DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 2-6, 10, 12-14, 16-18, 65-69, and 79-80 are pending and represent all claims currently under consideration.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/21/2025 has been entered.
Claims 2-6, 16-18, 68-69, and 79 were amended. Claim 9 was canceled. No new material has been added.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 4-6, 16-18, 66, 68-69, and 79.
The rejections of claim 9 are moot, because the claim was canceled.
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been modified to address the amendment and maintained.
The rejections of claims 2-6, 10, 12-14, 16-18, 65-69, and 79-80 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been modified to address the amendment and maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (page 6), filed 11/21/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2-4, 6, 10, 12-13, 16-18, 65-67, 69, and 79 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Niederhauser and Myung have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendment. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sawyer and Niederhauser.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks (page 5), filed 11/21/2025, with respect to the rejections over Sawyer have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Sawyer is silent with respect to fibrils (Remarks, page 5). This argument is not persuasive, because as previously stated, Sawyer teaches a hydrogel formed from the same ingredients and in the same way. The specification further lists monomers which form a structure including aggregated nodes connected by fibrils with HEMA specified to provide a suitable hierarchical microstructure when polymerized (instant specification, paragraph 0050). Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. See MPEP § 2112.01(II). Therefore, the composition of Sawyer which contains the same ingredients and is produced in the same way would be expected to result in a network comprising a plurality of hydrogel nodes attached to one another through fibrils, wherein at least a portion of the plurality of nodes cluster to form a plurality of aggregated hydrogel nodes as claimed.
Modified/Maintained Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the limitation "the nodes". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation should read “the plurality of hydrogel nodes”.
Maintained/Modified 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 2-6, 10, 12-14, 16, 65-67, 69, and 79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawyer (US 20150173334 A1; IDS reference, 04/24/2023). The references were cited previously by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 2, Sawyer teaches a fishing lure (i.e., article) comprising a hydrogel (Sawyer, abstract) which is a cross-linked polymeric network which can be porous (i.e., an open cell network; Sawyer, page 1, paragraph 0008). Sawyer does not specify a plurality of nodes are attached to one another through fibrils or that the plurality of nodes cluster to form a plurality of aggregated hydrogel nodes as claimed. Sawyer does, however, teach the hydrogel is formed by combining the monomers HEMA in 20-90% and BIS in 0.01-5% with the polymerization initiators TEMED and APS in an aqueous solution, placing the mixture in a mold, and heating for cross-linking (i.e., curing; Sawyer, page 2, paragraph 0015), which closely matches the method of preparing the hydrogel as stated in the instant specification wherein the monomers HEMA in 15-22.5% and BIS in 0.3%, and are dissolved in water with polymerization initiators TEMED and APS to form a molding solution, then cured (instant specification, page 35, pages 10-11, paragraphs 0212-0215). The specification further lists monomers which form a structure including aggregated nodes connected by fibrils with HEMA specified to provide a suitable hierarchical microstructure when polymerized (instant specification, paragraph 0050). Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. See MPEP § 2112.01(II). Therefore, the composition of Sawyer which contains the same ingredients and is produced in the same way would be expected to result in a network comprising a plurality of hydrogel nodes attached to one another through fibrils, wherein at least a portion of the plurality of nodes cluster to form a plurality of aggregated hydrogel nodes as claimed.
Sawyer is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because both Sawyer and the instant invention are in the same field of hydrogel fishing baits. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed invention based on the teachings of Sawyer under the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding claim 3, Sawyer teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 2. Sawyer teaches the polymers of the polymeric hydrogel are cross-linked (Sawyer, claim 2).
Regarding claim 4, Sawyer teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 2. As above, Sawyer teaches the polymeric hydrogel is made from the monomers HEMA in 20-90% and BIS in 0.01-5% (Sawyer, page 2, paragraph 0015), which would be expected to result in a final concentration of about 20-90% by weight of the resulting polymer and overlaps the claimed range of 10-80% by weight. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 5, Sawyer teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 2. Sawyer does not teach a node diameter. However, as above, Sawyer teaches the same hydrogel composition made by the same method as demonstrated in the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. See MPEP § 2112.01(II). Therefore, the composition of Sawyer which contains the same ingredients and is produced in the same way would be expected to result in nodes of the claimed size.
Regarding claim 6, Sawyer teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 2. Sawyer teaches a pore size (i.e., characteristic dimension as defined by the instant specification, page 13, paragraph 0061) that can vary from a few nanometers to nearly a micrometer (Sawyer, page 1, paragraph 0008), which overlaps the claimed range of about 10 nm to about 1 mm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 10, Sawyer teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 2. As above, Sawyer teaches a pore size (i.e., characteristic dimension as defined by the instant specification, page 13, paragraph 0061) that can vary from a few nanometers to nearly a micrometer (Sawyer, page 1, paragraph 0008). Permeability is roughly the square of the diameter of the pores as defined by the instant specification (page 9, paragraph 0041). Therefore, the hydrogel taught by Sawyer would have a permeability of about 1 x 10-18 m2 to about 1 x 10-12 m2, which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 12, Sawyer teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 2. Sawyer teaches the hydrogel has a water content of 20% to about 95% (Sawyer, page 1, paragraph 0008), which matches the claimed range.
Regarding claim 13, Sawyer teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 2. As above, Sawyer teaches the polymeric hydrogel is made from the monomers HEMA in 20-90% and BIS in 0.01-5% (Sawyer, page 2, paragraph 0015), which results in a final concentration of about 20-90% of the polymer and overlaps the claimed range of 10-30% by weight. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 14, Sawyer teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 2. Sawyer teaches the hydrogel can have a modulus of 1 KPa to 10 MPa (Sawyer, page 1, paragraph 0008), which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 16, Sawyer teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 2. Sawyer teaches the cross-linked polymer comprises hydroxyethylmethacrylate (i.e., HEMA; Sawyer, claim 2).
Regarding claim 65, Sawyer teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 2. Sawyer teaches the hydrogel is used as a lure and bait (Sawyer, page 1, paragraph 0007).
Regarding claim 66, Sawyer teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 65. Sawyer teaches the hydrogel in the shape of fish eggs (Sawyer, page 1, paragraph 0007).
Regarding claim 67, Sawyer teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 65. Sawyer teaches the fishing lure comprises at least one attractant (Sawyer, abstract).
Regarding claim 69, Sawyer teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 67. Sawyer teaches the attractant can be a scent, an amino acid, or a protein (Sawyer, page 1, paragraph 0008).
Regarding claim 79, Sawyer teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 67. Sawyer teaches the attractant diffuses from the lure while fishing (i.e., when in water) and teaches the hydrogel structure controls the release of the attractant (Sawyer, page 1, paragraph 0008).
Claims 68 and 80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawyer (US 20150173334 A1; IDS reference, 04/24/2023) as applied to claims 2-6, 10, 12-14, 16, 65-67, 69, and 79, further in view of Li (CN 103004717 A). The references were cited previously by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 68, Sawyer teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 67. Sawyer teaches the fishing lure comprises at least one attractant (Sawyer, abstract) which can be a small organic molecule (Sawyer, claim 19), but does not teach a specific attractant. Li teaches a controlled release bait comprising a polymer material (Li, abstract) and teaches nucleotide attractants such as inosine (Li, page 2).
Sawyer and Li are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because all are in the same field of polymer-based fishing baits. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the nucleotide attractant taught by Li as the small organic molecule in the bait taught by Sawyer, because Li teaches such a bait has a strong and long-lasting attraction to fish (Li, page 10, 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claim 80, Sawyer teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 79. Sawyer teaches the attractant diffuses from the lure while fishing (i.e., when in water) and teaches the hydrogel structure controls the release of the attractant (Sawyer, page 1, paragraph 0008), but does not teach a specific amount of time. Li, however, teaches a quick release of more than 50% in 0-10 minutes (i.e., release over a period of time of 0-10 minutes; Li, page 8, last paragraph), which encompasses the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I). Because both Sawyer and Li teach baits for releasing small molecules, it would be reasonable to expect the bait taught by Sawyer to have a similar release profile to that taught by Li.
New Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawyer (US 20150173334 A1; IDS reference, 04/24/2023) as applied to claims 2-6, 10, 12-14, 16, 65-67, 69, and 79, further in view of Niederhauser (US 9961890 B2; IDS reference, 04/24/2023). The references were cited previously by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 17, Sawyer teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 2. As above, Sawyer teaches the polymeric hydrogel is made from the monomers HEMA in 20-90% and BIS in 0.01-5% (Sawyer, page 2, paragraph 0015), overlaps the claimed range of 10-30% by weight of HEMA. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I). Sawyer does not specify a permeability of the polymeric material. Niederhauser, however, teaches a hydrogel fishing bait comprising a polymers cross-linked to form an interpenetrating polymer network (Niederhauser, claim 18) with an open pore structure (i.e., an open cell network; Niederhauser, column 5, line 42). Niederhauser teaches an exemplary formulation comprising 100 grams of acrylamide (i.e., a polymer) in 1 L (Niederhauser, column 7, lines 56-60), which is 10% by weight and lies within the claimed range, and teaches the hydrogel can have any proportion of acrylamide and HEMA (Niederhauser, column 3, line 10). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize HEMA in 10% by weight in place of acrylamide. Niederhauser teaches a pore size (i.e., characteristic dimension as defined by the instant specification, page 13, paragraph 0061) of below 10 micrometers (Niederhauser, column 5, line 26). Permeability is roughly the square of the diameter of the pores as defined by the instant specification (page 9, paragraph 0041). Therefore, the hydrogel taught by Niederhauser would have a permeability of up to about 1 x 10-11 m2, which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Sawyer and Niederhauser are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because Sawyer, Niederhauser, and the instant invention are in the same field of polymer-based hydrogel fishing baits. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the porous hydrogel of Sawyer based on a pore size known in the field, such as below 10 micrometers as taught by Niederhauser.
Regarding claim 18, Sawyer and Niederhauser together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 17. As above, Sawyer teaches a hydrogel (Sawyer, abstract) which is a cross-linked polymeric network which can be porous (i.e., an open cell network; Sawyer, page 1, paragraph 0008), and is the polymerization of HEMA and BIS (Sawyer, page 2, paragraph 0015). Further, Niederhauser teaches a hydrogel fishing bait comprising HEMA (Niederhauser, claim 1) and BIS (Niederhauser, claim 3) which is polymerized (Niederhauser, claim 16).
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 CHASITY P JANOSKO whose telephone number is (703)756-5307. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-3:30 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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at (571)272-0581. 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.
/C.P.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1613
/JENNIFER A BERRIOS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613