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
Claims 1-36 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/8/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 37-50 in the reply filed on 7/8/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS is objected to because the cited document entitled “Space-time-coding Digital Metasurfaces” by Zhang, et al. has to apparent relevance to the disclosure and is not cited in the specification as relevant prior art.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the paragraph numbers of the specification contain inconsistent amounts of digits. For example, instant specification paragraphs [0001]-[0099] contain 4 digits, but after this, there are 5 digits from paragraphs [00100]-[00152].
Appropriate correction is required.
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 49 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 49, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 37-39, 41-44, 46, and 49-50. are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gan (Plant-inspired adhesive and tough hydrogel based on Ag-Lignin nanoparticles-triggered dynamic redox catechol chemistry).
Regarding claims 37- 41, Gan discloses a method for preparing hydrogels containing silver-lignin nanoparticles (Ag-NPs) comprising: Forming a hydrogel precursor by combining
Silver-lignin nanoparticles (AG-NPs) as the nanoparticle component;
Acrylic acid (AA) as the organic acid and acrylic acid component;
Ammonium persulfate (APS) as an oxidizing agent, the examiner notes that this is the exemplified oxidizing agent used by the applicant;
Poly(ethylene glycol) dimethacrylate (PEGDA) as a polymerized copolymer containing AA. The examiner notes that this is considered as an acceptable copolymer according to instant specification paragraph [00113]; and
Deionized water to form an aqueous solution.
The mixture is then incubated for 20 minutes at room temperature to form a hydrogel (Methods: Preparation of hydrogel).
Regarding claim 42, Gan further teaches the use of P(AA-co-AM) as a polymerized copolymer containing AA in a hydrogel precursor, saying, “and gels with carboxyl groups were prepared from poly(acrylic acid-co-acrylamide) P(AA-co-AM), Pectin and Ag-Lignin NPs (Supplementary Table 9)” (in Supplementary Notes 21).
Regarding claim 43, Gan applies as described above regarding the addition of a polymerized copolymer containing AA to an aqueous solution comprising the claimed components and further teaches several hydrogels formed from the addition of PEGDA to solutions containing AA and nanoparticles (Supplemental Information: Table 5). Regarding the “one or more solutions comprising…”, by “solutions” it is taken to mean the combination of precursor components in an aqueous solution without respect to the order of addition of the components.
Regarding claim 46, Gan also teaches a method for preparing the Ag-NPs prior to combining with the components of the hydrogel precursor (Page 9, Methods: Preparation of Ag-Lignin NPs).
Regarding claim 49 and 50, Gan says that the hydrogel precursor us stirred, which is mechanical agitation (Methods: Preparation of hydrogel), and further states with respect to the incubation step, “First, the gelation of the hydrogel was triggered by radically enriched Ag-Lignin NPs without the need for UV and thermal treatment” (page 8, Discussion), so the hydrogel of Gan is formed without UV or heating in the incubation step.
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.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gan in view of Ghorpade (Citric acid crosslinked carboxymethylcellulose-poly(ethylene glycol) hydrogel films for delivery of poorly soluble drugs).
Regarding claim 40, Gan applies as described above with respect to the method for preparing a hydrogel but does not disclose citric acid.
Ghorpade discloses biomedical hydrogel films crosslinked using citric acid, further teaches citric-acid used as a non-toxic crosslinking agent for hydrogel wound dressing applications (abstract, introduction). Ghorpade is analogous to the instant application because it pertains to hydrogels intended for biomedical applications.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to see the usefulness of citric acid as a non-toxic crosslinking agent for biomedical hydrogels and , using methods known in the art, would have added it as a precursor component in the hydrogel of Gan and the results would have been predictable.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gan in view of Afewerki (Combined Catalysis for Engineering Bioinspired, Lignin-Based, Long-Lasting, Adhesive, Self-Mending, Antimicrobial Hydrogels).
Regarding claim 46, Gan applies as described above with respect to the method for preparing a hydrogel but does not disclose an incubation period of between about 8 hours to about 48 hours.
Afewerki discloses an antimicrobial hydrogel containing silver-lignin nanoparticles teaches a room-temperature hydrogel precursor incubation period of 1-16 hours (Fig.2 description). The range as taught by Afewerki regarding the hydrogel precursor solution incubation period has substantial and significant overlap with the claimed range and is disclosed with sufficient specificity so as to anticipate the claimed range. See MPEP 2131.03. Afewerki is analogous to the instant disclosure because it pertains to biocompatible hydrogels containing silver-lignin nanoparticles. Further, Afewerki cites Gan in the article’s introduction.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Gan’s precursor with the teaching from Afewerki about an appropriate incubation period for hydrogel precursors comprising silver-lignin nanoparticles and the results would have been predictable.
Claims 47 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gan in view of Shuai (Stretchable, self-healing, conductive hydrogel fibers for strain sensing and triboelectric energy-harvesting smart textiles).
Regarding claims 47 and 48, Gan applies as described above with respect to the method for preparing a hydrogel and further teaches that the hydrogel of Gan is useful for skin and applied to wounds for wound repair (page 6, Antibacterial activity; Discussion). However, Gan does not disclose stretching the formed hydrogel into a fiber, nor stretching the formed hydrogel comprising a spinning process.
Shuai discloses a method of producing hydrogel fibers by extruding a pre-cured hydrogel (a formed hydrogel) into a fiber that is then spooled around a spindle (a spinning process) (Sections 2.1 and 4.2; Fig. 1(a)). The hydrogel fiber synthesis process is described as the following:
“The solution was placed in a transparent spinning storage tank and polymerized in an ultraviolet light source box (ZF-20D) for 40 min under UV light at 365 nm to form a hydrogel. Use a heating mantle to heat the storage tank to 90 °C to soften the PNA hydrogel. The softened hydrogel was extruded from the spinning head into ethyl acetate as a coagulation bath to obtain stable PNA hydrogel fibers.” (Section 4.2, Synthesis of PNA hydrogel fibers and PNA/PMA fibers)
Below is a schematic of the spinning process from Figure 1(a):
PNG
media_image1.png
286
683
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The method of extrusion would mechanically “stretch” the bulk hydrogel as it is formed into a small fiber. The examiner notes that this method of fiber formation is similar to the method described in instant application paragraph [00148] where the applicant extrudes the hydrogel through a syringe. Shuai further teaches the weaving of these hydrogel fibers into a fabric.
Shuai is analogous to the instant application because it pertains to methods of producing hydrogel fibers from formed hydrogels.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the method of producing hydrogel fibers to the hydrogel of Gan and the results would have been predictable. Further, the person of ordinary skill would be motivated to incorporate the method of hydrogel fiber formation of Shuai in the pursuit to produce a hydrogel fabric that could be adhered to wounds for treatment, as described in Gan.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Simões (Citric acid as crosslinking agent in starch/xanthan gum hydrogels produced by extrusion and thermopressing) Studies the effect of citric acid as a crosslinking agent in hydrogels. Discloses that citric acid decreases hydrogel swelling (abstract, section 3.3) and increased elongation at break (section 3.4).
Khutoryanskiy (US 20130018110 A1) teaches hydrogels produced using P(AA-co-AM) as a polymerized copolymer containing AA in the precursor (Example 6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KOLTON JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-9802. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (517)272-1130. 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.
/KOLTON JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 1763 /JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights