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 .
The amendment dated 05/22/2026 has been considered and entered. The amendment overcomes the claims, now withdrawn. The terminal disclaimer dated 05/22/2026 has been approved and overcomes the previous rejections based on obviousness double patenting, which are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3 – 5, 7 – 9, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sugiyama et al. (EP 0 890 636A1)
In regards to claim 1, Sugiyama teaches polysiloxane macromonomer A1-U1-S1-U2-A2 which can be expressed as a compound of formula (III) which is analogous to the structures of formulas (1) and (2) of the claim, wherein in the structure of the claims, one of R or R1 is methyl, hydrocarbyl group or the structure of formula (2) and the other is methyl, R2 is methyl, p or q is/are each 3 or 28 respectively, R3 is H, L1 is C2H4, R4 is H, L2 is a divalent cyclic hydrocarbon group having 16 carbon atoms having an ether bond, and wherein there are two end-groups meeting the limitation of formula (2) of the claim (pages 4, 5). While L2 in formula 3 exceeds 10 carbon atoms, generally the group from which it is derived (i.e., U1 or U2) can have number of carbon atoms overlapping the claimed range (i.e., see L1 derived from the same group having 2 to 4 carbon atoms).
In regards to claims 3 – 5, 7, Sugiyama teaches the macromonomer having p and q that overlap the claimed ranges.
In regards to claims 8, 9, Sugiyama teaches polymerization of the silicone monomer (i.e., macromonomer) with monomer mixture (page 3).
In regards to claim 13, Sugiyama teaches a culture container having the polymer and thus provides the medical material of the claim (title).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 – 20 are allowed.
Claims 2, 6, 10 – 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closely related prior art of Sugiyama et al. (EP 0 890 636A) fails to particularly recites structures where groups analogous to R3 is methyl, and to q is 0, the mass percentages of the siloxane in the copolymer, or the method of preparing the siloxane compound by reaction with lactone as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAIWO OLADAPO whose telephone number is (571)270-3723. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5pm.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/TAIWO OLADAPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights