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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/21/2026 has been acknowledged. Applicant's amendment and response filed on 08/21/2026 has been received and entered into the case.
Amendments
In the reply filed 08/21/2026, Applicant has amended claims 1-2, 8-9, 12, 15, 17, 21-24, 26 and 29, and added new claims 30-36.
Claim Status
Claims 1-2, 8-9, 12, 15, 17, 21-24, 26 and 29-36 are pending.
Claims 24 and 26 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to non-elected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/15/2025.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, 12, 15, 17, 21-23 and 29-36 are considered on the merits.
New Claim Objections
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 33 recites “The hybrid material l of claim 1” in the preamble, which contains a typographical error. It is recommended to change to “The hybrid material of claim 1”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The prior rejection of claims 1-2, 8-9, 12, 15, 17, 21-22 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mousa et al., (Chem. Mater. 2022, 34, 2752-2763. IDS 05/05/2025) in view of Yu et al., (Acta Biomaterialia. 2022; 139: 4-21, of record), Álvarez et al., (Science. 2021; 374: 848-856 and supplemental p. 1-3. Cited in IDS 05/05/2025), and Ahmed et al., (Adv. Sustainable Syst. 2022, 6, 2100316, p. 1-8, of record) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 to recite new limitation “the copolymer is mixed with the plurality of bioactive peptide amphiphiles within the hybrid material, forming a supramolecular complex”, that is not taught by the cited art.
The prior rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mousa et al., (Chem. Mater. 2022, 34, 2752-2763. IDS 05/05/2025) in view of Yu et al., (Acta Biomaterialia. 2022; 139: 4-21, of record), Álvarez et al., (Science. 2021; 374: 848-856 and supplemental p. 1-3. Cited in IDS 05/05/2025), and Ahmed et al., (Adv. Sustainable Syst. 2022, 6, 2100316, p. 1-8, of record), and further in view of Stupp et al., (US 2012/0294902, prior art of record) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 to recite new limitation “the copolymer is mixed with the plurality of bioactive peptide amphiphiles within the hybrid material, forming a supramolecular complex”, that is not taught by the cited art.
New 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.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, 12, 29-31 and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tovar et al., (Small. 2007, 3(12), 2024-2028. Prior art of record) in view of Mousa et al., (Chem. Mater. 2022, 34, 2752-2763. Cited in IDS 05/05/2025).
With respect to claim 1, Tovar teaches using peptide amphiphiles (PAs) to sequester precursors of conducting polymers to generate confined conducting polymers insulated by bioactive shells (p. 2024, para 1, see Scheme 1), thus teaches a hybrid material.
In regard to (a), Tovar teaches 3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene (EDOT) monomers are sequestered and undergone confined polymerization that results in encapsulated conductive polymers (see e.g., Scheme 1), thus teaches a polymer comprising EDOT monomer.
In regard to (b), Tovar teaches a plurality of peptide amphiphiles (PAs) and teaches each PA comprises a sequence of HOOC-VAVKIEGGGAAAA-NHCO-C15H31 which comprises a hydrophobic tail (C15H31), a structural peptide segment (AAAA), a charged peptide segment (GGGE) and a bioactive moiety (IKVAV) (see p. 2027, last para and p. 2024, last para, also see Scheme 1), thus teaches a plurality of bioactive PAs, each comprising a hydrophobic tail, a structure peptide segment, a charged peptide segment and a bioactive moiety.
However, Tovar is silent on a copolymer comprising (i) a sulfonatoalkoxy EDOT monomer and (ii) an EDOT monomer functionalized with a hydroxyl group in claim 1, the sulfonatoalkoxy EDOT monomer comprising EDOT-S in claim 2, or the ratio of the two monomers in claims 8-9.
Mousa teaches a copolymer (EDOT-S/EDOT-OH) that is capable of forming a conductive hydrogel in tissue mimics (abstract), thus teaches claims 1-2. Mousa teaches this copolymer is more prone to aggregate (self-organizing, see abstract and Fig 3d) and display higher conductivities than the PEDOT-S homopolymer (see e.g., abstract and Table 1). Mousa teaches the ratio of EDOT-S/EDOT-OH being from 85/15 (i.e., about 6:1 for A5) and 75/25 (i.e., about 3:1 for A5 synthesized with 10% EDOT-OH, see Table 1), thus teaches the ratio of 1:10 to 10:1 in claim 8 and makes obvious a ratio of 4:1 in claim 9.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hybrid material comprising an EDOT polymer and a plurality of bioactive PAs disclosed by Tovar, by substituting the EDOT polymer with an EDOT-S/EDOT-OH copolymer at a recited ratio suggested by Mousa with a reasonable expectation of success. Since Tovar aims to generate a conductive bioactive gel for use in regenerative medicine strategies that would benefit from externally controllable electrical stimuli for transduction of biological signals at the nanoscale (p. 2027, right col, para 2) and since Mousa teaches the copolymer of EDOT-S/EDOT-OH at a recited ratio is more prone to aggregate and displays higher conductivities than the PEDOT-S homopolymer (see e.g., abstract and Table 1), one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to substitute the EDOT polymer of Tovar with the copolymer of EDOT-S/EDOT-OH taught by Mousa in order to take advantage of its being prone to aggregate and having high conductivity. Furthermore, since the range of ratios taught by Mousa (about 6:1 to about 3:1) encompasses the recited ratio (4:1) in claim 9, the claimed ratio is rendered obvious over Mousa because M.P.E.P. §2144.05 (I) states 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 regard to the copolymer being mixed with the PAs within the hybrid material and forming a supramolecular complex, Tovar teaches the PAs and EDOT monomers are mixed in water (p. 2027, last para “Experimental Section”), and form a supramolecular nanostructure after self-assembly (see e.g., Fig 1a and legend for TEM image of supramolecular aggregates formed after PA self-assembly and subsequent oxidative polymerization of EDOT monomer and also see Scheme 1 for a diagram of a mixture of the EDOT polymer and the PAs).
In regard to leakage of the copolymer from the hybrid material being less than 10% over the course of 7 days in claim 1 and less than 5% in claim 12, Tovar teaches the conductive EDOT polymer is encapsulated in the PA nanostructure (i.e., forming the hybrid material) evidenced by elemental mapped image of sulfur (i.e., polymerized EDOT) within the bundled fibers (the PA hydrogel) (see Fig 1d vs 1c) and the strong correlation between the onset oxidation potentials for EDOT within SDS micelles and within PA nanostructures (see Fig 2, and discussion in p. 2026, left col and right col, para 1). Tovar also teaches the polymerized EDOT prepared within PA gels obtains robust and stable electroactivity and exhibits a finite window of conductivity at physiologically compatible applied potentials (see e.g., p. 2027, right 2 and Fig 4). Thus, Tovar teaches the conductive EDOT polymer is stably encapsulated in the PA hydrogel, related to claims 1 and 12. Regarding the copolymer of EDOT-S/EDOT-OH, Mousa teaches the EDOT-S/EDOT-OH copolymer can be injected into an agarose gel to generate a stable and highly conductive hydrogel and the copolymer-incorporated hydrogel remains stable and maintains initial conductivities for 7 months in pure water (see e.g., abstract). Mousa also teaches in a diffusion assay that A5 in agarose gel (i.e., the EDOT-S/EDOT-OH copolymer in hydrogel) has no detectable diffusion after 15 days (see Fig 1c-1d and legend, and see p. 2753, right col, para 3 for method of assay). Thus, Mousa teaches the copolymer remains stable in the hydrogel for 7 months and has no detectable diffusion after 15 days, therefore suggests that the leakage of the copolymer from the hydrogel is likely to be less than 10% or 5% over the course of 7 days in claims 1 and 12.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have expected that the hybrid material comprising an EDOT-S/EDOT-OH copolymer and a plurality of PAs as suggested by Tovar in view of Mousa would have had a leakage of the copolymer from the hybrid material being less than 10% or 5% over the course of 7 days because both Tovar and Mousa teach the conductive polymer/copolymer remains stable in the hydrogel as discussed above.
With respect to claim 29 directed to the copolymer enhancing bioactivity or reducing cytotoxicity of PAs and claim 30 directed to the enhanced bioactivity comprising enhanced neural maturation, increased neurite growth and/or reduced oxidative stress, MPEP 2145 (II) states that “mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention”, and “the fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious.” Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985)”. In instant case, the prior art Mousa teaches the copolymer (EDOT-S/EDOT-OH) is capable of forming a conductive hydrogel that is more prone to aggregate (self-organizing, see abstract and Fig 3d) and displays higher conductivities than the PEDOT-S homopolymer (see e.g., abstract and Table 1). Thus, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage (e.g., enhancing bioactivity or reducing cytotoxicity of PAs comprising enhanced neural maturation, increased neurite growth and/or reduced oxidative stress) cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious over Tovar in view of Mousa.
With respect to claim 31 directed to the copolymer being retained within the hybrid material without a covalent crosslinker, as stated supra, Tovar teaches the EDOT monomers are sequestered in the insulating core of the PA nanostructure and undergone confined polymerization predominately within these hydrophobic regions resulting in encapsulated conductive polymers (see e.g., Scheme 1 and p. 2026, right col, para 1), thus teaches the copolymer is retained within the hybrid material without a covalent crosslinker.
With respect to claim 35 directed to the copolymer at about 0.1% (w/w) and the PAs at about 1% (w/w), it is first noted that there is no special definition in the specification for the term “about”. Tovar teaches to prepare 1 wt% of PA in water (5.0 mg per 500 µL water) (e.g., p. 2027, last para), thus teaches the PAs being at a concentration of about 1% (w/w) as claimed. Tovar further teaches the EDOT monomer was added (1.6 mg) into the above solution (i.e., to 500 µL water) (p. 2027, last para), thus teaches the EDOT polymer being at a concentration of 0.3% (w/w), within the claimed range of about 0.1% (w/w).
In addition, MPEP 2144.05 (I) teaches “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).” Thus, “approaching, similar or close range” is obvious in the absence of any showing of unexpected results or criticality.
With respect to claim 36 directed to the hybrid material being a hydrogel, as stated supra, Tovar teaches after mixing the PAs and the EDOT monomer in water, a self-supporting hydrogel formed (e.g., p. 2027, last para).
Hence, the claimed invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Traversal:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 08/21/2026 are acknowledged.
Applicant argues that Mousa does not disclose or suggest a hybrid material within which the copolymer is mixed with the plurality of bioactive PAs, because Mousa expressly characterizes the conductive structure as 'distinct thread-like structures within the agarose gel' (p. 2755). As such, the presently claimed hybrid material is structurally different from the hydrogels of Mousa wherein the copolymer forms a distinct thread-like structure or wire. The instant application discloses that lyophilized peptide amphiphile powders and copolymer powders were solubilized in the same solution and then annealed (see page 40, lines 21-23), thus producing a hydrogel wherein the peptide amphiphile and the copolymer are mixed within the hydrogel, as recited in claim 1. None of Yu, Alvarez, or Ahmed provide any teaching that would lead the skilled artisan to produce a claimed hybrid material. (Remarks, p. 6-8).
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Therefore, the prior rejection over Mousa in view of Yu, Alvarez and Ahmed has been withdrawn. However, as necessitated by amendment, a new ground of rejection has been made over Tovar in view of Mousa as discussed above. Specifically, Tovar teaches the PA powders and EDOT powders are solubilized in the same solution and then polymerized (e.g., p. 2027, last para), in the same way as disclosed in the instant application (see Remarks, p. 8, para 1 and see specification page 40, lines 21-23).
Claims 15, 17 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tovar et al., (Small. 2007, 3(12), 2024-2028. Prior art of record) in view of Mousa et al., (Chem. Mater. 2022, 34, 2752-2763. Cited in IDS 05/05/2025), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Álvarez et al., (Science. 2021; 374: 848-856 and supplemental p. 1-3. Cited in IDS 05/05/2025).
Claims 15, 17 and 21-22 are directed to the PA sequence.
However, although Tovar teaches a PA comprising a sequence of HOOC-VAVKIEGGGAAAA-NHCO-C15H31 (see p. 2027, last para), Tovar is silent on a PA sequence recited in claims 15, 17 and 21-22.
Álvarez, being from the same lab as Tovar, teaches a bioactive PA scaffold that have enhanced supramolecular motion and promotes recovery from spinal cord injury (abstract). Alvarez teaches the IKVAV-PA2 comprises a sequence of C16AAGGEEEEGIKVAV (supplemental p. 2, para 1), which comprises a hydrophobic tail comprising a 8-24 carbon alkyl chain (i.e., C16), the structure peptide segment having a total propensity for forming β-sheet conformations of 4 or less comprising A2G2 (SEQ ID NO: 2) (i.e., AAGG), the charged peptide segment comprising EEEE (SEQ ID NO: 3) (see EEEE in the above sequence), the bioactive moiety comprising IKVAV (SEQ ID NO: 1) (see IKVAV in the above sequence), and the bioactive moiety is attached to the charged peptide segment by a linker that is a single glycine residue (see a single G between the bioactive moiety IKVAV and the charged peptide segment EEEE in the above sequence). The sequence of IKVAV-PA2 (C16AAGGEEEEGIKVAV) is 100% identical to the claimed sequence of SEQ ID NO: 11 (C8-24-A2G2E4GIKVAV). Thus, Alvarez teaches claims 15, 17 and 21-22.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hybrid material comprising a EDOT-S/EDOT-OH copolymer and a bioactive PA hydrogel as suggested by Tovar in view of Mousa, by substituting the bioactive PA of Tovar with the optimized bioactive PA with claimed sequence taught by Álvarez with a reasonable expectation of success. Since Tovar aims to generate a conductive bioactive gel for use in regenerative medicine strategies (p. 2027, right col, para 2), and since Álvarez teaches the bioactive PA is optimized by tuning their internal motions to obtain enhanced supramolecular motion and to promote recovery from spinal cord injury (abstract), one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to substitute with the optimized bioactive PA taught by Alvarez in the hybrid material of Tovar in view of Mousa in order to promote nerve regeneration after spinal cord injury.
Hence, the claimed invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Traversal:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 08/21/2026 are acknowledged and have been discussed above.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tovar et al., (Small. 2007, 3(12), 2024-2028. Prior art of record) in view of Mousa et al., (Chem. Mater. 2022, 34, 2752-2763. Cited in IDS 05/05/2025), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stupp et al., (USPGPub No: 2012/0294902. Prior art of record).
Claim 23 is directed to the composition further comprising a filler PA which does not comprise a bioactive moiety.
However, Tovar and Mousa are silent on the composition further comprising a PA that does not comprise a bioactive moiety.
Stupp teaches a peptide amphiphile (PA) and method of electrostatically control bioactivity of the IKVAV peptide epitope (see e.g., abstract). Stupp teaches a composition comprising (a) a first PA comprising (1) a hydrophobic segment comprising an acyl group of six or more carbons, (2) a β-sheet-forming peptide segment; (3) a charged peptide segment, and (4) a signaling epitope (i.e., a bioactive moiety); and (b) a second peptide amphiphile comprising the peptide sequence (V)x(A)y(E)z-NH, wherein x=y=z=2 (see e.g. [0021] and reference claim 10). It is noted that this second peptide amphiphile also comprises a hydrophobic segment in addition to the peptide sequence to make it a peptide amphiphile. Thus, Stupp teaches a composition comprising, in addition to the first PA having a bioactive moiety, a second PA (i.e., a filler PA) comprising a hydrophobic segment comprising an acyl group of six or more carbons (i.e., a hydrophobic non-peptide tail), a peptide sequence of V2A2 (i.e., a structural peptide segment, see e.g., [0055]), a peptide sequence of E2 (i.e., a charged peptide segment, see e.g., [0056]), without a bioactive moiety, thus teaches claim 23. Stupp teaches the first and second peptide amphiphiles can be self-assembled into one or more nanostructures, including cylindrical micelles, nanofibers, trimer ribbons, helical bundles or interdigitated nanofibers (see e.g., [0022] and reference claim 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hybrid material comprising a copolymer and one bioactive PA hydrogel as suggested by Tovar in view of Mousa, by combining a second filler PA without a bioactive moiety as taught by Stupp with a reasonable expectation of success. Since Tovar aims to generate a conductive nanostructure by confining a conductive polymer within the nanostructure assembled by a bioactive PA for regenerative medicine strategies (see Scheme 1 and p. 2027, right col, para 2), and since Stupp teaches a composition comprising a first bioactive PA and a second PA without a bioactive moiety (i.e., a filler PA) can be self-assembled into one or more nanostructures, including cylindrical micelles, nanofibers, trimer ribbons, helical bundles or interdigitated nanofibers (see e.g., [0022] and reference claim 11), one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine a second filler PA without a bioactive moiety as taught by Stupp into the hybrid material comprising a bioactive PA of Tovar in view of Mousa in order to obtain self-assembled conductive bioactive nanostructures in various forms to be used in regenerative medicine and in order to optimize the density of the bioactive moiety by adjusting the ratio of the bioactive PA versus the filler PA without a bioactive moiety.
Hence, the claimed invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Traversal:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 08/21/2026 are acknowledged and have been discussed above.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tovar et al., (Small. 2007, 3(12), 2024-2028. Prior art of record) in view of Mousa et al., (Chem. Mater. 2022, 34, 2752-2763. Cited in IDS 05/05/2025), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ahmed et al., (Adv. Sustainable Syst. 2022, 6, 2100316, p. 1-8. Prior art of record).
Claim 32 is directed to the copolymer forming particles having an average diameter of at least 2000 nm.
It is first noted that this limitation in claim 32 is directed to the natural property of the claimed copolymer. MPEP 2112.01(II) recites that "products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable." Since Mousa teaches an EDOT-S/EDOT-OH copolymer that is identical to that in claim 1 (a) (see above), the property of Mousa’s copolymer would be the same as claimed, i.e., forming particles having an average diameter of at least 2000 nm.
Nevertheless, Mousa teaches A5 (the EDOT-S/EDOT-OH copolymer) has a large polymer dispersion index (Mw being 174,000 Da) indicating that A5 forms aggregates in solution (p. 2757, last para – p. 2758, para 1. It is noted that these aggregates are equivalent to the claimed particles formed by the copolymer). To analyze the nanoparticles of the A5, Mousa teaches the Dynamic Light Scattering measurement (Supporting Information, p. 12) that “A5 was dissolved in prefiltered 1 mM NaCl solution and ultrasonicated. The solution was then filtered (0.2 μm PVDF) before analysis.” Thus, Mousa teaches the aggregates formed by A5 have a diameter of at least 0.2 μm evidenced by the necessity of ultrasonication (to break down the aggregates/particles) and filtration through a 0.2 μm filter.
Furthermore, prior art Ahmed aims to produce thick films of PEDOT:PSS conducting polymers (e.g., abstract) and teaches PEDOT colloidal particles undergo a fast flocculation leading to an increase of particle size by about 100 times, the flocculation leads to particles of the order of 100 microns in size (p. 2, end of left col. – right col. See Fig 1C the particles being about 500 microns). Thus, Ahmed indicates that the starting PEDOT colloidal particles before the flocculation have a size in the order of several microns (i.e., the order of 100 microns after flocculation / about 100 times increase).
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have immediately expected that the EDOT-S/EDOT-OH copolymer of Mousa would form aggregates/particles having an average diameter of at least 2000 nm (i.e., 2 microns) since Ahmed indicates that the PEDOT colloidal particles have a size in the order of several microns (see above).
Hence, the claimed invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Traversal:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 08/21/2026 are acknowledged and have been discussed above.
Claims 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tovar et al., (Small. 2007, 3(12), 2024-2028. Prior art of record) in view of Mousa et al., (Chem. Mater. 2022, 34, 2752-2763. Cited in IDS 05/05/2025), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yu et al., (Acta Biomaterialia. 2022; 139: 4-21, of record).
Claim 33 is directed to the hybrid material further comprising a polysaccharide, claim 34 is directed to the polysaccharide comprising alginate.
However, although Mousa teaches the copolymer is injected in an agarose gel (a polysaccharide), Tovar and Mousa are silent on the polysaccharide comprising alginate.
Yu summarizes the use of injectable conducting polymer-based hydrogels for tissue engineering and for promoting the repair of damaged tissues such as neurological treatment (e.g., abstract). Yu teaches the conducting polymers (CPs) are introduced into hydrogels to improve the electrical integration between hydrogels and host tissues and promote the repair of damaged tissues (abstract). Yu summarizes that some polysaccharides with satisfactory biocompatibility (e.g., heparin, hyaluronic acid, and alginate) are used with PEDOT to play a role in electrostatic stabilization on PEDOT as counterion templates. Yang et al. reported a facile method for preparing PEDOT/alginate (PEDOT/Alg) hydrogels via in situ redox polymerization of EDOT in an alginate matrix (p. 6, right col, para 1 and see Fig 3B). Thus, Yu summarizes that EDOT can be polymerized in an alginate matrix that has satisfactory biocompatibility, related to claims 33-34. Yu teaches that soft matrix cues (such as polysaccharide like alginate) and electrical signal transmission (the EDOT conductive polymer) in hydrogels have been demonstrated to be two key factors for improving the survival, differentiation, and functional expression of neural progenitor cells (NPCs) (e.g., p. 15, para. 4.1 “Neurological treatment”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hybrid material comprising an EDOT-S/EDOT-OH copolymer and PAs in water suggested by Tovar in view of Mousa, by substituting the water with an alginate matrix as suggested by Yu with a reasonable expectation of success. Since Yu teaches soft matrix cues (such as polysaccharide like alginate) and electrical signal transmission (the EDOT conductive polymer) in hydrogels are two key factors for improving the survival, differentiation, and functional expression of neural progenitor cells (e.g., p. 15, para. 4.1 “Neurological treatment”) and summarizes studies that reduce to practice PEDOT/alginate hydrogels via in situ redox polymerization of EDOT in an alginate matrix (p. 6, right col, para 1 and see Fig 3B), one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to substitute an alginate matrix as suggested by Yu for the water used in Tovar in order to take advantage of the biocompatibility and the soft matrix cues of alginate for improving the survival, differentiation, and functional expression of neural progenitor cells.
Hence, the claimed invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Traversal:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 08/21/2026 are acknowledged and have been discussed above.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Examiner Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jianjian Zhu whose telephone number is (571)272-0956. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30AM - 4PM (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, James Douglas (Doug) Schultz can be reached on (571) 272-0763. 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.
/JIANJIAN ZHU/Examiner, Art Unit 1631
Prosecution Insights