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
Amendment to claims filed 1-26-26 is acknowledged. Currently, claims 1—19, 22-29 and 31-33 are pending. Claims 1-15, 20-21, and 30 are cancelled. Claims 17-19 and 22 are withdrawn. Claims 17, 23 are currently amended. Claim 33 is new.
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 33 us 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.
The term “high” in claim 33 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The voltage of the power supply in the claim has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term "high".
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.
Claim(s) 23-27, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D’lima et al. (2017/0007741).
Regarding claim 23, D’lima et al. discloses a portable apparatus for applying bioactive material comprising cells in situ on a tissue (abstract), said apparatus comprising
An electrospinning arrangement configured to electrospinning a medium comprising a fiber and/or a polymer in situ on a tissue such that a fibrous scaffolding mat is produced, the electrospinning arrangement comprising a material container configured for accommodating the medium (abstract, fig. 1-2, 6, 15, 17, 29, claim 98);
An electrospraying arrangement configured tor electrospraying the bioactive material comprising the cells on the tissue, the electrospraying arrangement comprising a material container comprising the bioactive material (abstract, claim 17-30, para 127); and
A coaxial spinneret for coaxially electrospinning the medium and elecrospraying the bioactive material (claim 6, 100, para 2, 15, 67, 247-249, fig. 29, table 3).
Regarding claim 24, D’lima et al. discloses wherein said bioactive material is derived from a source selected from the group consisting of mammals, fish, reptiles, human, and any combination thereof (para 11).
Regarding claim 25, D’lima et al. does not teach wherein said fiber-containing medium comprises fibers selected from the group consisting of synthetic fibers, fibers derived from natural environment and a combination thereof. However, D’lima et al. anticipated the claimed invention since material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims.
Regarding claim 26, D’lima et al. discloses wherein said electrospraying arrangement further comprises an electrospraying nozzle configured for exhausting said cells therefrom (para 127).
Regarding claim 27, D’lima et al. discloses wherein said electrospinning arrangement further comprises an electrospinning nozzle in fluid communication with said container configured for exhausting said electrospinning medium therefrom (para 127).
Regarding claim 33, D’lima et al. discloses a high-voltage power supply (para 1-3, 15, 17-19,59-62,83-84, 192-194, 229, 240, table 3, fig. 1-2, 6, 15, 17,29, claim 12-14, 98).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 28-29, 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’lima et al. as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Dubson (2017/0239094).
Regarding claim 28, D’lima et al. does not teach wherein said medium container and material container form an integral compartmentalized body. However, Dubson teaches a portable electrospinning device wherein said medium container and material container form an integral compartmentalized body (fig.4, 6, para 21, 82, 86). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D’lima et al. with the teaching of Dubson in order to successively feed content of said compartments to said nozzle (para 21).
Regarding claim 29, Dubson teaches wherein said medium container and material container are arranged coaxially to each other (fig. 6D, para 86).
Regarding claim 31, Dubson teaches wherein said medium container and material container are brough into fluid communication with a common nozzle such that the electrospinning medium and cells are concurrently exhausted from said common nozzle (fig. 6, para 86, 97-98).
Regarding claim 32, Dubson teaches a battery 90 (fig. 1, para 66).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 23 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.
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 XUE H LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5522. The examiner can normally be reached 1PM - 10PM.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 5702721176. 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.
/X.H.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights