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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 24 April 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 2-3, 5, 11-12, 14, 17, 19, 22, 24-25 and 32 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 4, 6-10, 13, 15-16, 18, 20-21, 23, 26-31 and 33-34 are presented for examination herein.
Rejections Withdrawn
The rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 8-10, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 26-31 and 33-34 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US20130225655, published 09 May 2017), hereinafter Lu; in view of Anderson et al. (WO2017193084, published 09 November 2017), hereinafter Anderson; and VAN DE WATER et al. (US 2010/0292300 A1), is withdrawn after further consideration.
New Grounds of Rejections
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, 4, 6, 8-10, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 26-31 and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lu et al. (US20130225655, published 09 May 2017), hereinafter Lu; in view of Anderson et al. (WO2017193084, published 09 November 2017), hereinafter Anderson; Zheng (“Topical delivery of siRNA-based spherical nucleic acid nanoparticle conjugates for gene regulation”, PNAS, volume 109, Number 30, 24 July 2012); and QIU (“Effect of P1441(Anti-TGF-β) in an “In Vivo” Human Hypertrophic Scar Model in Nude Mice”, PLoS ONE 10 (12), Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0144489, 18 pages, 31 December 2015).
Lu is primarily directed towards compositions and method for treatment of including skin scaring (abstract).
Regarding claims 1, 15-16, 18, 20, 21, 23, and 26-30, Lu discloses "using combinations of TGFβ1 and Cox-2 inhibitors and TGFβ1 and Hoxb13 inhibitors for the treatment of various medical conditions, including skin scaring due to trauma wounds and surgery" (Abstract), and that "[p]referably, the carrier is suitable for topical administration" (Paragraph [0048]). The siRNA molecules (Claim 1) used to inhibit TGFβ1 expression are disclosed to be oligonucleotides (Paragraph [0040]). Lu discloses that "mRNA expression of TGFβ1 was reduced by 30% and 50%" (Paragraph [0107]). Lu discloses that “decreased and rapidly cleared TGFβ1 and TGFβ2 expression accompanied by increased and prolonged TGFβ3 levels in wounded E16 animals correlated with organized collagen deposition” (Paragraph [0005]). As such, it is known that topical administration of an oligonucleotide-comprising composition can affect TGFβ1 expression and scar formation. Lu teaches nanoparticle containing siRNA as an appropriate carrier (paragraph 48 and examples 4 and 5).
Lu does not disclose a spherical nucleic acid. Lu does not specifically teach administering to hypertrophic scar or a keloid scar. The deficiencies are made up for by the teachings of Anderson, Zheng and Qiu.
Regarding claim 31, Lu discloses an inhibitor of ALK5 (TGFβ type I receptor, TGF-βRI) (Example 5, paragraph [0118]). Anderson discloses antibodies (the checkpoint inhibitor may be "a monoclonal antibody, a humanized antibody, [or] a fully human antibody,” Claim 10). Because Lu discloses that TGFβ type I receptor inhibitors are useful for treating scars, and Lu discloses the use of antibodies with SNA delivery vehicles.
Anderson is primarily directed towards immuno stimulatory spherical nucleic acid (IS-SNA) for delivering immunostimulatory oligonucleotides (paragraph bridging pages 1 and 2).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6-10, 18, 20, 23, 27-30 Anderson discloses an "immuno stimulatory spherical nucleic acid (IS-SNA), comprising a core having an oligonucleotide shell comprised of immuno stimulatory oligonucleotides positioned on the exterior of the core" (Claim 1). Anderson also discloses that “[the claimed SNA] structures exhibit the ability to enter cells without the need for auxiliary delivery vehicles or transfection reagents, by engaging scavenger receptors and lipid rafts” (page 12). Anderson discloses that the core of the SNA may be a liposomal core (Claim 5), and that the core may comprise sterols such as cholesterol (Claim 6). Anderson discloses that the core of the SNA may be a polymer (Claim 57), such as "amphiphilic block copolymers, hydrophobic polymers including polystyrene, poly(lactic acid), poly(lactic co-glycolic acid), poly(glycolic acid), poly(caprolactone) and other biocompatible polymers" (Claim 58). Anderson discloses that the SNA may comprise a “solid core comprised of noble metals, including gold and silver, transition metals including iron and cobalt, metal oxides” (Claim 3). Anderson discloses that the oligonucleotides may be antisense oligonucleotides or siRNA (page 37). Because Anderson provides for DNA (DNA synthesis and purification, page 49), it is construed to provide for antisense DNA. Anderson discloses that the liposomal cores were synthesizes via extrusion polycarbonate membranes with 50 nm pores (Liposome synthesis, page 32). As such, the liposomes are construed to have a diameter of 50 nm or less. Anderson discloses that the oligonucleotide shell has a density of 500-1000 oligonucleotides per SNA (Claim 72). Anderson discloses that the SNA may comprise a checkpoint inhibitor (Claim 1), that the checkpoint inhibitor may be "a monoclonal antibody, a humanized antibody, a fully human antibody, a fusion protein or a combination thereof or a small molecule" (Claim 10), and that the checkpoint inhibitor may be incorporated into the liposomal core (Claim 9). Anderson discloses that the more may be polymeric (Claims 4 and 5), that the "solid core preferably is surrounded by a lipid bilayer" (page 23), and that the checkpoint inhibitor may be incorporated into the liposomal core" (Claim 9). Anderson teaches steroids (page 23, lines 3-5). As such, Anderson is construed to provide for a core that comprises a liposomal shell, a solid polymeric core (nanoparticle), and a checkpoint inhibitor within the liposome. Because the checkpoint inhibitor is unlikely to be incorporated within the polymeric core, it is construed to be conjugated to the surface to the nanoparticle.
Zheng is primarily directed towards topical application of nucleic acids offers many potential therapeutic advantages for suppressing genes in the skin (abstract).
Regarding claim 1, teaches RNAi-mediated gene suppression in vivo after topical application to intact skin of siRNAs (e.g., siRNA in SNA-NC (e.g., spherical nucleic acid nanoparticle conjugates)) (page 11978, first column, second paragraph; page 11979, second column, first and second paragraph).
Qiu is primarily directed towards inhibition of TGF-β1 signaling in human hypertrophic scars implanted in nude mice by topical application of an inhibitor of TGF-β1.
Regarding claim 1, Qiu teaches that treatment group (e.g., topical with a composition comprising an inhibitor of TGF- β1 (page 3/18, bottom of second paragraph)) had a higher reduction of total area encountered than in placebo, more than 17%, which should have clinical impact (page 10/18, first paragraph).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant filing would be motivated to combine the teachings of Lu, Anderson, Zheng and Qiu, as Lu teaches topical oligonucleotide nanoparticle formulations for the treatments of scars/scarring, Anderson teaches an enhanced delivery nanoparticle vehicle for oligonucleotides, Zheng teaches that siRNA in spherical nucleic acid nanoparticle conjugates is able to be delivered to the skin topically and Qiu teaches that topical application of an inhibitor of TGF-β1 promote clinical improvement of hypertrophic scar morphology. Such a combination would result in a method of treating scars including hypertrophic scars, wherein the oligonucleotide actives of Lu are better able to penetrate cells, and are therefore more effective delivery and effectiveness.
Regarding the recitation “reduces elevation of the abnormal scar relative to elevation of an abnormal scar in a subject that was not administered the SNA” (e.g., claim 1) and claims 33-34, it light of the disclosure of Lu and the teachings of Anderson, Zheng and Qiu, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant filing to treat including skin scaring including hypertrophic scarring due to trauma wounds and surgery by administering topically a composition comprising SNA comprising nanoparticle core and siRNA (e.g., oligonucleotide) that silences TGFβ1 expression, wherein the siRNA that silences TGFβ1 expression are positioned on the exterior of the nanoparticle core (described above). Thus, the method, which is prima facie obvious it light of the disclosure of Lu and the teachings of Anderson, is the same as the instantly claimed method and would necessarily provide the same characteristics, e.g., reduces elevation of the abnormal scar relative to elevation of an abnormal scar in a subject that was not administered the SNA, wherein the elevation of the abnormal scar is reduced by at least about 5%, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Anderson, Zheng and Qui as applied to claims 1, 4, 6, 8-10, 15-16, 18, 20-21, 23, 26-31 and 33-34 above, and further in view of Banga et al. (DOI: 10.1021/jacs.6b13359, published 16 February 2017), hereinafter Banga.
Lu, Anderson and Van De Water render obvious the claims discussed above. They do not disclose an SNA comprising a micellar center.
Regarding claim 7, Banga discloses "micellar spherical nucleic acid (SNA) nanostructures" (Abstract, page 4278), and that these SNAs could be used to deliver fluorescent proteins (Fig. 3). The SNAs comprise a micelle core and are surrounded by oligonucleotides (Scheme 1). The liposomal SNA core of Anderson and micellar SNA core of Banga are construed to be equivalents known in the art to be useful for encapsulating biological actives for controlled delivery via an SNA. As such, it is obvious to substitute the liposome of Anderson for the micelle of Banga.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Anderson, Zheng and Qui as applied to claim 1, 4, 6, 8-10, 15-16, 18, 20-21, 23, 26-31 and 33-34 above, and further in view of Tan et al. (DOI: 10.1021/jacs.6b07554, published 15 August 2016), hereinafter Tan.
Lu, