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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 2/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/20/2026.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varshney et al. (WO-0130407-A1).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 5
Varshney discloses a method of making a hydrogel comprising preparing an aqueous solution (i.e., water as the solvent) of polyvinyl alcohol, agar and one or more natural polymers from a short finite list with predictable results such as carrageenan, making the use of carrageenan obvious.
Varshney then discloses heating this solution at 70-80 C, followed by irradiation at room temperature (i.e., which would necessitate cooling before irradiation) to form the hydrogel (claim 1).
Varshney discloses that the irradiation used for crosslinking can be an electron beam (abstract).
Although Varshney is silent as to the results of the heating step (B) and the cooling step (C), Varshney uses identical steps and identical materials, and would be expected to have the same results.
Regarding claim 3
Varshney discloses the use of 0.5 to 5 wt % of agar and 0 to 4.5 wt % of other natural polymer (i.e., carageenan) (claim 4).
As the amounts of the polysaccharide of the reference overlap the claimed amount the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q. 549.
Regarding claim 4
Varshney discloses the use of distilled water (abstract).
Regarding claim 7
Varshney discloses gamma radiation may be used (abstract).
Regarding claim 8
Varshney discloses controlling the amount of radiation (abstract).
Regarding claim 9
Varshney discloses pouring the solution into a mold (abstract), which would necessarily have a predetermined shape.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varshney et al. (WO-0130407-A1), as applied to claims 1-5 and 7-9 above, in view of Taguchi et al. (WO-2020004646-A1).
Regarding claim 6
Although Varshney does not disclose thew claimed electron beam energy or dose, Varshney does disclose the use of an electron beam. However, Taguchi directed to similar hydrogels and discloses that the electron beam may be 2 MeV and a dose rate of 10 kGy (example 5). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention top add to the teachings of Varshney by using an electron beam having 2 MeV and a dose rate of 10 kGy, with a reasonable expectation of success in forming a useful hydrogel, as suggested by Taguchi.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES E MCDONOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-10.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
JAMES E. MCDONOUGH
Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/JAMES E MCDONOUGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights