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 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 I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 6/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the patent office has not established that it would pose an undue burden to examine the full scope of the claimed invention. This is not found persuasive because the inventions require a different filed of search (for example, searching different groups/subgroups or electronic resources, or employing different search queries). Further, the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Examiner’s Comment
Claim 1 recites “density in the range of from 0,01 to 1 g/cm3”. It appears that the claim should recite “density in a range of from 0.01 to 1 g/cm3”. Claim 1 also recites “diameter in the range of from 15 to 70 µm”. It appears that the claim should recite “diameter in a range of from 15 to 70 µm”. Claim 1 also recites “average size in the range of from 50 to 100 µm”. It appears that the claim should recite “average size in a range of from 50 to 100 µm”. Claim 1 also recites “wherein the total quantity of the coating in the range of from 2 to 100 g/m2”. It appears that the claim should recite “wherein a total quantity of the coating is in a range of from 2 to 200 g/m2”.
Claim 5 recites “the coating adjusts the pH at the surface of the composition”. It appears that the claim should recite “the coating adjusts a pH at a surface of the composition”.
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 1-8 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a density in the range of from 0,01 to 1 g/cm3”, and the claim also recites “preferably in the range of from 0,02 to 0,05 g/cm3, in particular in the range of from 0,02 to 0,04 g/cm3” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 1 also recites the broad recitation “an average diameter in the range of from 15 to 70 µm”, and the claim also recites “preferably in the range of from 25 to 65 µm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 1 also recites the broad recitation “the coating is in the range of from 2 to 100 g/m2”, and the claim also recites “preferably in the range of from 3.5 to 9 g/m2” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 2 recites the broad recitation “the average size of at least 70%”, and the claim also recites “preferably of at least 80%, in particular of at least 90%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 3 recites the broad recitation “group comprising nature and/or synthetic polymers or mixtures thereof”, and the claim also recites “in particular polysaccharides, glucosaminoglycanes, proteins and/or synthetic polymers or mixtures thereof” which is the narrower statement of the limitation. Claim 5 recites the broad recitation “pores to a range of from 3,0 to 9,0”, and the claim also recites “preferably in the range of from 6,0 to 8,0” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedrich et al. (US Patent Application No. 2011/0251574).
Regarding claim 1, Hedrich et al. teach a composition comprising a porous material (page 1, paragraphs [0010], [0017]), wherein said porous material comprises a biomaterial (page 1, paragraphs [0010], [0017]) and comprises a plurality of open and interconnected pores with pore surfaces (page 2, paragraph [0032]), wherein said pores have a size of 5 to 500 µm which read on Applicant’s claimed average diameter in the range of from 15 to 70 µm, preferably in the range of from 25 to 65 µm (page 6, paragraph [0093]), characterized in that said porous material is coated with an electrostatically chargeable powder comprising particles (page 1, paragraphs [0010], [0011], page 6, paragraph [0085]).
Hedrich et al. do not disclose wherein said porous material has a density in the range of from 0.01 to 1 g/cm3, preferably in the range of from 0.02 to 0.05 g/cm3, in particular in the range of from 0.02 to 0.04 g/cm3, wherein said particles have an average size in the range from 50 to 100 µm, and wherein the total quantity of the coating is in the range of from 2 to 100 g/m2, preferably in the range of from 3.5 to 9 g/m2. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in density, particle size and quantity involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the density, particle size and quantity of coating of Hedrich et al. in order to improve hemostasis (Hedrich et al., page 1, paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 2, Hedrich et al. do not disclose wherein the average size of at least 70%, preferably of at least 80%, in particular of at least 90% of said particles exceeds the average diameter of said pores. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in particle size involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the particle size of Hedrich et al. in order to improve hemostasis (Hedrich et al., page 1, paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 3, Hedrich et al. teach wherein said porous material is selected from the group comprising natural or synthetic polymers, in particular polysaccharides or synthetic polymers (page 1, paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 4, Hedrich et al. teach wherein said porous material is collagen (page 1, paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 5, Hedrich et al. teach wherein the coating adjusts the pH at the surface of the composition (page 6, paragraphs [0085], [0087]) and the surface of the pores to about 8 which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of from 3.0 to 9.0 (page 6, paragraph [0087]).
Regarding claim 6, Hedrich et al. teach wherein said powder comprises a salt (page 1, paragraphs [0010], [0011], page 6, paragraph [0085]).
Regarding claim 7, Hedrich et al. teach wherein said powder comprises a compound that is sodium bicarbonate (page 6, paragraph [0085]).
Regarding claim 8, Hedrich et al. teach wherein the porous material is coated with a layer of a polymer (page 1, paragraphs [0010], [0011]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINESSA GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5543. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 4:00 EST.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached on 571-272-1490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Chinessa T. Golden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 7/24/2026
Prosecution Insights