CTNF 18/580,416 CTNF 84226 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10, 13, 14, 17, 23, 25, 40, and 41 in the reply filed on 03/03/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant’s election of the species: A. a hydrogel for the single disclosed polymer, strained alkene for the first moiety, and tetrazinyl group as the second moiety, B. calcium salt, and C. biologic in the reply filed on 03/03/2026 is also acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 2, 7, 10, 13, 14, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1) and (a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Wheeler et al (US2020/0391211) . Wheeler et al discloses two fluid streams which create droplets and combine a polymer precursor with crosslinkers, resulting in the formation of gel microcapsules (¶ 95). With regards to claim 7, the crosslinker appears to be in the aerosol component. With regards to claim 10, the flow of the two streams appears to be the same absent teaching otherwise. With regards to claim 13, given UV radiation is not disclosed, it appears to be absent. With regards to claim 14, the collection is interpreted as the combining of the precursor and crosslinker, which is in a third stream. That stream is interpreted as a “bath”, given it engulfs the particles. With regards to claim 40, where the reaction is between a polymer precurser and crosslinker, as required by claim 1, it appears the functional reaction of being a click chemistry reaction is met . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 13, 14, 17, 23, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US2020/0391211) . With regards to claim 3, biological particles may be encapsulated (¶ 91). With regards to claim 5, acoustic files may be used to supplement droplet formation (¶ 160). With regards to claim 17, the particles are taught to have sizes less than 250 µm (¶ 111). With regards toc claim 23, varying the biological is taught to vary the concentration encapsulated (¶ 146) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 41 is 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. While the process is anticipated and made obvious as discussed above, there is no teaching in the prior art to react a norbornenyl functional group with a tetrazinyl functional group to form particles. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J PACKARD whose telephone number is (571)270-3440. The examiner can normally be reached Mon 2-6pm and Tues-Fri 9:30am-6:30pm + mid-day flex. 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. /BENJAMIN J PACKARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612 Application/Control Number: 18/580,416 Page 2 Art Unit: 1612 Application/Control Number: 18/580,416 Page 3 Art Unit: 1612 Application/Control Number: 18/580,416 Page 4 Art Unit: 1612 Application/Control Number: 18/580,416 Page 5 Art Unit: 1612
Prosecution Insights