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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/26/2023 has been considered by the examiner. Initialed copies accompany this action.
Drawings
The Drawings filed 9/26/2023 are approved by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 10, and 15 recite the phrases “Self-Assembled Microgel Film” and is objected because it contains capitalized words in the middle of the claim. Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. See MPEP 608.01(m).
Claims 8-11 and 13, 15, recite the limitation “a composition according to claim 1”. It should be “the composition according to claim 1” because it refers to an earlier recitation or limitation.
Claims 12 recites the limitation “a cosmetic product according to claim 11”. It should be “the cosmetic product according to claim 11” because it refers to an earlier recitation or limitation.
Claims 16 recites the limitation “a therapeutic product of claim 13”. It should be “the a therapeutic product of claim 13” because it refers to an earlier recitation or limitation.
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.
Claims 6-8, 11, 13 and 16-17 are 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.
Claims 6-8 lack of clarity as reciting monomers being of formula CR1R2=CR3R4, in which R1-R4 represent a hydrogen, a halogen or a hydrocarbon group, at least one of the four groups comprising a —COOH or —COO−M+ group, M+ representing a cation, and methacrylic acid (MAA). The monomer and MMA do not encompass an oligo(ethylene glycol) structure as recited in claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the microparticles" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the microparticles" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a therapeutic product of claim 13”. It should be “the therapeutic product of claim 13” because it refers to an earlier recitation or limitation.
Claim 16 recites “a microgel of the therapeutic product”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites “obtaining at least one self-assembled microgel film by solvent evaporation”. It is unclear what/where the solvent evaporation step is applying to.
Claim 17 is rejected as being depending on rejected claim 16.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shang et al. (Materials Letters 272 (2020) 127862) in view of Fang et al. (CN108929412). The machine translation of CN108929412 is replied upon for the rejection purposes.
Regarding claim 1, Shang discloses smart conducting microgels comprising microgels, the microgels comprises microgel particles (spheres) having a shell of conductive polymer(PNIPAM-co-AAc microgels is doped with PEDOT:PSS, abstract, Fig. 1a). Shang does not disclose the microgels are oligo(ethylene glycol)-based polymer microgels crosslinked with a catechol cross-linker as claimed. Fang discloses microgels (hydrogels) prepared by crosslinking an oligo(ethylene glycol)-based polymers (di(ethylene glycol) methyl ether methacrylate (MeO2MA), oligo(ethylene glycol) methyl ether methacrylate (OEGMA)) with a catechol cross-linker (dopamine methacrylamide DMA) (para 0009). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to replace the microgels in Shang with the microgels taught by Fang because such microgels are temperature responsive with excellent biocompatibility, safety and harmlessness making them highly valueable for applications in skin repair, tissue adhesion, wound healing and hemostasis (para 0004) and would be suitable for use in applications as smart filler of artificial skins and muscles suggested in Shang (page 4, Conclusion).
Regarding claim 2, Fang discloses the catechol cross-linker comprises an acrylamide or methacrylamide group (dopamine methacrylamide DMA) (para 0009).
Regarding claim 3, Fang discloses the catechol cross-linker is dopamine methacrylamide (dopamine methacrylamide DMA) (para 0009).
Regarding claim 4, Shang discloses the conductive polymer is selected from the group consisting of poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT) (PEDOT:PSS, abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Shang discloses the conductive shell is a discontinuous conductive shell (Fig. 1a).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Fang discloses the microgel is obtained via aqueous phase precipitation polymerization of monomers cross-linked with the catechol cross-linker, said monomers being di(ethylene glycol) methyl ether methacrylate (MeO2MA), oligo(ethylene glycol) methyl ether methacrylate (OEGMA) (para 0013).
Regarding claim 8, Fang discloses a process of preparing a composition according to claim 1, said process comprising the steps of: preparing a microgel via precipitation polymerization of monomers, wherein said monomers are crosslinked with a catechol cross-linker, wherein said microgel comprises particles and wherein the monomers are selected from the group consisting of: di(ethylene glycol) methyl ether methacrylate (MeO.sub.2MA) (Fang, para 0013). Shang discloses a process for preparing a conductive shell via polymerization on microgel particles (Shang, pages 1-2, Experimental). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to combine the processes of Fang and Shang to prepare the conductive microgels with reasonable expectation that the resulting conductive microgels are temperature responsive with excellent biocompatibility, safety and harmlessness making them highly valuable for applications in skin repair, tissue adhesion, wound healing and hemostasis and would be suitable for use in applications as smart filler of artificial skins and muscles suggested in Fang (para 0004) and Shang (page 4, Conclusion).
Regarding claim 18 and 19, Fang discloses n is 9.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 9-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aguirre et al. (Polym. Chem., 2018, 9, 1155–1159) in view of Shang et al. (Materials Letters 272 (2020) 127862) and Fang et al. (CN108929412).
Regarding claim 9, Aguirre discloses a self-assembled microgel film wherein said film is obtained by solvent evaporation of oligo(ethylene glycol)-based stimuli-responsive microgels (water evaporation under ambient conditions to form multi-layered cohesive self-assembled microgel films, page 1156, left column and Scheme 1). Aguirre does not disclose the claimed oligo(ethylene glycol)-based stimuli-responsive microgels. Shang in view of Fang discloses smart conducting microgels comprising oligo(ethylene glycol)-based stimuli-responsive microgels particles having a shell of conductive polymer(PNIPAM-co-AAc microgels is doped with PEDOT:PSS, abstract, Fig. 1a) as described above and is incorporate herein by reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to replace the microgels in Aguirre with the conductive microgels taught by Shang in view of Fang with reasonable expectation that the conductive microgels of Shang and Fang, which are stimuli-responsive microgels, would form self-assembled microgel films under different conditions and are useful in therapeutic applications because such conductive microgels are temperature responsive with excellent biocompatibility, safety and harmlessness. See Fang (para 0004) and Shang (page 4, Conclusion).
Regarding claim 10, Aguirre discloses the self-assembled microgel film used for skin protection, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a step of applying on keratin materials (skin) the smart conducting microgels is inherently disclosed.
Regarding claim 11, Aguirre discloses a cosmetic product comprising the smart conducting microgels and at least one cosmetic agent (cosmetically active molecules, abstract, page 1156, left column).
Regarding claim 12, Aguirre discloses the self-assembled microgel film used for skin protection, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a step of applying on keratin materials (skin) the smart conducting microgels and applying a compression on said product.is inherently disclosed.
Regarding claim 13, Aguirre discloses a cosmetic product comprising the smart conducting microgels and at least one therapeutic agent (salicylic acid, , page 1156, left column).
Regarding claim 15, Aguirre discloses series of films obtained by drying or evaporating solvent of from the smart conductive microgels, or from the self-assembled microgel film made with the smart conductive microgels, wherein each film or each self-assembled microgel film in the series of films, is connected, respectively, to another film or self-assembled microgel film (multi-layered cohesive self-assembled microgel films, page 1156, left column).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIDUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5455. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 10a-3p.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/HAIDUNG D NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
1/30/2026