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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on June 9, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 9, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sreenivasan (Journal of Applied Polymer Science, Vol. 82, 889-893, 2001).
Considering Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 9: Sreenivasan teaches a crosslinked polymer comprising a crosslinked polymer comprising acrylic acid/a monomer containing an acidic group, and cholesterol/a compound containing a hydroxyl group and a C27 alicyclic hydrocarbon group (Abstract, pg. 890).
Sreenivasan does not teach that the polymer is for separating a substance having a lipid bilayer from a sample of biological origin. However, this is a statement of intended use. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the preamble in one patent’s claim is limiting but is not in a related patent); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Considering Claim 8: Sreenivasan teaches the particle size as being 200 to 300 microns (pg. 890).
Claims 1-6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nilsson et al. (J. Phys. Chem. B 2007, 111, 9770-9778).
Considering Claims 1-6 and 9: Nilsson et al. teaches a crosslinked polymer (Section 2.2) comprising acrylic acid/a monomer unit containing an acidic group (Section 2.2) the crosslinked polymer comprising N-cetyl-N,N,N-trimethyl ammonium bromide/a C16 alkyl group containing compound having a cationic group of the formula N+Me3 (Section 2.3, 4.3).
Nilsson et al. does not teach that the polymer is for separating a substance having a lipid bilayer from a sample of biological origin. However, this is a statement of intended use. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the preamble in one patent’s claim is limiting but is not in a related patent); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Considering Claim 8: Nilsson et al. teaches embodiments with gel sizes between 100 and 160 microns (Figure 15).
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bysell et al. (Langmuir 2006, 22, 5476-5484).
Considering Claims 1, 3, 4, and 9: Bysell et al. teaches a crosslinked polymer comprising a crosslinked polymer comprising acrylic acid/a monomer unit comprising an acidic group, the crosslink polymer comprising polylysine/a cationic group containing compound (Experimental Section).
Bysell et al. does not teach that the polymer is for separating a substance having a lipid bilayer from a sample of biological origin. However, this is a statement of intended use. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the preamble in one patent’s claim is limiting but is not in a related patent); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Considering Claim 7: Bysell et al. teaches the pH of the gel as being 7 (Experimental Section).
Considering Claim 8: Bysell et al. teaches the particle size as being from 50 to 150 microns (Experimental Section).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. An et al. (US 2013/0202667) teaches a crosslinked hydrogel coated with lecithin (Example 1).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is (571)270-3297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/LIAM J HEINCER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights