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 . 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 10-14, in the reply filed on 06/29/2026, is acknowledged. No grounds were given for the traversal.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-9 and 15-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/29/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 - Obviousness
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) 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nunes et al (US 2016/0346427 A1), in view of Gerecht et al (US 2019/0070339 A1).
Nunes taught hydrogels and methods of making hydrogels from flowable microfiber suspensions [0002]. The hydrogel comprised a liquid plurality of microfibers suspended in the liquid as an entangled network, wherein the entangled network comprised physically entangled microfibers that were mechanically interlocked [claim 1]. The liquid comprised a polymer solution [claim 5] (e.g., an aqueous polymer solution, [0056]). The diameter and length of the microfibers were controlled under pulsed ultraviolet light and a photoreactive fiber solution (e.g., reads on photo initiator) [0044] under shear flow to physically entangle the microfibers [claim 7]. The aspect ratio (L/D) was about 200 to about 10,000 [claim 2; see also ¶ 0004 for the citation to L/D]. The hydrogels comprised 54 % PEG-DA (biocompatible microfiber) and 42 % water [Example 1].
Although Nunes taught microfiber hydrogels comprised of PEG-DA and water, Nunes was not specific the claimed 1-7 % microfiber and 93-99 % water, as recited in claim 10.
Gerecht taught microfiber hydrogels with improved mechanical properties [abstract], comprised of 1 % PEGDA [0135 and Table 1] and greater than about 95 % or greater than about 98 % water [0081].
Regarding the amounts of the microfiber and water, the differences in the claimed subject matter and the prior art are 54 % PEG-DA and 42 % water (Nunes) and 1 % PEGDA and greater than 95 % or 98 % water (Gerecht); versus 1-7 % microfiber and 93-99 % water (instant claim 10).
Nunes was not silent as the amount of the microfiber and water. For example, Nunes taught 54 % PEG-DA and 42 % water. However, Nunes was not specific as the claimed amounts of 1-7 % microfiber and 93-99 % water. Nevertheless, Gerecht taught that these ingredients were useful at 1 % PEGDA and greater than 95 % or 98 % water, amounts that are similar to the amounts instantly recited. These ingredients, and their amounts, are recognized to have different effects (greater or less manufacture of the hydrogel) with changing amounts used. Thus, the general conditions (the concentration) is known, and the amounts of these ingredients are recognized to be result effective. As such, result effective variables can be optimized by routine experimentation, and it would have been prima facie obvious to have optimized the amounts of the microfiber and water present in the hydrogel of Nunes, as taught by Gerecht et al. See MPEP 2144.05.
The instant claim 10 recites 1-7 % microfiber and 93-99 % water.
Gerecht taught 1 % PEGDA and greater than 95 % or greater than 98 % water. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 A. With the combined teachings of Nunes and Gerecht, the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the claimed range of the microfiber and water.
Claims 11-12 are rendered prima facie obvious because Nunes taught a syringe and microfluidic device [claims 13, 15; ¶ 0032-0033, 0035-0037, 0043, 0052, 0054, 0061, 0077].
Claims 13-14 are rendered prima facie obvious because Nunes did not teach surfactants and organic solvents as required ingredients.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CELESTE A RONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 8 AM-6 PM.
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, Sahana S Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/CELESTE A RONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights