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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-8 were originally filed on December 19, 2022.
The preliminary amendment received December 19, 2022 amended claim 1, canceled claims 2-8, and added new claims 9-24.
The amendment received November 6, 2024 amended claims 9, 10, 16, 17, 21, and 23.
The amendment received November 21, 2025 deleted the November 6, 2024 amendments without marking up the claims and changed the status identifiers (i.e. improper status identifiers for claims 9, 10, 16, 17, 21, and 23 which were amended without markups).
Claims 1 and 9-24 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19, 21, and 23 are currently under consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1, 9-13, and 15-24) in the reply filed on November 21, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 14 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 21, 2025.
Applicant’s election of Nap-FFGGG, structure in claims 11 and 18, function of releases NO under catalysis of b-gal, and b-gal in the reply filed on November 21, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, 20, 22, and 24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 21, 2025.
Please note: claims 9 and 16 are withdrawn because the claims require both GFFY (nonelected species) and FFG. Claims 10 and 17 are withdrawn due to dependency on claims 9 and 16, respectively.
Potential Rejoinder
Applicants elected claims directed to a product. If a product claim is subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that depend from or otherwise include all the limitations of the allowable product claim will be rejoined in accordance with the provisions of MPEP § 821.04. Process claims that depend from or otherwise include all the limitations of the patentable product will be entered as a matter of right if the amendment is presented prior to final rejection or allowance, whichever is earlier. Amendments submitted after final rejection are governed by 37 CFR 1.116; amendments submitted after allowance are governed by 37 CFR 1.312.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all the criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, and 112. Until an elected product claim is found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowed product claim will not be rejoined. See “Guidance on Treatment of Product and Process Claims in light of In re Ochiai, In re Brouwer and 35 U.S.C. § 103(b),” 1184 O.G. 86 (March 26, 1996). Additionally, in order to retain the right to rejoinder in accordance with the above policy, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution either to maintain dependency on the product claims or to otherwise include the limitations of the product claims. Failure to do so may result in a loss of the right to a rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Priority
The present application claims foreign priority to China 202111604730.9 filed December 24, 2021.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome any rejection of record because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures
Summary of Requirements for Patent Applications Filed On Or After July 1, 2022, That Have Sequence Disclosures
37 CFR 1.831(a) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.831(b) must contain a “Sequence Listing XML”, as a separate part of the disclosure, which presents the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences and associated information using the symbols and format in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.831-1.835. This “Sequence Listing XML” part of the disclosure may be submitted:
1. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.831(a) using the symbols and format requirements of 37 CFR 1.832 through 1.834 via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (see Section I.1 of the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (https://www.uspto.gov/PatentLegalFramework), hereinafter “Legal Framework”) in XML format, together with an incorporation by reference statement of the material in the XML file in a separate paragraph of the specification (an incorporation by reference paragraph) as required by 37 CFR 1.835(a)(2) or 1.835(b)(2) identifying:
a. the name of the XML file
b. the date of creation; and
c. the size of the XML file in bytes; or
2. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.831(a) using the symbols and format requirements of 37 CFR 1.832 through 1.834 on read-only optical disc(s) as permitted by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(1)(ii), labeled according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5), with an incorporation by reference statement of the material in the XML format according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8) and 37 CFR 1.835(a)(2) or 1.835(b)(2) in a separate paragraph of the specification identifying:
a. the name of the XML file;
b. the date of creation; and
c. the size of the XML file in bytes.
SPECIFIC DEFICIENCIES AND THE REQUIRED RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE ARE AS FOLLOWS:
Specific deficiency - Sequences appearing in the specification are not identified by sequence identifiers (i.e., “SEQ ID NO:X” or the like) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.831(c).
See paragraphs 16 and 54.
See claims 9, 10, 16, 17, 21, and 23.
Required response – Applicant must provide:
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3), and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers, consisting of:
• A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
• A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
• A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
Specific deficiency - Sequences appearing in the drawings are not identified by sequence identifiers in accordance with 37 CFR 1.831(c). Sequence identifiers for sequences (i.e., “SEQ ID NO:X” or the like) must appear either in the drawings or in the Brief Description of the Drawings.
See Figure 3.
Required response – Applicant must provide:
Amended drawings in accordance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) inserting the required sequence identifiers;
AND/OR
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3), and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers (i.e., “SEQ ID NO:X” or the like) into the Brief Description of the Drawings, consisting of:
• A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
• A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
• A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
This application contains sequence disclosures in accordance with the definitions for nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences set forth in 37 CFR 1.831(a) and 1.831(b). However, this application fails to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.831-1.834.
The examiner has noted that paragraphs 12 and 53 and claims 21 and 23 contain sequences which are not in the sequence listing (SEQ ID NO: 1 is GFFY, SEQ ID NO: 2 is hydrogen-GFFY, SEQ ID NO: 3 is hydrogen-GFFYG, SEQ ID NO: 4 is hydrogen-GFFYGG, SEQ ID NO: 5 is hydrogen-GFFYGGG, SEQ ID NO: 6 is hydrogen-FFGG, SEQ ID NO: 7 is hydrogen-FFGGG, and SEQ ID NO: 8 is Nap-GFFYG). Therefore, GFFY with an N-terminal Ac, Nap, or FMOC; GFFYG with Ac or FMOC; GFFYGG with an N-terminal Ac, Nap, or FMOC; GFFYGGG with an N-terminal Ac, Nap, or FMOC; FFGG with an N-terminal Ac, Nap, or FMOC; and FFGGG with an N-terminal Ac, Nap, or FMOC are not present in the sequence listing.
Applicant must provide:
• A replacement “Sequence Listing XML” part of the disclosure, as described above in item 1. or 2., as well as
• A statement that identifies the location of all additions, deletions, or replacements of sequence information in the “Sequence Listing XML” as required by 1.835(b)(3);
• A statement that indicates support for the amendment in the application, as filed, as required by 37 CFR 1.835(b)(4);
• A statement that the “Sequence Listing XML” includes no new matter in accordance with 1.835(b)(5); and
• A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3), and 1.125 inserting the required incorporation by reference paragraph as required by 37 CFR 1.835(b)(2), consisting of:
o A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
o A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
Sequence Interpretation
The Office interprets claims comprising SEQ ID NOs: in the following manner: “comprising a sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1” requires only a 2mer of SEQ ID NO: 1, “comprising the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1” requires the full-length sequence with 100% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 with any N-/C-terminal additions or any 5’/3’ additions, “consisting of SEQ ID NO: 1” requires the full-length sequence with 100% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 and the same length as SEQ ID NO: 1, and “selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NOs: 1, 2, and 3” requires the full-length sequence with 100% identity to SEQ ID NOs: 1, 2, or 3 and the same length as SEQ ID NOs: 1, 2, or 3. Any claim requiring a specific percent identity, necessarily requires at least the recited percent identity.
Claim Warning
Applicant is advised that should claims 1, 11, 12, and/or 21 be found allowable, claims 15, 18, 19, and/or 23 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Independent claim 1 and dependent claim 15 only differ in the preamble.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities: the polypeptides should be referred to as sequences. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a written description rejection.
With regard to the written description requirement, the attention of the Applicant is directed to The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit which held that a “written description of an invention involving a chemical genus, like a description of a chemical species, ‘requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula [or] chemical name,’ of the claimed subject matter sufficient to distinguish it from other materials.” University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1405 (1997), quoting Fiers v. Revel, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (bracketed material in original) [The claims at issue in University of California v. Eli Lilly defined the invention by function of the claimed DNA (encoding insulin)] (the case is referred to herein as “Lilly”).
Additionally, it is noted that written description is legally distinct from enablement: “Although the two concepts are entwined, they are distinct and each is evaluated under separate legal criteria. The written description requirement, a question of fact, ensures that the inventor conveys to others that he or she had possession of the claimed invention; whereas, the enablement requirement, a question of law, ensures that the inventor conveys to others how to make and use the claimed invention.” See 1242 OG 169 (January 30, 2001) citing University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co.
Although directed to DNA compounds, this Eli Lilly holding would be deemed to be applicable to any compound or a generic of compounds; which requires a representative sample of compounds and/or a showing of sufficient identifying characteristics; to demonstrate possession of the compound or generic(s). In this regard, applicant is further referred to University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 43 USPQ2d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1997); “Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications Under the 35 USC 112, first paragraph, ‘Written Description’ Requirement” published in 1242 OG 168-178 (January 30, 2001); and Univ. Of Rochester v G. D. Searle and Co. 249 F. Supp. 2d 216 (W.D.N.Y. 2003) affirmed by the CAFC on February 13, 2004 (03-1304) publication pending.
Additionally, Lilly sets forth a two part test for written description:
A description of a genus of cDNA’s may be achieved by means of a recitation of:
a representative number of cDNA’s, defined by nucleotide sequence, falling within the scope of the genus OR of a recitation of structural features common to the members of the genus.
See Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co. 119 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997) at 1569.
Finally, University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1404, 1405 held that:
...To fulfill the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe an invention and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that "the inventor invented the claimed invention." Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (1997); In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (" [T]he description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed."). Thus, an applicant complies with the written description requirement "by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious," and by using "such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that set forth the claimed invention." Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.
Additionally, Cf. University of Rochester v G.D. Searle & Co., Inc., Monsanto Company, Pharmacia Corporation, and Pfizer Inc., No. 03-1304, 2004 WL 260813 (Fed. Cir., Feb. 13, 2004) held that:
Regardless whether a compound is claimed per se or a method is claimed that entails the use of the compound, the inventor cannot lay claim to that subject matter unless he can provide a description of the compound sufficient to distinguish infringing compounds from non-infringing compounds, or infringing methods from non-infringing methods.
In the present instance, the specification discloses only limited examples that are not representative of the claimed genus of a “gel-forming polypeptide” or a “b-galactose-protected nitric oxide (NO) donor molecule”; nor do the claims recite sufficient structural features which are common to members of the genus sufficient to demonstrate possession of the genus. The instant claims define the polypeptide by the functional limitation of “gel-forming” and the molecule by the functional limitation of “NO donor”. The claimed “nitric oxide hydrogel” is only defined by functional properties (e.g. “gel-forming polypeptide” and NO donor molecule) with the exception of the required b-gal. The CAFC held that a functional definition is insufficient to adequately describe a product, therefore, an adequate written description not based on a functional definition is necessary.
The Examiner further notes the present claims stated by Applicant are broader in scope that those that were held to be impermissible in Lilly because, unlike Lilly, Applicants’ claims encompass a vast number of “gel-forming polypeptides” and “NO donor molecules”. Here, the Applicant claims a NO hydrogel comprising a gel-forming polypeptide and a b-gal protected NO donor. The scope of these claims include a vast number of sequences because the specification and claims do not place any limit on the number of components (e.g. length of polypeptide, composition of NO donor) or the type of components (e.g. specific amino acids which are “gel-forming”, composition of the NO donor). Furthermore, the specification and claims do not place any limit on the number of components, the types of components, or the manner in which the components might be connected to achieve a gel-forming polypeptide or a NO donor. Therefore, Applicants are using an inadequately described “polypeptide” and “molecule” to inadequately describe the claimed “NO hydrogel”. In addition, the “configured to produce a hydrogel” claim language (e.g. independent claim 1) further exacerbates this problem because the conditions under which the gel-forming polypeptide are “configured to produce a hydrogel” are not specified. Consequently, there is no teaching that would allow a person of skill in the art to determine a priori that the Applicant was in possession of the full scope of the claimed invention at the time of filing because there is no common structural attributes that can link together all of the claimed “gel-forming polypeptides” or “NO donor molecules”.
While the general knowledge and level of skill in the art for making hydrogels is high, this knowledge and level of skill does not supplement the omitted description because specific, not general, guidance is needed for the “NO hydrogel” comprising “gel-forming polypeptides” and “NO donor molecules”. Since the disclosure fails to describe the common attributes or characteristics that identify all of the members of the genus or even a substantial portion thereof, and because the genus is vast and highly variant (e.g. any gel-forming polypeptide, and NO donor molecule), the limited examples in the specification (please refer to SEQ ID NOs: 1-8, FFG, and FF at paragraphs 10 and 11 and the single b-gal-NO donor in paragraph 16 in the Specification) are insufficient to teach the entire genus.
The specification discloses only limited examples that are not representative of the claimed genus of a “gel-forming polypeptide” or a “NO donor molecule”; nor do the claims recite sufficient structural features which are common to members of the genus sufficient to demonstrate possession of the genus. Therefore, the teachings in the specification are general teachings relating without guidance as to the individual components of the product. In addition, there are numerous gel-forming polypeptides or NO donors that could be employed in the invention with little direction or guidance for one of skill in the art to practice the claimed invention. The expedient statements in the specification do not relate to an adequate disclosure or how to make and use the claimed invention. Consequently, one of skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the disclosure fails to provide a representative number of species to adequately describe the vast genus. Thus, Applicant does not appear to be in possession of the claimed genus.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19, 21, and 23 are rejected 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. One of skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the presently claimed NO hydrogel. For example, it is unclear if the hydrogel is actually formed or not. See the “configured to produce a hydrogel” language in independent claim 1, lines 2-3. Therefore, there is not a nexus between the preamble (i.e. NO hydrogel) and the body of the claim (i.e. configured to produce a hydrogel).
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected 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. One of skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the presently claimed NO hydrogel. For example, it is unclear if “has a general formula of” is open, closed, etc. In addition, the polypeptides should be referred to as sequences.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 12 is dependent on independent claim 1. Independent claim 1 requires b-gal and a NO donor. Dependent claim 12 simply refers to the function of the NO hydrogel. Therefore, claim 12 does not limit the structure of the NO hydrogel. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 15 is dependent on independent claim 1. Claim 15 simply has a different preamble than independent claim 1. Claim 15 does not alter the structure of the NO hydrogel. Therefore, claim 15 fails to further limit independent claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 19 is dependent on claim 15 which is dependent on independent claim 1. Independent claim 1 requires b-gal and a NO donor. Dependent claim 15 simply alters the preamble. Dependent claim 19 simply refers to the function of the NO hydrogel. Therefore, claim 19 does not limit the structure of the NO hydrogel. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gao et al., 2013, Enzyme-controllable delivery of nitric oxide from a molecular hydrogel, Chem Commun, 49: 9173-9175.
For present claims 1, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19, 21, and 23, Gao et al. teach NO hydrogels comprising Nap-FFGGG and a b-gal-NO donor (i.e. same structure of present claims 11 and 18) (please refer to the entire references particularly the abstract; Introduction; Scheme 1; page 9174, left column).
Therefore, the teachings of Gao et al. anticipate the presently claimed NO hydrogel.
Claims 1, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yao et al., 2015, Nitric oxide releasing hydrogel enhances the therapeutic efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells for myocardial infarction, Biomaterials, 60: 130-140.
For present claims 1, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19, 21, and 23, Yao et al. teach NO hydrogels comprising Nap-FFGGG or NapFF and a b-gal-NO donor (i.e. same structure of present claims 11 and 18) (please refer to the entire references particularly the abstract; Introduction; Sections 2.2 and 3.1; Figure 1A).
Therefore, the teachings of Yao et al. anticipate the presently claimed NO hydrogel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
General references:
CN 109957000
CN 111991616
Chemical structures of claims 11 and 18
Zhao et al., 2013, Polysaccharide-based biomaterials with on-demand nitric oxide releasing property regulated by enzyme catalysis, Biomaterials, 34: 8450-8458.
SEQ ID NOs: 1 and 2 (GFFY)
Ma et al., 2021, Targeting macrophage liver X receptors by hydrogel-encapsulated T0901317 reduces atherosclerosis without effect on hepatic lipogenesis, Br J Pharmacol, 178: 1620-1638.
Feng et al., 2021, Encapsulation of LXR ligand by D-Nap-GFFY hydrogel enhances anti-tumorigenic actions of LXR and removed LXR-induced lipogenesis, Theranostics, 11(6): 2634-2654.
Li et al., 2020, The substitution of a single amino acid with its enantiomer for control over the adjuvant activity of self-assembling peptides, RSC Adv, 10: 13900-13906.
Chen et al., 2018, A supramolecular hydrogel for spatial-temporal release of auxin to promote plant root growth, Chem Commun, 54: 11721-11724.
SEQ ID NO: 3 (GFFYG)
CN 109111504
SEQ ID NO: 4 (GFFYGG)
CN 117257916
SEQ ID NO: 5 (GFFYGGG)
CN 111690039
SEQ ID NO: 6 (FFGG)
WO 00/25825
SEQ ID NO: 7 (FFGGG)
CN 111714706
SEQ ID NO: 8 (GFFYG)
WO 2004/005318
Future Communications
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMBER D STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-5538. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Melissa Fisher can be reached at 571-270-7430. 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.
/AMBER D STEELE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1658