or more hydrophilic comonomers into one thermoresponsive copolymer, such as PEtOx with PnPrOx, PiPrOx PcPrOx and poly(2- n-nonyl-2-oxazoline) (PNonOx), copolymers of PiPrOx with PEtOx PnPrOx, poly(2-n- butyl-2-oxazoline) (PButOx), and PNonOx,
as well as copolymers of PnPrOx with PMeOx, PEtOx, and PiPrOx (Pg. 27, Column 2, Lines 24-37 and Pg. 28, Column 1, Lines 1-3).
The reference further teaches that poly(2-oxazoline)s obtained by polymerizing 2-oxazoline monomers can yield thermoresponsive poly(2-oxazolin)s with lower critical solution temperature (LCST) behavior (Pg. 25, Paragraph 2.1).
Everaerts et al. teaches a homogenous blend of poly(2-ethyl-2-oxazoline or PEtOx) which is a water-soluble (hydrophilic) polymer at body temperature and; poly(2- n-propyl-2-oxazoline or PPrOx or PnPrOx) and poly(2-sec-butyl-2-oxazoline or PsecBuOx) which are insoluble (hydrophobic) at body temperature (Pg. 1, Abstract)
and suggests PAOx can serve as formulation platforms to design tailor-made carriers with specific solution, thermal, mechanical and miscibility behavior (Pg. 19, Lines 3-5).
Hochleitner et al. teaches that melt electrospinning writing (MEW) to produce 3D printed scaffolds has been mainly applied to polycaprolactone (PCL) and teaches that scaffolds can also be manufactured of the hydrophilic polymer poly(2-ethyI-2-oxazoline, (Pg. 5017, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hoogenboom et al. of the statistical copolymerization of poly(2-oxazolines) incorporating more hydrophobic and more hydrophilic comonomers into one thermoresponsive copolymer, wherein the copolymers included PnPrOx or PEtOx to substitute the PsecBuOx taught by Everaerts for the PnPrOx because both art art-recognized insoluble/hydrophobic poly(2-oxazolines) which are suitable for statistical copolymerization into a single thermoresponsive polymer. See the MPEP at 2144.06, II. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution based on artisan preference and the availability of the compounds. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification because both references are reasonably drawn to the same field of endeavor, that is, polymer combinations and the effects thereof on miscibility.
It would have been further obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Haigh et al. for preparing a MEW 3D structure comprising a PCL template to substitute the PsecBuOx- stat-PAOx polyoxazoline (taught by Hoogenboom and Everaerts) for the PCL because Hochleitner et al. teaches that both PCL and hydrophilic polyoxazoline polymers are known in the art as materials used for preparing MEW 3D scaffolds. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prepare a 3D structure with a polymer hydrogel template which is thermoresponsive and does not require acetone for removal (e.g. biocompatible). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification because all of the references are reasonably drawn to the same field of endeavor, that is, 3D polymer printed scaffolds and polyoxazoline polymers the characterization and the use thereof.
With regard to Claims 1, 2 and 3, the cited prior art of Hoogenboom and Everaerts makes obvious the claimed embodiment of the PsecBuOx-stat-PEtOx polyoxazoline copolymer, therefore it would be expected to have the same structural formula as claimed, wherein R1 is ethyl and have a number average molecular weight of from 10- 200 kDa.
While the references listed above do not specifically teach the limitations of Claims 9 and 10, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the selection of a polyoxazoline polymer which is miscible at a temperature below 10 °C in an aqueous medium is a result-effective, optimizable variable.
Hoogenboom et al. teaches that thermoresponsive synthetic polymers that undergo a temperature induced solubility phase transition in aqueous solutions have received significant interest as mild temperature changes provide an easy way to trigger the solubility. Furthermore, such systems are highly appealing for development of drug delivery systems if the transition temperature is close to body temperature, allowing to prepare formulations that are soluble at room temperature and gel upon injection, polymeric sensors as well as switchable surfaces. Two different types of thermoresponsive polymers exist, namely those that undergo a demixing phase transition upon heating and those that demix upon cooling (Pgs. 24-25, Introduction).
The Hoogenboom reference further teaches that poly(2-oxazoline)s obtained by polymerizing 2-oxazoline monomers can yield thermoresponsive poly(2-oxazolin)s with lower critical solution temperature (LCST) behavior (Pg. 25, Paragraph 2.1). These are teachings that thermoresponsive polymers which undergo a temperature induced solubility phase transition in aqueous solutions are known in the art and can be adjusted based on their component polymers to have desired thermoresponsive characteristics. This is motivation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to practice or test the polymer compositions widely to find those that are functional or optimal to have the desired miscibility and LCST characteristics which then would be inclusive or cover the instantly claimed low-temperature LCST property.
Absent any teaching of criticality by the Applicant concerning the type of cells in the composition, it would be prima facie obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize these limitations as an optimizable variable which can be met as a matter of routine optimization (see MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(B). Those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make this modification in order to obtain a 3D structure with a polymer template that will phase change at a desired temperature and is miscible in aqueous solution. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making these modifications because Haigh is drawn to a 3D polymer structure with a chemically removable polycaprolactone polymer template, Hoogenboom and Everaerts teach a polyoxazoline copolymer compound, which could be substituted for the PCL as taught by Hochleitner, and which could be prepared to have desired LCST and miscibility characteristics by routine experimentation and optimization.
Claims 1-7, 8, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Haigh et al. (2016), cited in the IDS, in view of Hoogenboom et al. (2017), of record, Everaerts et al. (2020), cited in the IDS, and Hochleitner et al. (2014), of record, as applied to Claims 1-7 and 11 above, and further in view of Lorson et al. (2018), cited in the IDS.
The teachings of Haigh, Hoogenboom, Everaerts and Hochleitner were discussed above.
None of the above references taught a method further comprising a step of seeding cells on to the template before applying the hydrogel support, as required by Claim 8;
or wherein the cells are selected from selected from the group consisting of smooth muscle cells, glial cells, vascular endothelial cells, gut epithelial cells, endometrium epithelial cells, fallopian epithelial cells, fibroblasts, macrophages, glial cells, stromal cells associated with respective epithelial tissue, neural and vascular endothelial cells, as required by Claim 12.
Lorson et al. teaches that the method of Haigh requiring the removal of the PCL with acetone-water ruled out the direct incorporation of cells. However, melt electrowritten/spun scaffolds that simply dissolve in water might be stable for prolonged periods of time before curing the hydrogel (Pg. 221, Column 2, Lines 12-17).
It would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Haigh et al., Hoogenboom, Everaerts and Hochleitner for preparing a 3D cell culture structure comprising an aqueous oxazoline pre-copolymer PsecBuOx-stat-PEtOx template to seed cells onto the template before applying the hydrogel support because removal of the support would no longer require acetone-water which would be detrimental to cell health. Further, the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See the MPEP at 2144.04, IV., C.
Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to seed cells onto a cell culture template prior to immobilization in a hydrogel. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification because all the Haigh reference suggests the use of the 3D structure for cell scaffolding and Lorson suggests the method of Haigh could be improved by use of a different scaffold not requiring acetone for removal. While the references listed above do not specifically teach the limitation of Claim 12, that the cells are selected from selected from the group consisting of smooth muscle cells, glial cells, vascular endothelial cells, gut epithelial cells, endometrium epithelial cells, fallopian epithelial cells, fibroblasts, macrophages, glial cells, stromal cells associated with respective epithelial tissue, neural and vascular endothelial cells, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the selection of cell type to seed is a result- effective optimizable variable. Haigh et al. teaches that the process may provide opportunities for applications, such as cell scaffolds for tissue engineering (Pg. 98, Column 1, Lines 23-27). This is a general teaching encompasses all the cells claimed. This is motivation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to practice or test the seeded cells widely to find those that are functional or optimal to be seeded in the 3D polymer structure which then would be inclusive or cover the instantly claimed cell types. Absent any teaching of criticality by the Applicant concerning the type of cells in the composition, it would be prima facie obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize these limitations as an optimizable variable which can be met as a matter of routine optimization (see MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(B).
Those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make this modification in order to obtain a 3D structure with the desired cell type. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making these modifications because Haigh is drawn to a 3D polymer structure and suggests its’ use as a cell scaffold and all of the other references are reasonably drawn to the same field of endeavor, that is, biocompatible polymer compositions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 05/18/2026, with respect to the above withdrawn objections/rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive..
Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the template removal process of Haigh is incompatible with cell compatible processing, as the removal requires acetone to dissolve the PCL template. Applicant notes the claimed invention solves this problem by removing the template by cooling the aqueous medium below the LCST of the polyoxazoline copolymer (Remarks, Pg. 9, Lines 13-34).
This is not found to be persuasive for the following reasons, in response to Applicant's arguments against the Haigh reference individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Haigh was not cited for its use of a process involving template removal by acetone but for the general process of removing a polymer template embedded within a hydrogel to create 3D microchannels therein. The prior action provides rationale based on the other cited prior art as to why the ordinary artisan would find obvious substitution of the non-biocompatible PCL polymer template of Haigh for the biocompatible polyoxazoline polymer of Hoogenboom and Everaerts. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., removing the template by cooling the aqueous medium below the LCST of the polyoxazoline copolymer) are not recited in the rejected broad claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Nevertheless, as discussed above and in the prior action with regard to Claims 9-10, Hoogenboom et al. teaches that thermoresponsive synthetic polymers that undergo a temperature induced solubility phase transition in aqueous solutions have received significant interest as mild temperature changes provide an easy way to trigger the solubility.
Furthermore, such systems are highly appealing for development of drug delivery systems if the transition temperature is close to body temperature, allowing to prepare formulations that are soluble at room temperature and gel upon injection, polymeric sensors as well as switchable surfaces. Two different types of thermoresponsive polymers exist, namely those that undergo a demixing phase transition upon heating and those that demix upon cooling (Pgs. 24-25, Introduction). The Hoogenboom reference further teaches that poly(2-oxazoline)s obtained by polymerizing 2-oxazoline monomers can yield thermoresponsive poly(2-oxazolin)s with lower critical solution temperature (LCST) behavior (Pg. 25, Paragraph 2.1). These are teachings that thermoresponsive polymers which undergo a temperature induced solubility phase transition in aqueous solutions are known in the art and can be adjusted based on their component polymers to have desired thermoresponsive characteristics. This is motivation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to practice or test the polymer compositions widely to find those that are functional or optimal to have the desired miscibility and LCST characteristics which then would be inclusive or cover the instantly claimed low-temperature LCST property. Absent any teaching of criticality by the Applicant concerning the type of cells in the composition, it would be prima facie obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize these limitations as an optimizable variable which can be met as a matter of routine optimization (see MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(B). Those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make this modification in order to obtain a 3D structure with a polymer template that will phase change at a desired temperature and is miscible in aqueous solution.
There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making these modifications because Haigh is drawn to a 3D polymer structure with a chemically removable polycaprolactone polymer template, Hoogenboom and Everaerts teach a polyoxazoline copolymer compound, which could be substituted for the PCL as taught by Hochleitner, and which could be prepared to have desired LCST and miscibility characteristics by routine experimentation and optimization.
The Applicant argues that the polyoxazoline polymer disclosed by Haigh is the hydrogel matrix not the template as claimed, and that the Examiner proposed substitution of a polyoxazoline copolymer for the PCL polymer is not taught or suggested by the reference. Applicant notes that Haigh selected PCL because of its’ low melting point and the polyoxazoline hydrogel for its ease of synthesis into cross-linkable monomers. Applicant opines that the reference allegedly teaches the polyoxazoline as having a different functional role than that claimed and modifying Haigh as suggested would change the operating principle of the reference. Applicant concludes that Haigh teaches away from the claimed invention and modifying the reference would require significant changes to the prior art method (Remarks, Pg. 9, Lines 35-40 and Pg. 10, Lines 1-19).
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the reference, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Haigh uses a polymer template method which is unsuitable for culturing cells even as the reference suggests the method may have utility for producing cell scaffolds for tissue engineering. The other cited prior art provides a teaching of an alternative template polymer and removal process which are suitable for cell culturing.
That Haigh selected its’ template and hydrogel polymers because of specific properties is not a teaching away from the modification thereof. The Examiner maintains that the proposed modification would not alter the operating principle of Haigh which is a sacrificial template polymer embedded in a polymer hydrogel wherein the removal of the template produces microchannel structures in the hydrogel. This will occur whether the template polymer is PCL or a polyoxazoline. The Examiner notes that nowhere in the Haigh reference is a “teaching away” from the proposed modification, and even if the proposed modification would require some changes (e.g. substitution of one known polymer for another), these are not enough to suggest non-obviousness.
The Applicant argues that Hoogenboom fails to remedy the alleged deficiencies of Haigh. Applicant notes that the reference does not teach the claimed polyoxazoline polymer, discloses a polymer which does not dissolve at body temperature, and is from a different field of art than Haigh. Applicant concludes that therefore there would be no expectation of success and the Examiner’s reliance on optimization of result-effective variables as the reference does not recognize the optimized parameters as result-effective for the same purpose (Remarks, Pg. 10, Lines 24-31 and Pg. 11 and Pg. 12, Lines 1-3).
In response to Applicant's arguments against the Hoogenboom reference individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this instance, Hoogenboom was cited for its’ teachings of polyoxazoline copolymers formed from various oxazoline monomers and the properties thereof. Everaerts was cited for teaching art-recognized equivalent polyoxazoline monomers with specific characteristics suitable for copolymerization into a polyoxazoline copolymer. At least Haigh, Hoogenboom and Everaerts are drawn to the same field of endeavor, that is, the use and/or characterization of polyoxazoline polymers. Hoogenboom specifically recognizes that polyoxazoline copolymers have thermoresponsive/miscibility properties which are subject to adjustment and therefore are art-recognized result effective variables.
The Applicant argues that Everaerts fails to remedy the alleged deficiencies of Haigh. Applicant notes that the reference teaches a physical blend not a statistical copolymer as claimed and is not drawn to the same purpose as the claimed invention. Applicant asserts that the ordinary artisan would not look to Everaerts for addressing cell-compatible sacrificial templates or the statistical copolymerization of the claimed polymers. Applicant notes that the polymer blend of Everaerts was tested by Applicant and was deemed unsuitable (Remarks, Pg. 12, Lines 5-31 and Pg. 13, Lines 1-10).
In response to Applicant's arguments against the Everaerts reference individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this instance, Hoogenboom was cited for its’ teaching of the statistical copolymerization of poly(2-oxazoline) monomers. Everaerts was cited for its’ additional teachings of other known 2-oxazoline monomers, the properties/characteristics thereof and the suggestion to modify formulations to design carriers with certain functional properties. The Examiner maintains that the ordinary artisan in seeking to prepare a statistical copolymer of 2-oxazoline monomers would look to Hoogenboom and Everaerts and would find the substitution of such a biocompatible, thermoresponsive statistical copolymer obvious to substitute for the non-biocompatible cell scaffolding preparation method of Haigh.
That a non-statistical copolymer blend of Everaerts was tested by Applicant and found to melt upon contact with water is not evidence that the non-statistical oxazoline copolymer blend could not be prepared as the statistical oxazoline copolymer blends of Hoogenboom are.
The Applicant argues that Hochleitner does not remedy the alleged deficiencies of the other cited prior art. Applicant notes the oxazoline homopolymer taught by the reference is not suitable as a sacrificial template and the suggestion in the reference that cell scaffolds would be useful as sacrificial templates is speculative and does not teach a method to achieve such a template (Remarks, Pg. 13, Lines 12-31 and Pg. 1-15).
