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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This Action is in response to the papers filed on 08/15/2026. Claims 1-21 are currently pending. Claims 1, 3, 8-10, 12, 16, and 19-21 are amended and claim 11 has been cancelled by Applicant’s amendment filed on 08/15/2026.
Therefore, claims 1-10 and 12-21 are currently under examination to which the following grounds of rejection are applicable. Claims 1 and 8 are independent claims.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2021/087010 filed 12/21/2021, which claims foreign priority to LUXEMBOURG 102338 filed 12/21/2020.
Thus, the earliest possible priority for the instant application is 12/21/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted 04/28/2026 and 08/05/2026 were filed before the mailing date of the non-final office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Withdrawn Rejections in response to Applicants’ arguments or amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 USC § 112(b) is withdrawn in view of the applicants’ amendments in the response filed on 08/15/2026. Applicants’ arguments with regard to a withdrawn objection/rejection are moot.
Maintained and modified rejections in response to Applicants’ arguments or amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 103
Claims 1-6 and 15-17 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabre et al. (US 8,900,842 B2; hereafter “Fabre”) in view of Popa et al. (Popa EG et al., Biomacromolecules. 2011; hereafter “Popa”) and Hernández et al. ( Hernández MJ et al., Food Science and Technology International. 2001, IDS filled 11/13/2025; hereafter “Hernández”).
This rejection has been modified in response to the claim amendments filed 08/15/2026.
Regarding Claim 1, Fabre teaches “…a method of storing and/or transporting in vitro two-dimensional cell cultures…” (Abstract). Fabre teaches the cell culture is coated with a gelatine solution (Column 4, Line 22), made with a type A pigskin gelatine (Column 5, Line 25-26). Fabre teaches the gel is liquified at one temperature prior to cell contact and then the gel is allowed to solidify at a lower temperature (Column 4, Lines 52-60). Gels containing cells can be stored for up to four days (Column 8, Lines 59-61). Fabre teaches “When one wants to use the immobilized culture, the plate is incubated with solid gelatine within a cell incubator until the complete liquefication of the gelatine, preferably at 37° C.” (Column 4, Line 64-66). This reads on the thermoreversibility of the gel as recited in claim 1.
Thus, Fabre teaches the recited steps of contacting cells with an aqueous thermoreversible gel-forming composition in liquid form, decreasing the temperature to the gel composition in contact with the cells, embedding/immobilizing the cells within the gel and storing and/or transporting the cells in the gel.
Fabre does not specifically teach the gel is composed of carrageenan or contains carboxymethyl cellulose.
Popa cures the deficiencies of Fabre as Popa teaches the development and characterization of a hydrogel system based on natural origin polymers, namely, alginate and carrageenan (Abstract). Popa teaches “Thermo-reversible gels, such as carrageenan (which reads on the recitation of carrageenan in instant claims 1), melt at elevated temperature and the gelation of the biopolymer is obtained by lowering the temperature. The temperature-induced gelation allows for an easy formation of gels with different shapes, emphasizing the versatility of the carrageenan.” (Pg. 3952, 2nd Column). Popa teaches successful encapsulation and growth of cells (Figs. 4-6) and concluded “In fact, all the results obtain demonstrated that alginate/κ-carrageenan can be an innovative and adequate alternative for the development of carrier systems to encapsulate cells or other bioactive agents of relevance in tissue engineering applications.” (Conclusions).
Thus, Popa teaches that carrageenan is a known thermoreversible polysaccharide capable of performing the gel-forming and cell-embedding functions required by the process of Fabre.
Fabre and Popa together do not teach incorporating carboxymethyl cellulose as a thickening agent into a gel composition.
Hernández teaches sodium carboxymethylcellulose with carrageenan as a known hydrocolloid mixture effecting rheology/viscosity and specifically discusses the use of sodium carboxymethylcellulose as a thickening agent (Pg. 384, 2nd Column, 2nd Paragraph). Hernández teaches two separate carrageenans, including kappa-carrageenan (Pg. 384, 1st column, 2nd Paragraph).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant application to modify the teachings of Fabre who demonstrates a method (and composition) for storing and/or transporting cells using a thermo-reversible gel to include the carrageenan-containing thermoreversible hydrogel taught by Popa and to further incorporate carboxymethyl cellulose as taught by Hernandez.
Fabre teaches successful storage and transport of the cells depends on a gel-forming composition comprising a type A pigskin gelatine that is thermoreversible (liquid during application to cells and gel upon cooling) to immobilize the cells. Popa teaches that carrageenan is a thermoreversible polysaccharide that is also capable of undergoing this temperature-dependent gelation behavior and is suitable for forming cell-containing hydrogel systems. As hydrogels are commercially available and routinely used in the art, one ordinary skilled in the art would be able to substitute one hydrogel composition for another. Thus, it would have been obvious to substitute the hydrogel of type A pigskin gelatine within Fabre’s method for a alginate/carrageenan hydrogel from the teachings of Popa with a reasonable expectation of success as they are both suitable for forming thermoreversible hydrogel and the substitution would produce a predictable result.
Hernandez teaches that carboxymethyl cellulose is a known thickening and rheology modifying component in a carrageenan-containing aqueous hydrocolloid system. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include carboxymethyl cellulose within the method of Fabre and Popa above to allow for adjustment of the viscosity and rheological properties of the resulting composition being in a liquid form and comprising, in an aqueous medium alginate/carrageenan hydrogel and carboxymethyl cellulose . There would be a reasonable expectation of success as the prior art establishes the successful use of carboxymethyl cellulose to modify carrageenan-containing hydrocolloid systems.
Regarding Claim 2 and 6, the combined teachings of Fabre, Popa and Hernandez render obvious the method of claim 1. Moreover, Fabre teaches liquefication of the gelatine containing the cell cultures at 37° C for 3-4 hours. (Column 4, Lines 64-67 transitioning to Column 5, Lines 1-5).
Regarding Claim 3, the combined teachings of Fabre, Popa and Hernandez render obvious the method of claim 1. Moreover, Fabre teaches their method is suitable for storage and/or transport (Title; Abstract)
Regarding Claim 4, 15, and 17, the combined teachings of Fabre, Popa and Hernandez render obvious the method of claim 1. Moreover, Fabre teaches “To apply the gelatine to the culture, it is firstly necessary to completely liquefy the gelatine solution and equilibrate it to the culture medium temperature, generally at 37° C.” (Column 4, Lines 52-54). These teachings read on the range of temperature recited in instant claims 4, 15, and 17 (30°C -60°C, 30°C -40°C, and 34°C -39°C, respectively).
Regarding Claim 5, the combined teachings of Fabre, Popa and Hernandez render obvious the method of claim 1. Moreover, Fabre teaches the gel is left to solidify at a temperature of 20-25° C (Column 4, Lines 57-61).
Regarding Claim 16, the combined teachings of Fabre, Popa and Hernandez render obvious the process of claims 1 and 5. Moreover, Fabre teaches solidifying the gel after contact with cells can occur at temperature as low as 15° C (Column 3, Line 5).
Claims 7 and 18 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabre et al. (US 8,900,842 B2; hereafter “Fabre”) in view of Popa et al. (Popa EG et al., Biomacromolecules. 2011; hereafter “Popa”) and Hernández et al. ( Hernández MJ et al., Food Science and Technology International. 2001, IDS filled 11/13/2025; hereafter “Hernández”) as applied above to claims 1-2 and in further of Devine et al. (US 6,737,098 B1; hereafter “Devine”).
This rejection has been modified in response to the claim amendments filed 08/15/2026.
The combined teachings of Fabre, Popa, and Hernández render obvious the method and the recited composition within the method of claim 1, the contents of which is incorporated herein in its entirety.
Regarding Claims 7 and 18, Fabre, Popa, and Hernández together do not teach that the total duration of STEP 2 plus STEP 4 is below 4 hours as recited in claim 7 or the process of claim 7, wherein the total duration of STEP 2 plus STEP 4 is below 3 hours as recited in claim 18.
Devine teaches a thermoreversible gel system (Abstract) comprising carrageenan (Column 2, Lines 46-62). Devine teaches a k-carrageenan-containing thermoreversible composition that is allowed to set upon cooling at approximately 10-20 °C, with a firm set obtained within approximately 15-25 minutes. This carrageenan gel system is then heated in a microwave for 1 minute and 30s to approximately 65 °C to liquify the gel (Beginning at Column 7, Example 2). Thus, Devine teaches carrageenan based thermoreversible gel system capable of completing both the gel-forming and gel to liquid transitions in a total period of less than 3 hours.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant application filing to modify the method of Fabre and the carrageenan-containing thermoreversible hydrogel of Popa within the method of Fabre, by selecting the gelation and liquefaction conditions providing transitions times that were known in the prior art, such as those taught by Devine. There would have been reasonable expectations of success in combining these teachings as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize to combine known elements in the prior art to give predictable results.
Claims 8-10, 12, 14, and 19-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabre et al. (US 8,900,842 B2; hereafter “Fabre”) in view of Popa et al. (Popa EG et al., Biomacromolecules. 2011; hereafter “Popa”) and Hernández et al. ( Hernández MJ et al., Food Science and Technology International. 2001, IDS filled 11/13/2025; hereafter “Hernández”) as applied above to claim 1 and in further of Sowasod et al. (Nataporn Sowasod et al., Materials Science and Engineering: C, 2012; hereafter “Sowasod”).
This rejection has been modified in response to the claim amendments filed 08/15/2026.
Claim 8 recites, “ A composition C suitable for the process of claim 1, comprising, in an
aqueous medium:
(A) a thermo-reversible gelling polysaccharide selected from the group consisting of carrageenan, gellan gum and konjac gum; and
(B) carboxymethyl cellulose as a thickening agent, wherein the ratio A/B of the total
mass of the compound (A) to the total mass of the compound (B) is between 15:85 and 40:60.
The combined teachings of Fabre, Popa, and Hernández render obvious the method and the recited composition within the method of claim 1, the contents of which is incorporated herein in its entirety.
Fabre, Popa, and Hernández together do not teach the recited ratio “(B) carboxymethyl cellulose as a thickening agent, wherein the ratio A/B of the total mass of the compound (A) to the total mass of the compound (B) is between 15:85 and 40:60” as recited in instant claim 8.
However, Sowasod teaches hydrogel formulations comprising k-carrageen and sodium carboxymethyl cellulose and characterizes the effect of relative k-carrageenan/NaCMC proportion on gel formation (Abstract), which reads on instant claim 9 and 19 requiring carrageenan and k-carrageenan, respectively. Sowasod teaches 1:9 and 4:6 ratios of K-Carrageenan :NaCMC. Sowasod teaches 4:6 (corresponding to 40:60 as recited in instant claim 8) is suitable for gel formation (Pg. 764, 1st Column).
With respect to the recitation “carboxymethyl cellulose as a thickening agent” in instant claim 8, this would be an inherent property of the component. If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed.Cir. 1997). “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant application filing when formulating the carrageenan /NaCMC composition from the combined teachings of Popa and Hernández for use in the method taught by Fabre, to use the relative amounts of carrageenan and NaCMC as taught by Sowasdod (including the disclosed 4:6 ratio). Sowasod demonstrates that the ratios of K-Carrageenan :NaCMC affects gel formation and identifies 4:6 as a workable ratio providing gelation. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would merely make use of the known composition and ratio of carrageenan /NaCMC to obtain a gel comprising carrageenan and NaCMC with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claims 10, 12 and 20, Fabre, Popa, Hernández, and Sowasod together teach the composition of claim 8, as iterated above in the 103 rejection, the content of which is incorporated herein, in its entirety.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant application would understand that adding carboxymethyl cellulose to a carrageenan-containing hydrocolloid system would modify viscosity rheology as Hernandez teaches that carboxymethyl cellulose could alter characteristics of gel formulations, such as binding, thickening, stabilization and increased water retention and enhanced formulations with carrageenan as a stabilizer (Hernandez, Pg. 384, 2nd Column, 1st full paragraph). Hernandez also teaches determination of viscosity as a measurement of (Pa*S) via mathematical equations and expressly states “It should be that the aim is not to establish the corresponding rheological models but to define a series of empirical mathematical equations capable of reliably reproducing the apparent viscosity values under the experimental conditions in which they have been measured (Pg. 385, 2nd column, final paragraph transitioning to Pg. 386 1st Column).
Popa teaches evaluation of multiple concentrations of components within their hydrogel formulation and show the concentration effect polymer concentration, ratio, and processing variables (such as hardening time) (Table 1.) and that higher concentrations can be difficult to work with as they produce especially high viscosities (Pg. 3955, 2nd Column, 1st Paragraph).
Sowasod further demonstrates that formulation of k-carrageenan/NaCMC hydrogel involves specific component ratio determination to obtain suitable gel formation and specifically identifies formulation-dependent differences in homogenous gelation (Pg. 794, 1st Column; Table 2).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to determine optimal experimental conditions, such as appropriate concentration (or other result effective variables such as viscosity with respect to carboxymethyl cellulose) of hydrogel components to provide a hydrogel with desired characteristics, through routine optimization, to maximize the survival and health of the cells obtained from a storage and transport hydrogel prior to further experimental use.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.") See MPEP 2144.05 II. A.
Regarding Claim 14, the combined teachings Fabre, Popa, Hernández, and Sowasod together render obvious the formulation of claim 8. The formulation components from the combined teachings are not animal derived products and thus the formulation taught by combining the teachings of Fabre, Popa, Hernandez, and Sowasod is inherently animal-free.
Claims 13 and 21 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabre et al. (US 8,900,842 B2; hereafter “Fabre”) in view of Popa et al. (US 2004/0127841 Al; hereafter “Popa”) and Hernández et al. ( Hernández MJ et al., Food Science and Technology International. 2001, IDS filled 11/13/2025; hereafter “Hernández”) in further of Sowasod et al. (Nataporn Sowasod et al., Materials Science and Engineering: C, 2012) as applied to claim 8 above and in further view of Melero et al. (Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, 2019; hereafter “Melero”).
This rejection has been modified in response to the claim amendments filed 08/15/2026.
Fabre, Popa, Hernández, and Sowasod together teach the composition of claim 8, as iterated above in the 103 rejection, the content of which is incorporated herein, in its entirety.
Regarding Claims 13 and 21, Fabre, Popa, Hernández, and Sowasod together do not teach the addition of EDTA or that the content of EDTA is less than 1mM.
Melero teaches Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) was well known in the art as a chelator and as a component of hydrogels and that chelation restricts reactivity of different cations, such as Ca2+ (Introduction, Paragraphs 9-10 and 12).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant application to have modified the hydrogel formulation from the combined the teachings of Fabre, Popa, and Hernández to include EDTA as a chelating agent. One would have been motivated to include EDTA to enhance the gel formulation as it would restrict reactivity of cations reducing effects (such as uncontrolled ionic crosslinking by free cations).
There would have been reasonable expectations of success in combining these teachings as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize to combine known elements in the prior art to give predictable results.
Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would also be aware of the effect of EDTA in hydrogel formulations and would have been motivated to determine an optimal concentration through routine optimization to achieve a desired hydrogel for cell culture.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments as they apply to the modified rejection of Claims 1-10 and 12-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103
At pages 7-10 of the remarks filed on 08/15/2026, Applicants essentially argue the following which pertains to the new 103 rejections: There would be no reason to combine the teachings of Popa and Hernandez with Fabre.
These arguments have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive.At pgs. 8, applicant provides the following, “As a first point, since Popa and the Hernandez article do not contemplate the specific application described in Fabre, there was no reason to combine these documents. As noted above, Popa relates to the separation of blood constituents and Hernandez only relates to the rheological effects of adding sodium carboxymethyl cellulose to carrageenans. However, neither document contemplates any use or suggestion related to the transport of cell cultures. These documents are not analogous art to Fabre, and absent using the present specification as a blueprint for such combination as suggested, it is unclear why one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to either secondary document.”
Obviousness does not require that all elements of the claimed invention be expressly disclosed in a single reference, nor does it require that the combined prior art references describe the same ultimate use.
In response to applicants’ argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the prior art are relied upon because each provides a teaching relevant to the same formulation problem presented by Fabre, selection and formulation of an aqueous gel-forming material having suitable gelation and rheological properties.
In response to applicant's argument that Popa and Hernandez is non-analogous art to Fabre, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the secondary references are not relied upon to teach the entirety of Fabre’s storage and transport process. Popa is relied upon for the known suitability of carrageenan-containing hydrogels for encapsulation of viable cells and for carrageenan’s thermo-reversible gel forming behavior, while Hernandez is relied upon for the known use of CMC in a carrageenan-containing aqueous system to modify rheological properties. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood these teachings as pertinent to the formulation of the thermo-reversible gel-forming composition employed in Fabre.
Applicant further asserts with respect to claims 1 and 8 at Pg. 9, “On the basis of the primary Fabre document, one skilled in the art cannot identify any interest for replacing the gelatin used by another gellant. It cannot be inferred from the prior art that some gellant have gelation time or liquefaction time well lower than the gelation and liquefaction duration observed with gelatin. This unexpected result is taught for the first time in the instant application and is not described or even suggested in the prior art.”
This argument is not persuasive. Independent claims 1 and 8 as written do not require a specific gelation or liquification time. Moreover, applicant has not provided evidence that the result is unexpected across the full scope of the claimed compositions, including the alternative polysaccharides recited in the instant claims.
Applicant argues with respect to the amended claim 8 that the specific carrageenan/CMC ratios exemplified by Hernandez do not fall within the claimed range.
Amended claim 8 is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Fabre, Popa, Hernández, and Sowasod as discussed in the 103 rejection above.
New rejections/objections in response to Applicants’ arguments or amendments
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of following informalities: Claim 14 recites “The composition of claim 8, which do not contain…”. It is suggested applicant amend to recite “which does not contain…”
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21 recites “The composition of claim 13, which comprises the ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) includes it at a content of less than lmM.” It is suggested applicant amend to recite “wherein the EDTA is present at a concentration of less than 1mM”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8 and 14 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Kim et al. (EP 1 323 436 A1; hereafter “Kim”) as evidenced by Baird et al. (US 4503084 A; hereafter “Baird”).
This is a new rejection necessitated by the claim amendments filed 08/15/2026.
Regarding Claim 8, Kim teaches aqueous gel compositions comprising sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (NaCMC) and gellan gum (Abstract). Kim teaches NaCMC and gellan gum may be present in a NACMC: gellan gum weight ratio of 1:(0.2-5) (Abstract; Pg. 2, Paragraph [0014]). Kim further teaches that NaCMC functions as a matrix for forming the gel while gellan gum sustains the gel structure (Pg. 3, Paragraphs [0015] – [0016]). Kim teaches that the composition of NaCMC and gellan gum may be controlled according to the intended use and that the relative amounts of the polymers affect characteristics of the resulting gel (Pg. 3, Paragraphs [0017] – [0020]). Kim teaches preparation of gel-type compositions by combining the polymer compositions with water (Pg. 3, Paragraph [0024]; Pg. 4, Paragraph [0031]). Kim teaches that their gel compositions are compatible with cells and do not exhibit toxicity sufficient to inhibit animal cell growth (Pg. 4, Paragraph [0028]; Pgs. 5-6, Examples 2-3).
Kim further teaches polymer rations within the presently claimed range. Specifically, Kim teaches a composition 2 comprising 10g NaCMC and 5g gellan gum and a composition 3 comprising 15g NaCMC and 5g gellan gum. Instant claim 8 provides an A/B orientation, wherein component A is gellan gum and component B is carboxymethyl cellulose. When expressed as this A/B ratio, composition 2 would have an A to B mass ratio of 5/10 and composition 3 has a mass ration of 5/15. Normalizing the gellan/CMC mass amounts to a 100 part A/B ratio would mean that within the 15 parts of composition 2, A=33.3% B= 66.7%. When considering composition 3, A=25% and B=75%. These values fall within the ranges of the instant claim 8. Although Kim does not describe their gellan gum as a thermoreversible gelling polysaccharide, this characteristic was well established in the art as evidenced by Baird. Baird teaches that native, clarified, and non-clarified gellan gum forms thermoreversible gels upon heating followed by cool (Background). Baird further characterizes gellan gum gels as aqueous systems containing gellan gum and water that permit the presence of additional hydrocolloids (Column 1, Lines 35-41).
Thus, Kim as evidenced by Baird demonstrates the preparation and use of thermoreversible aqueous gellan gum/CMC gel compositions at the claimed ratios that can safely contact cells.
Regarding Claim 14, Kim anticipates the composition of claim 8, moreover the components described by Kim for use in their Composition 2 and 3 do not contain animal components.
Conclusion
Claims 1-10 and 12-21 remain rejected.
Applicants’ 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 KODYE LEE ABBOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-1111. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Maria G. Leavitt can be reached on (571) 272-1085. 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.
/KODYE LEE ABBOTT/ Examiner, Art Unit 1634
/MARIA G LEAVITT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1634
Prosecution Insights