Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/247,736

COLLAGEN INK FOR 3D PRINTING

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 03, 2023
Examiner
MCDONOUGH, JAMES E
Art Unit
1734
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
VISCOFAN, S.A.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
1017 granted / 1425 resolved
+6.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
1475
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
59.6%
+19.6% vs TC avg
§102
17.8%
-22.2% vs TC avg
§112
10.3%
-29.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1425 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 2/4/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the groups possess unity of invention. This is not found persuasive because the is no general concept that provides a contribution over the prior art. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 9-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/4/2026. 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, 4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al.(WO-2017/205695-A1). Regarding claims 1, 4 and 6-7 Cohen discloses a method of harvesting collagen including processing a collagen-based biomaterial to obtain biomaterial particles, contacting the biomaterial particles with a weak acid solution to obtain a collagen- containing solution, contacting the collagen- containing solution with a salt solution to obtain a collagen precipitate, re-suspending the collagen precipitate to obtain a re- suspended collagen solution. Cohen relates also to a bio gel composition including a collagen material harvested as described above. The bio gel composition may include collagen material in a weak acid solution. A method of preparing a three- dimensional structure from the bio gel composition is also described, including providing a bio gel composition to a modular fabrication system, such as a 3D printing device. The method includes depositing the bio gel composition to form a three-dimensional structure, where the three-dimensional structure undergoes gelation (page 1, [0005]-page 2, [0007]). Cohen discloses the collagen material being present in an amount of 5 mg/mL to 200 mg/mL (i.e., approximately 0.5 to 20 wt %) (claim 3). As the concentration of collagen in the reference overlaps that of the claimed invention, 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. A suitable viscosity range of Cohen is from 10,000 centipoise (cP) to about 30,000 cP as a resting solid, or from 3,000 cps to about 10,000 cps as liquid (i.e., a range from 3 to 30 McP) (page 6, [0027]). As the viscosity of the reference overlaps that of the claimed invention, 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. Although the temperature the measurement is taken at is not given, it would be expected to be a room temperature which is within the claimed range, making the claimed temperature obvious. The pH of the re-suspended collagen solution is adjusted to a pH of about 2.8 to about 4 with a weak acid (page 17, [0059]). Although the length and the diameter of the collagen fibers are not disclosed in Cohen, itis implicit that the same method will result in the same properties of the collagen fiber, therefore, it is expected that the collagen fibers of Cohen will inevitably possess the same length and diameter properties as claimed. 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. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 03, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603189
DEVICES, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS FOR CLOSURE OF DEEP GEOLOGICAL NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL REPOSITORY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600672
DECARBONIZED CEMENT BLENDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590007
ZEOLITE NANOTUBES AND METHODS OF MAKING AND USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12576482
POROUS COATED ABRASIVE ARTICLE AND METHOD OF MAKING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577160
AIR-DRY SCULPTURAL AND MODELING CLAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+11.0%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1425 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month