In response to Applicant's arguments against the Hochleitner reference individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this instance, Hochleitner was cited only for its’ teaching that PCL polymer (used by Haigh) can be used to produce 3D printed scaffolds with melt electrospinning writing (MEW) and that scaffolds can also be produced with poly(2-ethyl-2-oxazoline) polymer, which is also taught by both Hoogenboom and Everaerts.
Thus, the ordinary artisan would find obvious the modification of Hoogenboom by Everaerts to produce the claimed statistical co-polymer as well as the modification of the method of Haigh preparing a MEW 3D structure comprising a PCL template to substitute the PsecBuOx-stat-PAOx polyoxazoline (taught by Hoogenboom and Everaerts) for the PCL polymer because Hochleitner teaches that both PCL and hydrophilic polyoxazoline polymers are known in the art as materials used for preparing MEW 3D scaffolds. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prepare a 3D structure with a polymer hydrogel template which is thermoresponsive and does not require acetone for removal (e.g. is biocompatible). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification because all of the references are reasonably drawn to the same field of endeavor, that is, 3D polymer printed scaffolds and polyoxazoline polymers the characterization and the use thereof.
The Applicant argues that the Examiner has used impermissible hindsight (Remarks, Pg. 14, Lines 21-31 and Pg. 15, Lines 1-12 and Pg. 16, Lines 12-17).
In response to Applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning.
But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The Examiner maintains that the ordinary artisan would find the claimed invention obvious in view of the cited prior art for reasoning provided both above and in the prior action.
The Applicant argues that there would be no reasonable expectation of success or routine optimization as the proposed modification is not a simple substitution of one known scaffold material for another, as the polymer must have certain properties which are not predictable (Remarks, Pg. 15, Lines 15-31 and Pg. 16, Lines 1-11).
This is not found to be persuasive for the following reasons, as discussed above and in the prior action, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the statistical polyoxazoline co-polymer of Hoogenboom to prepare a statistical co-polymer of particular oxazolines as taught by Everaerts because both references teach the same 2-oxazoline monomers and are drawn to the same field of endeavor of polymer combinations the ascertaining the properties thereof. There would have been a further expectation of success in modifying the method of Haigh preparing a MEW 3D structure comprising a PCL template to substitute the PsecBuOx-stat-PAOx polyoxazoline (taught by Hoogenboom and Everaerts) for the PCL polymer because Hochleitner teaches that both PCL and hydrophilic polyoxazoline polymers are known in the art as materials used for preparing MEW 3D scaffolds.
Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prepare a 3D structure with a polymer hydrogel template which is thermoresponsive and does not require acetone for removal (e.g. is biocompatible). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification because all of the references are reasonably drawn to the same field of endeavor, that is, 3D polymer printed scaffolds and polyoxazoline polymers the characterization and the use thereof. Hoogenboom teaches that the selection of particular hydrophobic or hydrophilic comonomers in the statistical copolymer will affect the thermoresponsive properties of the copolymer and Everaerts further teaches that blends of hydrophobic and hydrophilic oxazoline polymers will similarly affect the mechanical, miscibility and thermoresponsive properties of the polymer blend. Thus, the ordinary artisan would readily grasp that the properties and characteristics of copolymers are dependent upon the properties of the polymer components therein which are art-recognized, optimizable variables.
The Applicant argues that Lorson does not remedy the alleged deficiencies of the other cited prior art (Remarks, Pg. 17, Lines 2-12).
This is not found to be persuasive for the reasoning provided both above and in the previous action. The Examiner notes that Lorson was only cited for its’ teaching that the PCL acetone removal method of Haigh is not biocompatible and that MEW scaffolds that are water miscible (such as taught by Hochleitner) might be more suitable for cell scaffolding.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PAUL C MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3348. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12pm-8pm 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, Sharmila G Landau can be reached at (571) 272-0614. 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.
/PAUL C MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1653
/SHARMILA G LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1653
Prosecution Insights