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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11-15, 17-8 and 28) in the reply filed on 4/29/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 21, 24-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/29/26.
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of the Information Disclosure Statement filed December 10 2024. The Examiner has considered the references cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see the attached USPTO Form 1449.
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 –
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 11, 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gungor-Ozkerim et al (Biomater sci 2018 May 1:6(5):915-946).
With regards to instant claim 1, Gungor-Ozkerim teaches a bioink composition comprising crosslinking polymer such as poly(ethylene glycol)diacrylate (PEDGA) (as required by instant claims 1,4 and 6 (see sec. 2.3), comprising a rheological modifier (see introduction), additive such as bacterial, nanoparticles (see sec.4, as required by claims 1 and 11), wherein the unmodified crosslinking biopolymer is a collagen, GELMA (see sec 2.4-2.5 and3, as required by instant claims 5 and 7-8) crosslinked by exposure to UV (as required by instant claim 17, see sec 2.3). The printability is anticipated as the composition comprises all the required and therefore it is an inherent property as required by instant claim 1) and is extrudable (see sec 2.3, as required by instant claim 15) and wherein the rheology modifier is PEGX-PEG (ie., partially crosslinked polyacrylic acid interpolymer (as required by instant claim 2, see sec 2.4).
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.
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) 1-2, 3-8, 11-15, 17-18 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gungor-Ozkerim et al (Biomater sci 2018 May 1:6(5):915-946) in view of Bagley et al. (WO 2018/071639) and Huang et al. (US 2019/0275746) ..
Gungor-Ozkerim is applied here as above. However fails to teach that the bioink is thixotropic as required by instant claim 14 and fails to teach also that the rheological modifier is a carbopol as required by instant claims 18 and 28.
Bagley teaches a bioink composition comprising thixotropic (see 0076) with a shear viscosity in the range from 100-150,000 Pas (see 0076, claim 41) wherein the bioink can also be crosslinked using PEGDA (see 0081) wherein the pH can vary from a basic , neutral or acidic (see 0087).
Huang teaches bioink composition (0301) at a concentration 0.5, 1.0’ 2.0% (see 0301) comprising thixotropic (see 0122) and carbopol as the rheological modifier (see 0031) at a concentration 0.05%, 0.2% and 1.0% (see 0183), wherein the viscosity decreases with shear rate (see 0311) (as required by instant claims 12-14 18 and 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have expanded the teachings of Gungor-Ozkerim to include Bagley and Huang to result in the instant claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success, because One would have been motivated to combine these references and make the modification because they are drawn to same technical fields (constituted with same ingredients and share common utilities, and pertinent to the problem which applicant concerns about. MPEP 2141.01(a)
No claims are allowed.
Prior art Wu et al. (WO 2019/236891) teach with regards to instant claim 1 a bioink composition (see abstract) comprising a synthetic cross linking polymer poly(ethylene glycol)diacrylate (see 0011, as required by instant claim 1, 4 and 6), additives (see 0097) and printable (see 0002, 0004), wherein the gel is hyaluronic acid (see 0062, as required by instant claim 8) is made of record but not used in the rejection above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIRLEY V GEMBEH whose telephone number is (571)272-8504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Robert A. Wax can be reached at 571-272-0623. 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.
/SHIRLEY V GEMBEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615 6/23/26
Prosecution Insights