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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3 are under consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-3, drawn to polyalkylene oxide particles in the reply filed on June 5, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-3 as filed on July 22, 2024 are under consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 22, 2024 was considered.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not limited to a single paragraph. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The use of terms such as Aerosil (e.g., paragraph [0056]), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the terms.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sarangapani (US 2008/0142368, published May 29, 2008, of record).
Regarding claim 1
Sarangapani teaches antimicrobial compositions and articles thereof and exemplifies an embodiment wherein polyethylene oxide powder is sieved to 54 microns such as between 45 and 54 microns (title; abstract; claims; paragraphs [0032], [0067], [0077]).
Regarding claims 2 and 3
Regarding the aqueous solution viscosities, because Sarangapani is in possession of and anticipates particles as instantly claimed, the particles of Sarangapani must also possess the instantly claimed aqueous solution viscosities because a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. See MPEP 2112.01 II.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato et al. (US 2014/0106171, published April 17, 2014, IDS reference filed July 22, 2024).
Regarding claim 1
Kato teaches polyalkylene oxide particles comprising 10% by mass or more, such as 100% by mass, of particles having a particle diameter of less than 150 microns (title; abstract; claims, in particular claim 5; paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claims 2 and 3
Regarding the aqueous solution viscosities, because Kato is in possession of and anticipates particles as instantly claimed, the particles of Kato must also possess the instantly claimed aqueous solution viscosities because a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. See MPEP 2112.01 II.
The above teachings therefore anticipate 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US 2014/0106171, published April 17, 2014, IDS reference filed July 22, 2024).
Kato is applied herewith under a different interpretation in the interest of compact prosecution
Kato teaches polyalkylene oxide particles comprising 10% by mass or more, such as 100% by mass, of particles having a particle diameter of less than 150 microns (title; abstract; claims, in particular claim 5; paragraph [0041]). Kato exemplifies embodiments of particles (Table 2):
PNG
media_image1.png
214
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, the particles of Example 2 comprise 4.4 + 5.6 + 2.7 + 10.1 +8.4 (=32 wt%) particles having a size of 150 microns or more and comprise 4.4 + 5.6 (=10.0 wt%) particles having a size of 300 microns or more. Because 10 wt% does not fall within the range of less than 10 wt%, anticipation cannot be found. However, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US 2014/0106171, published April 17, 2014, IDS reference filed July 22, 2024) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ji et al. (US 2017/0252479, published September 7, 2017).
The teachings of Kato have been described supra. Kato further teaches polyalkylene oxide is water soluble and is used as a viscous agent (paragraph [0002]). Kato further teaches the particles have excellent uniformity (paragraphs [0005], [0040], [0042], [0082]).
Kato does not explicitly teach a 1 mass% aqueous solution viscosity of 40 to 20,000 mPa.s as required by claim 2.
Kato does not explicitly teach a 1 mass% aqueous solution viscosity less than 40 mPa.s and a 5 mass% aqueous solution viscosity of 30 to 50,000 mPa.s as required by claim 3.
These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Ji.
Ji teaches polyethylene oxide particles with a particle size ranging from 0.5 to 2000 microns, preferably from 30 to 250 microns (title; abstract; claims; paragraphs [0010], [0011], [0019]). The particles have a viscosity of a 1% aqueous solution not lower than 30 mPa.s (paragraph [0022]), as required by instant claims 2, 3. See MPEP 2144.05. The particles have a viscosity of a 6.67% aqueous solution not lower than 30 mPa.s (paragraph [0021]). The viscosity has a correlation with molecular weight (paragraph [0011]). The particles have utility as a biocompatible hemostatic product (e.g., title).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polyalkylene oxide particles of Kato to have a viscosity not lower than 30 mPa.s at 1% and a viscosity not lower than mPa.s at 6.67% as taught by Ji because such particles have utility as biocompatible hemostatic products. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, although Ji does not expressly teach a solution viscosity at 5%, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the particles of Kato in view of Ji should also possess a viscosity not lower than 30 mPa.s at concentrations between 1 and 6.67% because this clear inference from Ji.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kato et al. (US 2014/0120349) teaches polyalkylene oxide particles, wherein the proportion of particles having a diameter less than 150 microns is less than 40 wt% (title; abstract; claims, in particular 5; Table 2; paragraph [0050]).
Katou et al. (US 2015/0141705) teaches a polyalkylene oxide; the powder of Example 1 had an aqueous solution viscosity of 16,700 mPas at 5% as summarized in Table 1 (title; abstract; claims).
Ido et al. (US 2017/0326398) teaches a polyalkylene oxide aqueous dispersion; a commercially available polyethylene oxide powder having a mean particle size of 63 microns has a viscosity of 320 mPa.s at 0.5 wt% (title; abstract; claims; paragraphs [0002], [0055]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISSA PROSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-5164. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th, 10 am - 6 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DAVID BLANCHARD can be reached on (571)272-0827. 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.
/ALISSA PROSSER/
Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/BENNETT M CELSA/Primary Examiner , Art Unit 1600
Prosecution Insights