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 .
Acknowledgement is made to Applicant’s response filed 09/03/2026.
Claims 1-39 are pending.
Claims 9-15, 18, and 20-39 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected groups or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/03/2026. It is noted that the requirement included the election of any additional components present, wherein Applicant did not elect the presence of the core material, capsule material, tableting ingredients, or other additives or excipients.
Claims 1-8, 16, 17, and 19 are currently under consideration to the extent that they read upon Applicant’s elected species.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 16, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Asma et al (IDS Reference).
Asma teaches microgel particles in a maltodextrin matrix (see entire document, for instance, Abstract). The microgel particles are taught as being made of sodium alginate that is crosslinked with calcium chloride (see entire document, for instance, 2764, left column, last paragraph). The sodium alginate is taught as being present in an amount of 2% w/v (2000ml) (see entire document, for instance, paragraph bridging pages 2764-5). The matrix is taught as being present in an amount of 5% w/w (see entire document, for instance, paragraph bridging pages 2764-5). The microgel particles are taught as having a mean size of 35 microns (see entire document, for instance, 2765, right column, last paragraph). It is noted that the composition has the capability of being a biological cell carrier or cell adhesive microparticle.
With regard to claim 19, It is noted that the composition of Asma is taught as comprising 5% w/w prior to spray and freeze drying. As such, when the composition is dried, the percentage w/w of the maltodextrin would significantly increase.
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) 1-8, 16, 17, and 19 (all claims currently under consideration) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asma et al (IDS Reference).
Asma teaches microgel particles in a maltodextrin matrix (see entire document, for instance, Abstract). The microgel particles are taught as being made of sodium alginate that is crosslinked with calcium chloride (see entire document, for instance, 2764, left column, last paragraph). The sodium alginate is taught as being present in an amount of 2% w/v (2000ml) (see entire document, for instance, paragraph bridging pages 2764-5). The matrix is taught as being present in an amount of 5% w/w (see entire document, for instance, paragraph bridging pages 2764-5). The microgel particles are taught as having a mean size of 35 microns (see entire document, for instance, 2765, right column, last paragraph). It is noted that the composition has the capability of being a biological cell carrier or cell adhesive microparticle.
Asma, while teaching all of the instantly claimed components and their instantly claimed orientations, and further teaching the maltodextrin is present in an amount of 5% w/w prior to spray and freeze drying does not expressly teach that the maltodextrin is present in at least 10 weight %.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to utilize at least 10 weight percent maltodextrin in the composition of Asma. One would have been motivated to do so by the process of drying the composition as expressly taught in Asma. As the composition is dried, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the % w/w of maltodextrin would increase.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TREVOR M LOVE whose telephone number is (571)270-5259. The examiner can normally be reached M-F typically 6:30-3.
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, Bethany Barham can be reached at 5712726175. 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.
/TREVOR LOVE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611
