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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are under examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: structures on pg 5, pg 20, pg 23, and pg 24 are blurry and difficult to read.
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the terms: DC Bead, CalliSphere, and Span 80, which are a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the font size is different. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “a structure containing an aldehyde, a hemiacetal, or an acetal”. The examiner notes that the claim places no further limitation on “a structure” besides that the structure contains the functional groups. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets this to mean that any structure in the prior art, so long as it has an aldehyde, hemiacetal or acetal, reads on R2.
Claim 3 recites 3 structures. The examiner notes that the structures do not indicate where they are to attach to Formula I of claim 1. The examiner notes that in the examples in the specification show a point of connection to the right of the R3 notation (e.g. pg 5, para [0010]). The methyl group is not present. Therefore, for the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets these three structures as having R3 attached to the NH of the amide of formula I and any prior art containing the R3 attached to the nitrogen reads on this limitation.
Claim 3 further recites “a saturated or unsaturated C1-C6 alkylene group”. The examiner notes that no direction is given to whether or not this is a linear or branched alkylene group. The examiner further notes that the specification has an instance of both (pg 5, para [0010]). Therefore, for the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets this phrase to read on both linear and branched alkylene groups and any prior art containing these groups reads on this limitation.
Claims 5 and 8 recites “iodobenzoic acid derivative”. The term derivative is broad and the claim gives no further guidance as to the scope. In view of the specification, the examiner notes that iodobenzoic acid derivative can be derivatized on the iodobenzo-portion of the molecule or on the acid-portion of the molecule. Therefore, for the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets any prior art containing iodobenzoic acid portion of the molecule to read on this claim limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: explicit point of attachment between R2 and nitrogen of amide group of Formula I.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pomper, M. C.; et al. (US 2016/0008493 A1, as cited in the IDS filed on 06/12/2024).
Pomper, M. C.; et al. (hereafter referred to as Pomper) is drawn to a molecule for detection of cancer cells (title; abstract). Pomper teaches a general class of molecules useful for uptake by cancer cells (pg 1, para [0005], Formula I) and radiolabeled forms (pg 2, para [0009]). Pomper also teaches the synthesis of these molecules (pg 8, para [0071]-[0078]; pg 8, para [0073], scheme 1; pg 9, para [0079], scheme 3).
As to claim 1, Pomper teaches Formula I wherein R1 is a phenyl group substituted with 1 to 4 iodine atoms and R2 is a structure containing an aldehyde (pg 4, para [0040]; pg 8, para [0073], structures IBz-A-DA and IBz-A).
Pomper does not teach Formula I is a X-ray developable molecule.
However, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01(I). In this case, the claimed product and the prior art product have identical structures, therefore, inherency is present and the prior art molecule is a X-ray developable molecule.
As to claim 2, Pomper teaches R1 is a phenyl ring with iodine in the para position (pg 8, para [0073], structures IBz-A-DA and IBz-A).
As to claim 3, Pomper teaches R2 is an aldehyde where R3 is C1 (pg 8, para [0073], structure IBz-A; claim 7; claim 9).
As to claim 5, Pomper teaches a method of preparing a molecule comprising reacting a compound containing an amino group and a hemiacetal with an iodobenzoic acid derivative (pg 8, Scheme 1; pg 9, Scheme 3, step 1).
As to claim 6, Pomper teaches the hemiacetal where R3 is C1 and where n and n1 is 1 (pg 8, Scheme 1; pg 9, Scheme 3, step 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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(s) 4 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pomper, M. C.; et al. (US 2016/0008493 A1, as cited in the IDS filed on 06/12/2024) and Polniaszek, R. P.; et al. (US 6,515,136 B1).
Pomper, M. C.; et al. (hereafter referred to as Pomper) is drawn to a molecule for detection of cancer cells (title; abstract). Pomper teaches a general class of molecules useful for uptake by cancer cells (pg 1, para [0005], Formula I) and radiolabeled forms (pg 2, para [0009]). Pomper also teaches the synthesis of these molecules (pg 8, para [0071]-[0078]; pg 8, para [0073], scheme 1; pg 9, para [0079], scheme 3).
As to claim 4, Pomper teaches a phenyl with 3 iodines (pg 4, para [0040]; claim 7) and where R2 is a hemiacetal (col 24, lines 39-53; pg 8, para [0074], structure IBz-A-DA).
Pomper does not expressly teach a single embodiment comprising all the features of the claimed product. However, it would be prima facie obvious prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the embodiments a hemiacetal with a phenyl with three iodo substituents taught by Pomper as a skilled artisan recognizes that these claim elements are known in the art and that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Therefore, a person of ordinary skilling in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Polniaszek, R. P.; et al. (hereafter referred to as Polniaszek) is drawn to molecules for use against hypertension (title; abstract). Polniaszek teaches biphenyl isoxazole sulfonamides (col 1, lines 20-30, Formula I) and a variety of intermediates including halophenyl compounds with hemiacetal groups (col 14, lines 5-45; col 24, lines 39-67).
Alternatively, Polniaszek teaches hemiacetals (col 14, lines 30-45, Formula XII), where R1 and R2 are hydrogen (col 1, line 66 to col 2, line 1), where the alkyl groups are methyl (col 15, lines 5-7; col 5, lines 64-67) where R11 and R12 are halo (col 2, line 36-37 and 44), and where the halo groups are iodine (col 15, lines 1-3).
Similarly, Polniaszek does not expressly teach a single embodiment comprising all the features of the claimed product. However, it would be prima facie obvious prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the embodiments a hemiacetal with methyl ether groups and iodo halo groups taught by Polniaszek as a skilled artisan recognizes that these claim elements are known in the art and that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Therefore, a person of ordinary skilling in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
As to claim 7, Pomper teaches the iodobenzoic acid derivative where R1 is an iodine substituted phenyl group (pg 8, Scheme 1; pg 9, Scheme 3, step 1).
Pomper does not teach the hydroxyl, carboxyl, acyl chloride, or acyl bromide group.
Polniaszek teaches the iodobenzoic acid derivative with an acyl chloride or acyl bromide (col 14, lines 5-17; col 15, lines 1-3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to substitute the activated ester of Pomper with the acyl halides as taught by Polniaszek because the substituted components and their functions were known in the art, and the substitution would have yielded the predictable outcome of an acyl halide derivative of the iodobenzoic acid derivative where R1 is a phenyl group with iodo substituents.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in substituting one known reactive carbonyl moiety with another because within organic chemistry, both activated esters and acyl halides enable reactions to primary amines very easily. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to make the substitution from an activated ester to an acyl halide because acyl halides are more reactive and possess faster reaction kinetics.
As to claim 8, Polniaszek teaches a method of adding the compound, the iodobenzoic acid derivative (4-iodobenzoyl chloride), an alkali (potassium bicarbonate) to an organic solvent (acetone) from about 0 oC to room temperature for 4.5 hours (col 24, lines 39-65) and removing the organic solvent to obtain the molecule (col 24, lines 66-67; col 25, lines 1-8). In the case of the reaction temperature, the prior art temperature range of about 0 to room temperature is about 0-25oC. This prior art range overlaps with the claimed temperature range of 0-40oC. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). In the case of the reaction time, the prior art reaction time was 4.5 hours. However, the reaction was completed in 3 hrs. This creates a prior art reaction time range of 3-4.5 hours. This range lies inside the claimed range of 0.5-48 hrs. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
As to claim 9, Polniaszek teaches the organic solvent is acetone (col 24, lines 56-59) and an alkali, potassium bicarbonate (col 24, lines 56-59).
Polniaszek does not teach an alkali selected from the list of claim 9.
Pomper teaches the alkali is triethylamine and where the organic solvent is tetrahydrofuran (pg 8, para [0072], lines 2-4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to substitute the alkali of Polniaszek with the triethylamine taught by Pomper because the substituted components and their functions were known in the art, and the substitution would have yielded the predictable outcome of an alkali enabling the reaction under the reaction conditions.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in substituting one known alkali with another because both potassium bicarbonate and triethylamine serve the same function in their respective solvents. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to make the substitution from a potassium bicarbonate to triethylamine due to improved solubility of triethylamine in organic solvents.
Claim(s) 10 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pomper and Polniaszek as applied to claims 1-9 above, and further in view of Tang, Y.; et al. (US 2021/0115171 A1, as cited in the IDS filed on 06/12/2024). The teachings of Pomper and Polniaszek as applied in the previous rejection are incorporated in this rejection.
As to claim 10, Pomper teaches the molecule of claim 1 (pg 4, para [0040]; pg 8, para [0073], structures IBz-A-DA and IBz-A).
Pomper does not teach binding or coupling the molecule of claim 1 to a polyhydroxy polymer microsphere.
Tang, Y.; et al. (hereafter referred to as Tang) is drawn to polyhydroxy polymer microspheres ((abstract; pg 1, para [0001], line 5; pg 1, para [0003], lines 1-4). Tang teaches polyhydroxy polymers (pg 1, para [0010]) crosslinking the polymers (pg 1, para [0013]) and iodinated pendant groups (pg 3, para [0046], formula 4a and 4b; pg 7, para [0098]). And, Tang teaches methods of preparing the microspheres (pg 9, para [0133]-[0140]; pg 11; para [0162]-[0164]).
Regarding the microsphere bound or coupled to molecules of claim 1, Tang teaches polyhydroxy polymer microspheres (abstract; pg 1, para [0001], line 5; pg 1, para [0003], lines 1-4) and that they can be bound to molecules through acetal linkages (pg 12, para [0164], reaction scheme) and that the molecules may be iodinated phenyls with a linker binding or coupling the polymer and the iodinated phenyl (pg 12, para [0164]; pg 17, para [0194], reaction scheme).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to substitute the iodinated phenyl compound of Pomper into the polyhydroxy polymer microsphere iodinated compound as taught by Tang because the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one iodinated molecule for another, and the results of the substitution would have yielded the predictable outcome of the molecule of claim 1 as a pendent group on polyhydroxy polymer.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in substituting the pendent molecule of Tang with the iodinated compound of Pomper because the hemiacetal functional groups for binding or coupling the pendent group to the polymer perform the same. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to substitute the pendent groups because of the ready uptake of Pomper’s pendent group in vivo and targeting capabilities.
As to claim 14, Tang teaches that the polymer contains iodine in the range of equal to or greater than 10 % w/w (pg 8, para [0116]) the microspheres contain an amount of iodine in the range of greater than 10% w/w which overlaps with the claimed range of greater than 3 w/w% (col 10, lines 25-29; col 33, lines 33-48, Table 3). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
As to claim 15, Tang teaches a method of adding an X-ray developable molecule, solvent, adding an acid and polyhydroxy polymer microsphere (pg 12, para [0164], lines 1-6; pg 13, para [0174]) and reacting the polyhydroxy polymer microsphere and the molecule (pg 12, para [0164], lines 7-8; pg 13, para [0174]) and removing the solvent (pg 12, para [0164], lines 12-13; pg 13, para [0174]).
As to claim 16, Tang teaches polyhydroxy polymer microsphere comprises a polymer or polysaccharide (pg 1, para [0009], col 1, lines 1-3 and pg 1, para [0009] col 2, lines 8-12) selected from the group consisting of polyvinyl alcohol (pg 1, para [0009], col 2, line 7), chitosan, alginates, cellulose, and modified cellulose (pg 1, para [0009], col 2, lines 9-11).
As to claim 17, Tang teaches the acids as sulphuric acid, methanesulfonic acid, acetic acid (pg 7, para [0103]).
As to claim 18, Tang teaches the solvents as DMSO and N-methylpyrrolidone (pg 2, para [0027]).
Claim(s) 11-12 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pomper and Polniaszek and Tang as applied to claims 1-10 and 14-18 above, and further in view of Huang, H.; et al. (CN108114308A, as cited in the IDS filed on 06/12/2024, references made to machine translated document attached in this office action). The teachings of Pomper, Polniaszek, and Tang as applied in the previous rejection are incorporated in this rejection.
As to claim 11, Tang teaches a crosslinked copolymer of a polyhydroxy polymer with a water-soluble molecule containing one or more unsaturated bonds (pg 2, para [0023], line 1).
Tang does not teach crosslinkers containing one or more aldehyde or acetal goups.
Huang, H.; et al. (hereafter referred to as Huang) is drawn to polymer microspheres containing density elements and their method of preparation (title). Huang teaches methods to make embolization microspheres more visible under X-ray (pg 5, para [0006]) through making polymeric microspheres and crosslinking them and adding high-density elements (pg 5, para [0006]). Specifically, Huang teaches the synthesis of polyvinyl alcohol microspheres with high-density cross-linker compounds (pg 10, para [0035] – pg 13, para [0046]).
Regarding aldehyde and acetal groups, Huang teaches crosslinking groups with acetal or aldehyde (pg 7, para [0014]; pg 7, para [0017]) and teaches at least one unsaturated bond (pg 7, para [0017], line 2-3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the crosslinkers of Tang to include one or more aldehyde or acetal groups as taught by Huang because these claim elements were known in the art and one of skill in the art could have combined these elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded the predictable outcome of crosslinkers with aldehyde or acetal groups.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining functional groups of Huang with crosslinkers of Tang because both aldehydes and acetals are known to bind well to hydroxy groups. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to use aldehyde or acetal functional groups on the crosslinkers because of the similarity to the iodinated pendent groups binding to the polymer.
As to claim 12, Huang teaches crosslinking agents selected from carboxylic acid, carboxylate, sulfonate, or sulfonic acid compounds (pg 7, para [0016]; pg 7, para [0017], lines 3-6) containing one or more unsaturated bonds (pg 17, para [0016], lines 1-6).
As to claim 19, Huang teaches a method of dissolving a polyhydroxy polymer in water (pg 10, para [0036], lines 1-4), then adding a water-soluble molecule containing one or more unsaturated bonds and one or more aldehydes (pg 10, para [0036], lines 4-5), and an inorganic acid (pg 10, para [0036], line 5); reacting the polyhydroxy polymer with the water-soluble molecule to form a solution containing a microsphere intermediate (pg 10, para [0036], lines 6-7); then reaction was stopped by basifying the solution (pg 10, para [0036], line 7), and the solution was concentrated (pg 10, para [0036], lines 8-9).; then the microsphere intermediate (pg 10, para [0037], lines 4-5), crosslinking agent containing one or more anionic functional groups and one or more unsaturated bonds (pg 10, para [0037], line 2) and an initiator (pg 10, para [0037], line 3) were dissolved in water (pg 10, para [0037], lines 2-6), a solvent (pg 10, para [0037], line 7), a surfactant (pg 10, para [0037], line 7), and an organic alkali (pg 10, para [0037], line 10-11) were added to the water (pg 10, para [0037], lines 7-11), the microsphere intermediate, crosslinking agent, and initiator were reacted under an inert gas (pg 10, para [0037], lines 8-11 and pg 11, para [0037], lines 1), and then filtering and washing the reaction mixture to obtain the polyhydroxy polymer microsphere (pg 11, para [0037], lines 3-9; claim 10, lines 6-11).
Huang does not expressly teach the claimed pH of 7-9.
Huang does teach the addition of sodium hydroxide in 1-4 parts (claim 9, step 2, lines 7-8; pg 8, para [0021], lines 7-8). The parts correspond to 0.1-1 part hydrochloric acid added (claim 9, step 2, lines 5-6). In the case when 1 part HCl is added and 1 part NaOH is added, the pH is neutral at pH 7. In the case where more NaOH is added than HCl, the pH is greater than 7. Therefore, the pH of the prior art method describes a pH range greater than or equal to 7. The claimed pH range of 7-9 lies within the prior art range of greater than or equal to 7. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Additionally, pH is a measure of the concentration of hydrogen ions in aqueous solution. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[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(II)(A).
As to claim 20, Huang teaches the polyhydroxy polymer is reacted with the water-soluble molecule at 10-30oC for 3-8 hours (claim 9, step 2, line 7; pg 10, para [0036], lines 5-6). The claimed temperature range of 10-35oC overlaps the prior art range of 10-30oC. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Additionally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pomper and Polniaszek and Tang as applied to claims 1-10 above, and further in view of Gadea, J. L.; et al. Chemical-physical behavior of hydrogels of poly(vinyl alcohol) and poly(ethylene glycol), European Polym. J., 2013, 49, 3582-3589. The teachings of Pomper and Polniaszek and Tang as applied in the previous rejection are incorporated in this rejection.
As to claim 13, Tang teaches cross-linking of the polyhydroxy polymers (pg 2, para [0028]; pg 10, para [0148], Reaction Scheme).
Tang does not teach polyhydroxy polymer crosslinked with a water-miscible compound containing two or more aldehyde or acetal groups.
Gadea, J. L.; et al. (hereafter referred to as Gadea) is drawn to hydrogels made with poly(vinyl alcohol) and poly(ethylene glycol) crosslinked with agents and studies the preparation, and behavior of the hydrogels (title; abstract). Gadea teaches that poly(vinyl alcohol)s can be crosslinked with bifunctional and polyfunctional condensing agents such as glutaraldehyde, maleic or oxalic acid (pg 3582, col 1, lines 8-11) and teaches methods of preparing crosslinked polyhydroxy polymers (pg 3583, col 2, para 1, lines 1-10), and the characterization of the hydrogels (Fig 1-9).
Regarding two or more aldehyde or acetal groups, Gadea teaches crosslinking polyhydroxy polymers with water-miscible compounds containing two aldehyde groups (pg 3582, col 1, lines 7-11).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the crosslinking compounds of Tang to include crosslinking compounds with two aldehydes as taught by Gadea because these claim elements were known in the art and one of skill in the art could have combined these elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded the predictable outcome of water-miscible crosslinking compounds containing two aldehydes.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using a water-miscible crosslinking compound containing two aldehydes because Gadea directly teaches that PVA may be crosslinked with the water-miscible glutaraldehyde which contains two aldehyde groups. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to use a water-miscible crosslinking agent containing two aldehyde groups because the reaction can proceed under the same conditions through which the the pendent groups are bound to the polyhydroxy polymer.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Evan M Lewoczko whose telephone number is (571)272-9830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5PM.
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 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.
/EVAN M LEWOCZKO/
Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights