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 Application
Receipt of the Response and Amendment after Non-Final Office Action filed 3 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant has overcome the following rejection(s): (1) the 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1-8, 10-11, 15-16, and 19-24
Withdrawn claims: None
Previously canceled claims: None
Newly canceled claims: 9, 12-14 and 17-18
Amended claims: 1 and 22
New claims: 23-24
Claims currently under consideration: 1-8, 10-11, 15-16, and 19-24
Currently rejected claims: 1-8, 10-11, 15-16, and 19-24
Allowed claims: None
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 22 fails to include all limitations of claim 1. Claim 1 lists gelatin as an ingredient (“gelatin, wherein the gelatin content is less than 4% by weight”, which indicates that gelatin is positively required even though the claim recites “less than 4% by weight”. Stated another way, gelatin is required in a non-zero amount less than 4% by weight. Claim 22 recites that the gelatin content is 0% by weight, and therefore does not include the gelatin requirement of 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. It is suggested that Applicant amends claim 1 to recite “…comprising collagen…native; and optionally gelatin, wherein the gelatin content is less than 4% by weight…”. Such amendment would remove any ambiguity regarding whether presence of gelatin is required. For purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as suggested for amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Advanced BioMatrix (Tendon, Lyophilized Fibrous Powder (bovine). (2020, September 19). Advanced BioMatrix. Retrieved February 12, 2026 from https://web.archive.org/web/ 20200919131855/https://advancedbiomatrix.com/tendon-powder.html) in view of Scalesciani (US 2016/0106674 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Advanced BioMatrix discloses a lyophilized (i.e., dry) fibrous powder of insoluble (i.e., native) Type I collagen from bovine flexor tendon (p. 1, ¶ 1). “This product has a purity of >96%” (p. 1, ¶ 2). As such, the product comprises more than 70% native collagen and less than 4% by weight of gelatin. As seen in the image on page 1 of Advanced BioMatrix, the lyophilized fibrous powder has a flake morphology. Advanced BioMatrix teaches that the collagen product can be readily prepared into such forms as tissue scaffolds, foams, sponges, suspensions, coatings, putties, films, and sheets (p. 1, ¶ 4).
Advanced BioMatrix does not discuss that at least 95% of the dry collagen powder has a granulometry of between 10 µm and 5 mm.
However, Scalesciani teaches a collagen powder for pharmaceutical, medical, or cosmetic compositional use ([0001]). The preferred collagen is type I native collagen from horse and/or cow tendons, and the powder is a lyophilized powder ([0031]). The collagen powder comprises at least 99.5% of the particles having a maximum size of 80 microns ([0026]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the powder of Advanced BioMatrix with the teachings of Scalesciani to produce a native collagen powder in which at least 99.5% of the particles have a maximum size of 80 microns. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a powder suitable for use in pharmaceutical, medical, or cosmetic compositions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation in arriving at the claimed invention because Advanced BioMatrix teaches a lyophilized native collagen powder of greater than 96% purity, and Scalesciani teaches a native collagen powder wherein at least 99.5% of the particles have a maximum size of 80 microns. The claimed range of at least 95% of the dry collagen powder has a granulometry of between 10 µm and 5 mm overlaps with the disclosed range of at least 99.5% of the particles having a maximum size of 80 microns. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Additionally, Scalesciani discusses several pieces of prior art that illustrate that a common collagen powder size is well below 5 mm ([0014] – [0016]), thus demonstrating that the claimed particle size range overlaps with a well-known size range and therefore would have been obvious.
The claimed “satiating properties” of the dry collagen powder are an inherent feature to the composition. MPEP § 2112.01(I) states, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).”
Since Advanced BioMatrix discloses a dry collagen powder of high purity as claimed, the products are substantially identical, and necessarily have the same properties, including “satiating properties”.
Therefore, claim 1 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claims 2 and 19-20, Advanced BioMatrix and Scalesciani teach the dry collagen powder according to claim 1.
Advanced BioMatrix also teaches that the dry collagen powder comprises native collagen in more than 80% by weight (re: claim 2), in more than 90% by weight (re: claim 19), and in more than 95% by weight (re: claim 20) – The insoluble collagen “has a purity of >96%” (p. 1, ¶ 2).
Claims 2 and 19-20 are therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claims 3 and 21-22, Advanced BioMatrix and Scalesciani the dry collagen powder according to claim 1.
Advanced BioMatrix does not specifically discuss that the dry collagen powder comprises a gelatin content of less than 2.5% by weight (re: claim 3), of less than 1% by weight (re: claim 21), or wherein the gelatin content is 0% by weight (re: claim 22).
However, Advanced BioMatrix teaches that the collagen product can be readily prepared into such forms as tissue scaffolds, foams, sponges, suspensions, coatings, putties, films, and sheets (p. 1, ¶ 4). Advanced BioMatrix further teaches that the product does not form hydrogels (Id.), indicating that the product comprises essentially no gelatin. Moreover, Advanced BioMatrix does not disclose the addition of gelatin and discloses a purity of greater than 96%, thus the collagen powder of Advanced BioMatrix is understood to have no gelatin present.
Regardless of whether or not there is gelatin in the composition of Advanced BioMatrix, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further purified the native collagen product of Advanced BioMatrix to its purest form, including 100% purity. At its purest form, the resulting native collagen protein would lack gelatin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain 100% purified native collagen powder for use as a standard in scientific research. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because purification is part of routine experimentation, subsequent rounds of purification would lead to increased purity, and low-temperature drying by lyophilization would preserve the native collagen.
Claims 3 and 21-22 are therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Advanced BioMatrix and Scalesciani the dry collagen powder according to claim 1, wherein the dry collagen powder has an undigested collagen fraction after a pepsin powder digestion test greater than 30%.
The claimed “undigested fraction after a pepsin powder digestion test” of the dry collagen powder is an inherent feature to the composition. MPEP § 2112.01(I) states, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).”
Since Advanced BioMatrix discloses a dry collagen powder of high purity as claimed, the products are substantially identical, and necessarily have the same properties, including the claimed “undigested collagen fraction after a pepsin powder digestion test greater than 30%”.
Therefore, claim 5 is obvious for the same reasons as described regarding claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Advanced BioMatrix and Scalesciani the dry collagen powder according to claim 1, wherein a swelling percentage in an acid swelling test of the dry collagen powder is greater than 1550%.
The claimed “swelling percentage” of the dry collagen powder is an inherent feature to the composition. MPEP § 2112.01(I) states, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).”
Since Advanced BioMatrix discloses a dry collagen powder of high purity as claimed, the products are substantially identical, and necessarily have the same properties, including the claimed “swelling percentage in an acid swelling test of the dry collagen powder greater than 1550%”.
Therefore, claim 6 is obvious for the same reasons as described regarding claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, Advanced BioMatrix and Scalesciani the dry collagen powder according to claim 1.
Advanced BioMatrix also teaches that the collagen is of bovine origin – “Type I bovine collagen” (p. 1, ¶ 1).
Claim 7 is therefore rendered obvious.
Claims 1 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Advanced BioMatrix (Tendon, Lyophilized Fibrous Powder (bovine). (2020, September 19). Advanced BioMatrix. Retrieved February 12, 2026 from https://web.archive.org/web/ 20200919131855/https://advancedbiomatrix.com/tendon-powder.html) in view of Safojan et al. (RU 2476236 C1).
Regarding claims 1 and 24, Advanced BioMatrix discloses a lyophilized (i.e., dry) fibrous powder of insoluble (i.e., native) Type I collagen from bovine flexor tendon (p. 1, ¶ 1). “This product has a purity of >96%” (p. 1, ¶ 2). As such, the product comprises more than 70% native collagen and less than 4% by weight of gelatin. As seen in the image on page 1 of Advanced BioMatrix, the lyophilized fibrous powder has a flake morphology. Advanced BioMatrix teaches that the collagen product can be readily prepared into such forms as tissue scaffolds, foams, sponges, suspensions, coatings, putties, films, and sheets (p. 1, ¶ 4).
Advanced BioMatrix does not discuss that at least 95% of the dry collagen powder has a granulometry of between 10 µm and 5 mm (re: claim 1) or a granulometry between 250 µm and 2000 µm (re: claim 24).
However, Safojan teaches a collagen powder with a particle size of not more than 500 microns used in preparing a collagen-hydroxyapatite composite (p. 3, lines 1-10) for repairing defects of bone tissue (i.e., a tissue scaffold) (p. 1, “Field of the invention”, ¶ 1). Thus, Safojan teaches that a range of not more than 500 microns is a known suitable size range for collagen powder particles.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the powder of Advanced BioMatrix with the teachings of Safojan to produce a native collagen powder in which the particles have a maximum size of 500 microns. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a powder suitable for use in tissue scaffold compositions, such as the composite of Safojan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the claimed invention because Advanced BioMatrix teaches a lyophilized native collagen powder of greater than 96% purity, and Safojan teaches that a range of not more than 500 microns is a known suitable size range for collagen powder particles. The claimed ranges of at least 95% of the dry collagen powder has a granulometry of between 10 µm and 5 mm (re: claim 1) and 80% of the dry collagen powder has a granulometry between 250 µm and 2000 µm (re: claim 24) overlap with the disclosed range of a particle size of not more than 500 microns. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP § 2144.05(I).
The claimed “satiating properties” of the dry collagen powder are an inherent feature to the composition. MPEP § 2112.01(I) states, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).”
Since Advanced BioMatrix discloses a dry collagen powder of high purity as claimed, the products are substantially identical, and necessarily have the same properties, including “satiating properties”.
Therefore, claims 1 and 24 are rendered obvious.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Advanced BioMatrix in view of Safojan et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2013/0190479 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Advanced Biomatrix and Safojan teach the dry collagen powder according to claim 1.
The cited prior art does not specifically discuss that the powder has a mean granulometry between 250 µm and 1 mm.
However, Tanaka teaches a collagen powder exhibiting excellent solubility due to an increased specific surface area and excellent ease of handling with the average particle size being 8-1000 µm (Abstract). Tanaka further teaches that the collagen powder may be pulverized using a mill or the like to adjust the particle size thereof ([0130]). Thus, Tanaka teaches that an average particle size of 8-1000 µm is a known suitable mean particle size range for collagen powder particles.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the powder of Advanced BioMatrix with the teachings of Tanaka to produce a native collagen powder in which the particles have an average particle size of 8-1000 µm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a powder with excellent solubility and ease of handling as taught by Tanaka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the claimed invention because Advanced BioMatrix teaches a lyophilized native collagen powder of greater than 96% purity, and Tanaka teaches that an average particle size of 8-1000 µm is a known suitable size range for collagen powder particles. The claimed range of a mean granulometry between 250 µm and 1 mm lies inside the disclosed range of an average particle size of 8-1000 µm. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Claim 4 is therefore rendered obvious.
Claims 1-2, 7, 10-11, 16, 19-20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visser (EP 1270672 A1, cited on the IDS filed on 27 March 2023) in view of Advanced BioMatrix (Tendon, Lyophilized Fibrous Powder (bovine). (2020, September 19). Advanced BioMatrix. Retrieved February 12, 2026 from https://web.archive.org/web/20200919131855/https://advancedbiomatrix.com/tendon-powder.html) and Scalesciani (US 2016/0106674 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2, 19-20, and 23, Visser teaches a process for recovering native collagen from fleshed or unfleshed animal hide or skin ([0001]) and native collagen prepared by such a process ([0025]). Visser states that “native collagen” refers to collagen which has not been denatured, degraded, or gelatinized ([0001]). The entire process of Visser is temperature controlled such that no unacceptable degradation, denaturation, or gelatinization of the native collagen will occur. Visser maintains the temperature below 35 °C, preferably between 23-30 °C ([0015]). Residual flesh is hydrolyzed by proteases and alkali metal metabisulphite, but native collagen is not degraded and remains in suspension ([0018]). The native collagen is separated from the suspension ([0021]) and disinfected ([0022]). During disinfection, traces of hydrolysate and fat are discarded and the native collagen is further purified ([0022]). The native collagen may be dried ([0036]). The native collagen may be used as part of a paste to form sausage casings or edible casings around food ([0024]).
Visser does not specifically discuss that more than 70% (re: claim 1), 80% (re: claim 2), 90% (re: claim 19), or 95% (re: claim 20) by weight of the collagen is native, that the gelatin content is less than 4% by weight, or that the dry product is a powder having a flake morphology wherein at least 95% of the dry collagen powder has a granulometry of between 10 µm and 5 mm (re: claim 1), or that the gelatin content is from 1% to 4% by weight (re: claim 23).
However, Visser appears to suggest that the collagen obtained by the method is 100% or nearly 100% native, and not denatured, degraded, or gelatinized as indicated by the process steps taken to avoid such denaturation, degradation, and gelatinization as described above.
Notwithstanding, Advanced BioMatrix discloses a lyophilized (i.e., dry) fibrous powder of insoluble (i.e., native) Type I collagen from bovine flexor tendon (p. 1, ¶ 1). “This product has a purity of >96%” (p. 1, ¶ 2). As such, the product comprises more than 70% native collagen and less than 4% by weight of gelatin. As seen in the image on page 1 of Advanced BioMatrix, the lyophilized fibrous powder has a flake morphology.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to purify the native collagen of Visser to at least the levels disclosed by Advanced BioMatrix, such that the native collagen has a purity of >96% and a gelatin content of 1% to 4% by weight or less. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to provide a highly pure native collagen as is the object of Visser. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Visser teaches precautionary steps in avoiding the degradation, denaturation, and gelatinization of the native collagen, and Advanced BioMatrix demonstrates that such purity is achievable.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Visser with the teachings of Advanced BioMatrix to dry the collagen by lyophilization, resulting in a flake morphology. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to consult Advanced BioMatrix to determine a suitable method of drying since Visser does not describe how the native collagen is dried. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Advanced BioMatrix demonstrates that a high-purity native collagen can be lyophilized, and the lyophilized powder has a flake morphology.
Regarding the granulometry, Visser teaches that the native collagen may be used as part of a smooth paste to form sausage casings or edible casings around food, the paste formed by a number of successive comminution steps and combining the collagen with additives ([0024]). Visser does not discuss the granulometry of the comminuted collagen.
However, Scalesciani teaches a collagen powder in which at least 99.5% of the particles having a maximum size of 80 microns (Abstract). The preferred collagen is type I native collagen from horse and/or cow tendons, and the powder is a lyophilized powder ([0031]). Additionally, Scalesciani discusses several pieces of prior art that illustrate that a common collagen powder size is well below 5 mm ([0014] – [0016]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the native collagen of Visser with the teachings of Scalesciani to produce a native collagen powder in which at least 99.5% of the particles have a maximum size of 80 microns. Where Visser is silent regarding the powder particle size, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to consult Scalesciani to determine a common native collagen powder size. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation in arriving at the claimed invention because Scalesciani teaches a native collagen powder wherein at least 99.5% of the particles have a maximum size of 80 microns and discusses several pieces of prior art that illustrate that a common collagen powder size is well below 5 mm ([0014] – [0016]), thus demonstrating well-known collagen powder particle sizes. The claimed range of at least 95% of the dry collagen powder has a granulometry of between 10 µm and 5 mm overlaps with the disclosed range of at least 99.5% of the particles having a maximum size of 80 microns. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP § 2144.05(I).
The claimed “satiating properties” of the dry collagen powder are an inherent feature to the composition. MPEP § 2112.01(I) states, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).”
Since Visser as modified by Advanced BioMatrix discloses a dry collagen powder of high purity as claimed, the products are substantially identical, and necessarily have the same properties, including “satiating properties”.
Claims 1-2 and 19-20 are therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Visser, Advanced BioMatrix, and Scalesciani teach the dry collagen powder according to claim 1.
Visser also teaches that the collagen is at least of bovine or porcine origin – “Although in principle every suitable animal skin can be used, porcine skins and bovine skins are the most interesting, also because of their availability.” ([0012]).
Claim 7 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Visser, Advanced BioMatrix, and Scalesciani teach the dry collagen powder according to claim 1.
Visser also teaches a food or dietary supplement comprising the dry collagen powder – Visser teaches that the invention relates to water binding agents or texture improving agents for meat products comprising the native collagen ([0026]). That is, part of a food.
Claim 10 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 11, Visser, Advanced BioMatrix, and Scalesciani teach the dry collagen powder according to claim 1.
Visser further teaches a food product comprising the dry collagen powder – Visser teaches that the invention relates to meat products comprising the native collagen ([0026]).
Claim 11 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 16, Visser, Advanced BioMatrix, and Scalesciani teach the food or dietary supplement according to claim 10.
Visser also teaches a food product comprising the food or dietary supplement – Visser teaches that the invention relates to meat products comprising the native collagen ([0026]), for example sausages with good water binding and texture improving properties ([0036]).
Claim 16 is therefore rendered obvious.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visser in view of Advanced BioMatrix and Scalesciani, as applied to claim 7 above, in view of Liu et al. (Liu, S., Li, Q., & Li, G. (2019). Investigation of the solubility and dispersion degree of calf skin collagen in ionic liquids. Journal of Leather Science and Engineering, 1(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42825-023-00121-x).
Regarding claims 8, and 15, Visser, Advanced BioMatrix, and Scalesciani teach the dry collagen powder according to claim 7.
The cited prior art does not discuss that the collagen of bovine origin is from an animal between 0 and 3 years old (re: claim 8), or from an animal less than 2.5 years old (re: claim 15).
However, Liu teaches isolation of native collagen from calf skin (p. 2, col. 2, ¶ 3). A calf is understood to be a bovine animal less than 2.5 years old.
MPEP § 2144.07 states, “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use support[s] a prima facie obviousness determination”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Visser with the teachings of Liu to select calf skin as the bovine skin from which to isolate the native collagen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Visser teaches that the skin may any suitable skin, including bovine skin, and Liu teaches that calf skin is a suitable material from which to isolate native collagen.
Claims 8 and 15 are therefore rendered obvious.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 4, ¶ 2 – p. 5, ¶ 1, filed on 3 June 2026, with respect to claims 1-8, 15, and 19-22 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claimed dry collagen powder having a granulometry of between 10 µm and 5 mm and a flake morphology is toward a composition of matter with markedly different characteristics than the natural counterpart, being analogous to claim 5 of USPTO’s Subject Matter Eligibility Example 30, which recites a dietary sweetener comprising “granular particles of texiol having a particle diameter of X10 of 80 microns and X90 of 300 microns”. As such, the claims are not directed to any judicial exception and qualify as eligible subject matter.
The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-8, 15, and 19-22 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112:
Applicant’s amendment to claim 22 is insufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) rejection. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) rejection has been maintained. Applicant is advised to amend claim 1 as suggested hereinabove.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s arguments filed on 3 June 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserted that the cited prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the “flake morphology” required by amended claim 1, and thus the claims are nonobvious (p. 6, ¶ 2).
Applicant’s assertion has been considered, but it is not persuasive. As seen in the image on page 1 of Advanced BioMatrix, the lyophilized fibrous powder has a flake morphology.
Applicant made no substantive arguments regarding the rejections of the dependent claims (p. 6, ¶ 3).
Claims 1-8, 10-11, 15-16, and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as presented hereinabove.
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 Shellhammer whose telephone number is (703) 756-5525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Emily Le can be reached at (571) 272-0903. 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 P. SHELLHAMMER/Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights