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 .
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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varshney et al. (WO-0130407-A1).
Regarding claim 23
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 accomplished an electron beam (i.e., high energy) and controlling the amount of radiation (abstract).
Although Varshney is silent as to the results of the heating step (B), the cooling step (C) and the irradiation step (D), Varshney uses identical steps and identical materials, and would be expected to have the same results. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § § 2112- 2112.02.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue against the prior art rejections.
Applicants amendments to the claims places all previously rejected claims and all new claims, except for claim 23, into condition for allowance, making these arguments moot.
Applicants argue against new claim 23.
Applicants argue that the examiner has not identified any disclosure of irradiating a previously formed natural-polysaccharide IPN structure for the purpose of modifying that structure. This is not persuasive as Varshney discloses forming a mixture of the polysaccharides, heating (which would for the IPN), and then irradiating at room temperature (which requires cooling).
Applicants argue that none of the references cited teach or suggest using radiation to achieve controlled chain scission. This is not persuasive as the reference discloses identical methods with identical materials, and as such would be expected to provide the same results.
Applicants argue that none of the references cited teach or suggest using radiation to enlarge mesh size in a previously formed IPN while preserving network continuity. This is not persuasive as the reference discloses identical methods with identical materials, and as such would be expected to provide the same results.
The remaining arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the same reasons given 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 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 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