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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/29/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 15-16, 25, 28, 30-31, 36, 39, 43, 47, 62, 67, and 82-85 remain pending in the application. Claims 68-70 were cancelled by applicant. Applicant's amendments to the specification and claims have overcome the objection to the specification and the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the previous Office action. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have rendered moot the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the previous Office action. The objection and the rejections are therefore withdrawn by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/29/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments, see page 9 of Remarks, paragraph 3, with respect to the rejection of claim 38 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. While it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, in the instant case the cell scaffolding application of Maeda does not strictly suggest a modification from the teachings of Lee ’12 (Lee-2) which are directed to the covalent immobilization of proteins. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Son et al. 2016, Synthesis and Characterization of Poly(Ethylene Glycol) Based Thermo-Responsive Hydrogels for Cell Sheet Engineering, Materials 2016, 9, 854, which was cited in the previous Office action mailed on 4/29/2026.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 84 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 15-16, 25, 28, 30-31, 36, 39, 43, 47, 62, 67, and 82-85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 has been amended to recite inter alia “(iii) adding a solution comprising a monomer or a co-monomer to the plurality of PDMS microwells… wherein the monomer or co-monomer is a polyether acrylate monomer or a methacrylate monomer.” This limitation is not supported in the original disclosure. Claim 38 originally recited “the method of claim 36, wherein the monomer is a polyether acrylate monomer or a methacrylate monomer.” This limits the structure of the monomer, but does not limit the structure of the co-monomer recited in claim 36, and as a result there is no support in the claims or the specification for a co-monomer being a polyether acrylate monomer or a methacrylate monomer. New claims 82-83 also recite inter alia “a co-monomer selected from poly(ethylene glycol) acrylamide, …” which similarly lacks support in the original disclosure. New claims 84-85 recite inter alia “wherein the monomer or a co-monomer is polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA)” which similarly lacks support in the original disclosure since there is no disclosure of a co-monomer being PEGDA.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 30-31, 36, 39, 43, 62, and 67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. 2009, Fabrication of micropatterned thermosensitive gel with highly-ordered honeycomb surface and inverse opal structure, Biomed Microdevices (2009) 11:809–815, in view of Lee et al. 2016, Rapid on-chip integration of opal films and photonic gel sensor array via directed enhanced water evaporation for colloidal assembly, Sensors and Actuators B 231 (2016) 256–264, and further in view of Son, et al. 2016, Synthesis and Characterization of Poly(Ethylene Glycol) Based Thermo-Responsive Hydrogels for Cell Sheet Engineering, Materials 2016, 9, 854, referred to herein as Maeda, Lee, and Son, respectively. Maeda, Lee, and Son were provided with the previous Office action.
Regarding claim 1, Maeda teaches a method for producing a micropatterned opal hydrogel (“thermosensitive gels with highly-ordered … inverse opal structure,” p. 809 column 2) comprising:
(i) depositing a suspension of particles in at least one solvent (colloidal suspension, p. 810 column 2) into a plurality of PDMS microwells (Fig 1b, “µTM”);
(ii) subjecting the suspension, for a first period of time to conditions sufficient to evaporate the at least one solvent (evaporation of solvent, p. 810 column 2 pp. 2);
(iii) adding a solution comprising a monomer or a co-monomer to the plurality of PDMS microwells (Fig. 1b; pre-gel solution, p. 811 Section 2.3); and
(iv) subjecting the solution, for a second period of time (50 s from each side, p. 811 Section 2.3) to conditions sufficient to polymerize the monomer or co-monomer, thereby producing the micropatterned opal hydrogel film (substrate with micropillar array of porous gel, p. 811 Section 2.3).
Maeda does not teach that the particles in the solution are nanoparticles or nano-sized. However, Lee teaches a method for the fabrication of 2D opal film arrays (p. 257 column 1 pp. 1) without micropatterns, wherein opal hydrogel films are fabricated (p. 258 column 1 section 2.3) in a method analogous to the method taught by Maeda, using nanoparticles of polystyrene (PS) having sizes of 197 to 300 nm and nanoparticles of silica having sizes of 245 to 268 nm (p. 257 section 2.1). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention taught by Maeda by substituting the microparticles of Maeda with the nano-sized particles taught by Lee; one would be motivated to do so because Lee teaches that the particle size determines the peak wavelength of diffracted light as given by the Bragg equation (Section 2.6) and thus particles of the sizes taught by Lee ultimately diffract light in the visible spectrum, therefore giving colors dependent on size (“the opal films from silica-245 showed greenish blue reflective colors, while those from silica-268 exhibited orange colors,” p. 260 column 1; Section 3.2 pp. 1-2). Lee further teaches that the colors of the opal hydrogel films are advantageous for their use as visual pH sensors since the change in color is indicative of changes in pH (Figs. 5 and 7).
Maeda also does not teach that the monomer or co-monomer is a polyether acrylate monomer or a methacrylate monomer. However, Son teaches a hydrogel with thermoresponsive swelling properties (abstract) which is pertinent to the field of endeavor of Maeda and Lee because Son teaches that the hydrogel is comprised of poly-N-isopropylacrylamide (PNIPAm) as analogous to Maeda. Son teaches that PEGDA is present as a hydrophilic co-monomer (abstract) in the hydrogel; PEGDA meets the limitation of a polyether acrylate monomer. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the teachings of Maeda, Lee, and Son to arrive at a hydrogel solution containing the composition of prepolymer solution taught by Son; one would be motivated to do so because Son teaches that the combination of NIPAAm and PEGDA allows one to control swelling properties of the hydrogel (p. 2 pp. 1), since Maeda teaches that the ability to tune the physical properties (such as swelling) would be beneficial for the design of functional cell scaffold to regulate cell proliferation, migration, and differentiation by external stimuli (p. 809 col. 2 pp. 2). Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Maeda, Lee, and Son teach the method for producing a micropatterned opal hydrogel film as applied to claim 1 above. Maeda also teaches an embodiment where the microwells are circle shaped (Fig. 1b) and the micropatterned opal hydrogel film is characterized by a plurality of circle shaped surface features (Fig. 1b; Fig. 4, provided below).
Regarding claim 6, Maeda, Lee, and Son teach the method for producing a micropatterned opal hydrogel film as applied to claim 1 above. Maeda also teaches an embodiment in which colloidal crystals assembled in an array of square shaped microwells (Fig. 2b). Maeda does not teach an embodiment of the resulting micropatterned opal hydrogel film being characterized by a plurality of square-shaped surface features. However, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art that the implementation of the invention of Fig. 1b taught by Maeda with the square microwells taught in Fig. 2b of Maeda would necessarily result in a micropatterned opal hydrogel film characterized by a plurality of square shaped surface features.
Regarding claim 15, Maeda, Lee, and Son teach the method for producing a micropatterned opal hydrogel film as applied to claim 1 above, wherein Lee teaches both PS and silica nanoparticles (p. 257 section 2.1).
Regarding claim 16, Maeda, Lee, and Son teach the method for producing a micropatterned opal hydrogel film as applied to claim 15 above. Lee also teaches the fabrication of opal hydrogel films (p. 258 column 1 Section 2.3) wherein PS beads are used to form 2D opal film arrays (p. 257 column 1) wherein the PS beads have a diameter of 197 nm to 300 nm including 267 nm (p. 257 column 1 Section 2.1), which falls within the claimed range. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art that the substitution of PS beads (taught by Lee) for silica nanoparticles (taught by Maeda) would result in predictably similar performance, that of creating an opal structure, since it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element in the art for another is prima facie obvious; see MPEP 2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), regarding substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 36, Maeda, Lee, and Son teach the method for producing a micropatterned opal hydrogel film as applied to claim 1 above. Maeda also teaches that the pre-gel solution is comprised of acrylamides and teaches that this composition is for the photopolymerization process (p. 811 Section 2.3 title) which is photopolymerized by exposure to UV light (“for photopolymerization, the pre-gel solution…was prepared; the mold was exposed to UV light… the hydrogel was equilibrated in deionized water,” Section 2.3). Therefore the pre-gel solution is comprised of monomer or co-monomer that is capable of being polymerized by UV radiation, meeting the limitation of “polymerizable by UV radiation” required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 39, Maeda, Lee, and Son teach the method for producing a micropatterned opal hydrogel film as applied to claim 36 above. Son teaches the pre-gel solution comprising polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA) (p. 2 ‘2.1 Materials’), as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 43, Maeda, Lee, and Son teach the method for producing a micropatterned opal hydrogel film as applied to claim 36 above. Maeda also teaches the exposure of the pre-gel solution to UV radiation to induce photopolymerization (p. 811 Section 2.3).
Regarding claim 62, Maeda, Lee, and Son teach the method for producing a micropatterned opal hydrogel film as applied to claim 1 above. Maeda also teaches the fabrication of multi-layer structures of the gel (p. 812 column 2; Fig. 3b-d); this meets the limitation of the micropatterned opal hydrogel film being a two-layered structure recited by the instant claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
260
368
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 67, Maeda, Lee, and Son teach the method for producing a micropatterned opal hydrogel film as applied to claim 1 above. Lee also teaches the fabrication of opal hydrogel films (p. 258 column 1 section 2.3) using a pre-gel mixture containing acrylic acid (AA), methacrylic acid (MA), or vinylimidazole (VI) (p. 257 Section 2.3). Lee teaches that the presence of these monomers allows the resulting gels to respond to a change in pH (Figure 7c). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the invention as suggested by Maeda, Lee, and Son by using AA, MA, or VI as Lee teaches and thus arrive at the claimed invention, a micropatterned opal hydrogel film with a response to a change in pH, because Maeda teaches that the gels are capable of undergoing reversible swelling and color changes (p. 813 column 1), and one would be motivated to obtain a gel responsive to pH because Lee teaches the advantage of pH-responsive gels as being useful scaffold/template structures for the formation of photonic gel sensors (p. 257 column 1). Further, it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element in the art for another is prima facie obvious; see MPEP 2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), regarding substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art that the substitution of bisacrylamide taught by Maeda for AA, MA, and/or VI taught by Lee would result in the similar performance of forming a reversibly responsive hydrogel film containing the opal structure of the invention.
Regarding claim 82, Maeda, Lee, and Son teach the method as applied to claim 1. Maeda further teaches that the solution in step (iii) further comprises a co-monomer of N,N’-methylene-bisacrylamide (p. 811 col. 1 ‘2.3’), which meets the claimed limitation of a co-monomer being a bisacrylamide.
Regarding claim 83, Maeda, Lee, and Son teach the method as applied to claim 39. Maeda further teaches that the solution in step (iii) further comprises a co-monomer of N,N’-methylene-bisacrylamide (p. 811 col. 1 ‘2.3’), which meets the claimed limitation of a co-monomer being a bisacrylamide.
Regarding claim 84, Maeda teaches a method for producing a micropatterned opal hydrogel (“thermosensitive gels with highly-ordered … inverse opal structure,” p. 809 column 2) comprising:
(i) depositing a suspension of particles in at least one solvent (colloidal suspension, p. 810 column 2) into a plurality of PDMS microwells (Fig 1b, “µTM”);
(ii) subjecting the suspension, for a first period of time to conditions sufficient to evaporate the at least one solvent (evaporation of solvent, p. 810 column 2 pp. 2);
(iii) adding a solution comprising a monomer or a co-monomer to the plurality of PDMS microwells (Fig. 1b; pre-gel solution, p. 811 Section 2.3); and
(iv) subjecting the solution, for a second period of time (50 s from each side, p. 811 Section 2.3) to conditions sufficient to polymerize the monomer or co-monomer, thereby producing the micropatterned opal hydrogel film (substrate with micropillar array of porous gel, p. 811 Section 2.3).
Maeda does not teach that the particles in the solution are nanoparticles or nano-sized. However, Lee teaches a method for the fabrication of 2D opal film arrays (p. 257 column 1 pp. 1) without micropatterns, wherein opal hydrogel films are fabricated (p. 258 column 1 section 2.3) in a method analogous to the method taught by Maeda, using nanoparticles of polystyrene (PS) having sizes of 197 to 300 nm and nanoparticles of silica having sizes of 245 to 268 nm (p. 257 section 2.1). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention taught by Maeda by substituting the microparticles of Maeda with the nano-sized particles taught by Lee; one would be motivated to do so because Lee teaches that the particle size determines the peak wavelength of diffracted light as given by the Bragg equation (Section 2.6) and thus particles of the sizes taught by Lee ultimately diffract light in the visible spectrum, therefore giving colors dependent on size (“the opal films from silica-245 showed greenish blue reflective colors, while those from silica-268 exhibited orange colors,” p. 260 column 1; Section 3.2 pp. 1-2). Lee further teaches that the colors of the opal hydrogel films are advantageous for their use as visual pH sensors since the change in color is indicative of changes in pH (Figs. 5 and 7).
Maeda also does not teach that a monomer or co-monomer is polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA). However, Son teaches a hydrogel with thermoresponsive swelling properties (abstract) which is pertinent to the field of endeavor of Maeda and Lee because Son teaches that the hydrogel is comprised of poly-N-isopropylacrylamide (PNIPAm) as analogous to Maeda. Son teaches that PEGDA is present as a hydrophilic co-monomer (abstract) in the hydrogel. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the teachings of Maeda, Lee, and Son to arrive at a hydrogel solution containing the composition of prepolymer solution taught by Son; one would be motivated to do so because Son teaches that the combination of NIPAAm and PEGDA allows one to control swelling properties of the hydrogel (p. 2 pp. 1), since Maeda teaches that the ability to tune the physical properties (such as swelling) would be beneficial for the design of functional cell scaffold to regulate cell proliferation, migration, and differentiation by external stimuli (p. 809 col. 2 pp. 2). Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 85, Maeda, Lee, and Son teach the method as applied to claim 84. Maeda further teaches that step (iii) further comprises a co-monomer of N,N’-methylene-bisacrylamide (p. 811 col. 1 ‘2.3’), which meets the claimed limitation of a co-monomer being a bisacrylamide.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda, Lee, and Son, as applied to claims 2 and 6 above, and in further view of Singh et al. 2011, Patterning of SiO2 nanoparticle–PMMA polymer composite microstructures based on soft lithographic techniques, Microelectronic Engineering 88 (2011) 939–944.
Regarding claim 4, Maeda, Lee, and Son teach the method for producing a micropatterned opal hydrogel film as applied to claim 2 above. Maeda also teaches circle shaped features spaced uniformly apart (Fig. 1b, Fig. 4). Maeda, Lee, and Son do not teach a margin of error for the spacings or diameters of each surface feature. However, Singh teaches the micropatterning of nanoparticle/polymer composites by MIMIC and micro-TM (p. 940 column 1 pp. 1), analogous to the steps taught by Maeda (Figure 1), and teaches that the micropatterning of nanoparticle composites into periodic structures is necessary for the application of the materials in photonic or optoelectronic devices (p. 939-940, last paragraph). Singh teaches that the structures must be periodically ordered on a length scale comparable to the wavelength of light in order to obtain a photonic band gap that can control incoming photons (p. 940, top of column 1). It would therefore be obvious to one skilled in the art to minimize the variability in spacings as much as possible in order to achieve a periodically ordered structure as taught by Singh (p. 939-940); one would be motivated to do so to obtain highly ordered structures as Maeda teaches (Figure 1), which are advantageous for their ability to provide photonic properties among other properties (p. 809 column 2 pp. 1), which Singh teaches as well (p. 939-940).
Regarding claim 8, Maeda and Lee teach the method for producing a micropatterned opal hydrogel film as applied to claim 6 above. Maeda also teaches square shaped wells spaced uniformly apart (Fig. 2b). Maeda and Lee do not teach a margin of error for the spacings or diameters of each surface feature. However, Singh teaches the micropatterning of nanoparticle/polymer composites by MIMIC and micro-TM (p. 940 column 1 pp. 1), analogous to the steps taught by Maeda (Figure 1), and teaches that the micropatterning of nanoparticle composites into periodic structures is necessary for the application of the materials in photonic or optoelectronic devices (p. 939-940, last paragraph). Singh teaches that the structures must be periodically ordered on a length scale comparable to the wavelength of light in order to obtain a photonic band gap that can control incoming photons (p. 940, top of column 1). It would therefore be obvious to one skilled in the art to minimize the variability in spacings as much as possible in order to achieve a periodically ordered structure as taught by Singh (p. 939-940); one would be motivated to do so to obtain highly ordered structures as Maeda teaches (Figure 1), which are advantageous for their ability to provide photonic properties among other properties (p. 809 column 2 pp. 1), which Singh teaches as well (p. 939-940).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda, Lee, and Son as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Yeo et al. 2017, Multiscale-architectured functional membranes utilizing inverse opal structures, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2017, 5, 17111-17134.
Regarding claim 10, Maeda, Lee, and Son teach the method for producing a micropatterned opal hydrogel film as applied to claim 1 above. Maeda also teaches the dispersion of the silica nanoparticles in water (p. 810, Section 2.2). Maeda, Lee, and Son do not teach that the nanoparticles are suspended in a mixture comprising water and an organic solvent. However, Yeo teaches a method to synthesize PS colloidal nanoparticles into opal structures by choosing a dispersion of PS nanoparticles in DI water and ethanol (15 wt.% in 50:50 v/v, p. 17120 “Self-assembly of colloidal nanoparticles into opal structures”). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the invention taught by Maeda, Lee, and Son by using the mixed solvent taught by Yeo; one would be motivated to do so in ordered to control the order and regularity of the crystalline opal structure obtained, since Yeo teaches that the ethanol concentration in the colloidal suspension directly affects the regularity of the structure obtained (p. 17120 column 1 “Self-assembly of colloidal nanoparticles into opal structures”) and that the chosen ratio created well-ordered opal structures (p. 17120 columns 1-2).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda, Lee, and Son as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Chung et al. 2006, Influence of Humidity on the Fabrication of High-Quality Colloidal Crystals via a Capillary-Enhanced Process, Langmuir 2006, 22, 6454-6460.
Regarding claim 25, Maeda, Lee, and Son teach the method for producing a micropatterned opal hydrogel film as applied to claim 1 above. They do not teach that the suspension is subjected a relative humidity of 80-99%. However, Chung teaches the formation of high-quality colloidal crystals in a high humidity system (abstract) where crystals were obtained in a humidity of evaporation at 90% (p. 6456 column 1). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the invention of Maeda, Lee, and Son by allowing the evaporation to occur at 90% humidity, as Chung teaches; one would be motivated to do so to control the capillary forces driving the crystal formation in order to obtain high-quality colloidal crystals (p. 6454 column 2), in order to achieve a crystal with a photonic band gap, as Chung teaches (p. 6454 column 1).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda, Lee, and Son as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Lee, and in further view of Shiu et al. 2005, Active Patterning Using an Addressable Microfluidic Network, Adv. Mater., 17: 1866-1869.
Regarding claim 28, Maeda, Lee, and Son teach the method for producing a micropatterned opal hydrogel film as applied to claim 1 above. Lee also teaches a first period of time for evaporation is 2-3 h (p. 257 Section 2.3) and a second period of time for UV radiation is 1 h (p. 258 column 1 pp. 1). Maeda, Lee, and Son do not teach that the first period of time is 15-45 min and the second period of time is 15-45 min. However, Shiu teaches a process for forming colloidal materials in PDMS microfluidic networks (p. 1868 column 1 pp. 1) wherein solvent evaporation is performed for a duration between a few seconds and a few hours (p. 1868 column 1 pp. 1), and teaches that the duration of the evaporation is a result-effective parameter that affects the quality of the colloidal crystals obtained (“good quality colloidal crystals,” p. 1868 column 1 pp. 1). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to optimize the duration of the first, evaporation, time within the range taught by the prior art (Shiu, a few seconds, to Lee/Shiu, several hours) in order to form the colloidal crystals of good quality for application in the invention of Maeda, Lee, and Son, since Maeda teaches that the quality of colloidal crystals affects the packing structure of the obtained micropatterns (Figs. 2a and 3c) which can enable the fabrication of micropatterns with highly-regulated surface topographies (p. 812, column 1). Similarly, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to optimize the duration of the second, polymerization, time within the range taught by the prior art (Maeda, 100 s, to Lee, 1 hr) in order to polymerize the hydrogel solution to form a hydrogel, since the completion of the photopolymerization process is necessarily dependent upon the duration of the UV radiation, and both Maeda and Lee teach that the UV radiation is performed to photopolymerize the gel (Maeda, Fig. 1a-c; Lee, “completion of photopolymerization of the hydrogel,” p. 258 column 1 Section 2.3). Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date.
Claims 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda, Lee, and Son, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Pei et al. 2016, Enzyme Responsive Inverse Opal Hydrogels, Macromolecular Rapid Communications, Volume 41, Issue 5, Mar 2020.
Regarding claims 30 and 31, Maeda, Lee, and Son teach the method for producing a micropatterned opal hydrogel film as applied to claim 1 above. Son further teaches that the weight ratio of PEGDA present in the solution is approximately 2% to 4% w/v concentration (p. 3 Section 2.3, where the weight ratio of NIPAm to PEGDA is 1:0.25 to 1:0.5 of 11.32%); since NIPAAm and PEGDA (Mn = 6000) have densities roughly equal to 1 g/mL, this corresponds to a v/v% of about 2-4% v/v. Maeda, Lee, and Son do not teach a v/v% concentration of a polyether acrylate monomer or of a methacrylate monomer that falls within the claimed range. However, Pei teaches an analogous method of forming inverse opal hydrogels (abstract) which is pertinent to the field of endeavor of Maeda, Lee, and Son because Pei teaches that the method can produce hydrogels that are micropatterned (p. 1 col. 2 pp. 3). Pei teaches that the concentration of PEGDA is a parameter that affects the stop band position of the inverse opal and consequently changes the wavelength of the stop band signal (p. 3 col. 1 pp. 1). Pei therefore teaches that the concentration of the monomer, PEGDA, is a result effective variable, and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to optimize the concentration from the ranges taught by the prior art (Son) and thereby arrive at the claimed ranges. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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).
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda, Lee, and Son as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kim et al. 2013, US 9869616 B2.
Regarding claim 47, Maeda, Lee, and Son teach the method for producing a micropatterned opal hydrogel film as applied to claim 1 above. Maeda, Lee, and Son do not teach that in step (iii) the solution comprises a monomer or comonomer which is polymerizable by thermal polymerization, polymerizable by exposure to Ca2+, or polymerizable by exposure to a strong base.
However, Kim teaches an analogous method for hydrogel patterning (abstract) wherein the hydrogel used is prepared with sodium alginate and is polymerized (solidified) by exposure to Ca2+ (CaCl2, C6/L15). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the invention taught by Maeda, Lee, and Son by substituting the hydrogel composition taught with the hydrogel composition taught by Kim. The courts have generally held that a prima facie argument of obviousness exists when one skilled in the art would recognize the suitability of a known material for its intended use; see In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). In the instant case one skilled in the art would recognize the suitability of the hydrogel composition taught by Kim to function as a hydrogel in the method taught by Maeda since Kim teaches the ability of the hydrogel to absorb water (C4/L36-44); see MPEP 2144.07 regarding art-recognized suitability. Therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date.
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 Eileen Moudou whose telephone number is (571)272-1768. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 AM - 4 PM EST.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571)272-6297. 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.
/Eileen Moudou/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
