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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 are pending and under examination in this office.
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of the Information Disclosure Statement filed 6/23/26. The Examiner has considered the references cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see the attached USPTO Form 1449.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU et al. (CN 112980012, Applicant’s IDS) in view of Wray et.al. (WO 2013/070907) and of Shefi et al. (US 2019/0046692) and Johnson et al. (ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces V 11(1) 2018).
Wu teaches with regards to instant claims 1, 5, controlling cell behavior using magnetic nano fiber in a gel mix/matrix, wherein the iron source is a ferrous salt selected from ferric chloride in a solution (see translation) and washed several times to remove excess iron chloride (as required by instant claim 8) spun for 12 hours (see translation) and to obtain magnetic silk fibroin to be used in tissue such as nerve and cornea. Since the formulation is a magnetic it is magnetic aligned (as required by instant claim 2-3). Additionally, Wu teaches the use of polymer as the gel (see translation, as required by instant claim 6) crosslinked in the magnetic field (see abstract).
However fails to teach an injectable gel.
With regards to instant claim 1, Wray teaches silk based scaffold (see abstract, wherein the silk is from silk fibroin microfiber (see 0009, 0014, as required by instant claim 5) for nerve regeneration (see 0004; 00135) i.e. restore damage tissue, and washed (see claim 9) in the form of a gel (see 0015, as required by instant claim 2) wherein the gel is a polymer (see 0009, as required by instant claim 6).
However Wray fails to teach that the forming the scaffold comprises an iron solution (as required by instant claim 1) or aligned magnetically
Shefi teaches a hydrogel biomaterial as scaffolds used in tissue construct for promoting neuronal repair i.e., regeneration (see 0024) wherein the biomaterial is a polymer (see 0156) comprising iron particle in solution (see 0157, as required by instant claim ) magnetically aligned (see 0042 ) for implantation (see 0025), wherein the magnetic particles are ferric salt (see 0506) wherein the hydrogel are cross-linked (note that a hydrogel can also be collagen, see 0140; 0144 ) and is an injectable substance (see 0434, as required by instant claim 7) comprising a therapeutic agent for an implant (see 04194) as required by instant claim 8) that can be used in treating spinal cord.
Johnson teaches with regards to instant claims 1-2, an injectable magnetic scaffold for regenerating tissue on a nervous system comprising iron (see tittle, abstract and entire article, as required by instant claim 3-4) for implantation (see Intro) in a hydrogel (as required by instant claims 2) in-situ, see abstract) and washed (see 2.6.1) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have expanded the teachings of Wu to include Wray and modify by adding the teachings of Shefi to result in the instant claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success because they are drawn to same technical fields (constituted with same ingredients and share common utilities, and pertinent to the problem which applicant concerns about. MPEP 2141.01(a) and Secondly, the strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95,217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The “hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art’ to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art.” Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988).
Allowable subject matter
Claims 10-12 are free of art and are allowable. The closest prior art is by Chen et al. (Chemical Engineering Journal 399 (2020)125795) using an injectable silk fibroin polydopamine for treatment of spinal cord injury. There is no reason in the teaching to use ferric chloride.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIRLEY V GEMBEH whose telephone number is (571)272-8504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Robert A. Wax can be reached at 571-272-0623. 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.
/SHIRLEY V GEMBEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615 7/29/26
Prosecution Insights