DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/02/2026 has been entered.
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 06/05/2026. As directed by the amendment: claim 1 has been amended and claims 2, 7, 8, 15, 18, and 21-30 have been cancelled. Thus, claims 1, 3-6, 9-14, and 16-20 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurtner et al. (WO 2019/222520 A1) in view of Basile et al. (US 2014/0205561 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Gurtner discloses a method of treating a wound of a subject, the method comprising: applying a skin graft (see fig. 14 and [0048]) to the wound in combination with a mechanotransduction blocker (FAKI hydrogel scaffold, see [0048] and [0035]) to treat the wound of the subject (see [0049]), wherein the mechanotransduction blocker comprises a focal adhesion kinase inhibitor (see [0048]), and wherein the method reduces contracture of the applied STSG as compared to the application of a STSG in the absence of a mechanotransduction blocker (see [0072] and [0018]; the graft of Gurtner comprises a mechanotransduction blocker); wherein the method improves STSG biomechanical properties as compared to the application of a STSG in the absence of a mechanotransductionblocker (see [0038] and fig. 4a-4b).
Gurtner further discloses the graft is used to treat a burn wound (see [0039] and [0049]) but is silent regarding the skin graft is a split-thickness skin graft.
However Basile, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches that split-thickness skin grafts are used to treat burn wounds (see [0048]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective failing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gurtner to have the graft be a split-thickness skin graft as taught by Basile, for the purpose of processed through a meshing apparatus and expanded up to nine times to cover large areas (see Basile [0048]).
Regarding claim 3, Gurtner as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Gurtner further discloses the wound is a deep injury wound (see [0041] and [0049]).
Regarding claim 4, Gurtner as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 3. Gurtner further discloses the deep injury wound is a burn wound (see [0039] and [0049]).
Regarding claim 5, Gurtner as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 3. Gurtner further discloses the deep injury wound is a traumatic wound (see [0049]).
Regarding claim 6, Gurtner as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Gurtner further discloses the skin graft is applied to the wound before the mechanotransduction blocker (see fig. 14, the bottom layer is skin graft without a mechanotransduction blocker).
Regarding claim 9, Gurtner as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Gurtner further discloses the mechanotransduction blocker is administered in a sustained release formulation to the wound (see [0014]).
Regarding claim 10, Gurtner as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 9. Gurtner further discloses the sustained release formulation comprises a gel formulation (hydrogel, see [0035]).
Regarding claim 11, Gurtner as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 10. Gurtner further discloses the gel formulation comprises a hydrogel (see [0035]).
Regarding claim 12, Gurtner as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 11. Gurtner further discloses hydrogel comprises a biodegradable pullulan-based hydrogel (see [0035]).
Regarding claim 13, Gurtner as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Gurtner further discloses the method promotes healing of the wound (see [0010]).
Regarding claim 14, Gurtner as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Gurtner further discloses the method reduces fibrosis as compared to the application of a skin graft in the absence of a mechanotransduction blocker (see [0007]; the graft of Gurtner comprises a mechanotransduction blocker).
Regarding claim 16, Gurtner as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Gurtner further discloses the method mitigates scar formation as compared to the application of a skin graft in the absence of a mechanotransduction blocker (see [0018]; the graft of Gurtner comprises a mechanotransduction blocker).
Regarding claim 17, Gurtner as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Gurtner further discloses the method restores collagen architecture as compared to the application of a skin graft in the absence of a mechanotransduction blocker (see [0047]; the graft of Gurtner comprises a mechanotransduction blocker).
Regarding claim 19, Gurtner as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Gurtner further discloses the subject is mammal (see [0049]).
Regarding claim 20, Gurtner as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 19. Gurtner further discloses the mammal is a human (see [0049]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Gurtner in view of Basile fails to teach the method reduces contracture of the applied STSG as compared to the application of a STSG in the absence of a mechanotransduction blocker because "Gurtner and Basile do not provide any particular teachings regarding what specific effects a focal adhesion kinase inhibitor may have on healing of skin graft applied to a wound, let alone a STSG" and "different types of skin grafts have distinct physiological structures and distinct behaviors when applied to wounds". The Office respectfully disagrees. Gurtner discloses that the formation of scars are reduced when FAK inhibitor (the claimed mechanotransduction blocker) is applied to a wound (see [0077]). Gurtner further defines “scar” as used therein to include contracture (see [0072]), thus Gurtner discloses FAK inhibitors reduce contracture formation. Gurtner also discloses that FAK inhibitors are used as part of skin grafts (see [0048] and [0068]). Since FAK inhibitors are used as part of skin grafts and reduce contracture formation, Gurtner discloses the method reduces contracture of the applied skin graft as compared to the application of a skin graft in the absence of a mechanotransduction blocker. Gurtner is then modified by Basile to have the skin graft be a split thickness skin graft.
Applicant argues that Gurtner in view of Basile fails to teach the method improves STSG biomechanical properties as compared to the application of a STSG in the absence of a mechanotransduction blocker. The Office respectfully disagrees. Gurtner discloses in [0038] and fig. 4a-4b that the mechanotransduction blocker (focal adhesion kinase inhibitor) improves biomechanical properties (young’s modulus and ultimate tensile strength) compared to no mechanotransduction blocker.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the method including significantly reducing the firmness and stiffness) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim language only requires biomechanical properties to be improved which is much broader than applicant’s argued “significantly reducing the firmness and stiffness”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE H Mendez whose telephone number is (571)272-9503. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am-4:00 pm.
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at (571) 272-4695. 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.
/KATHERINE H SCHWIKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights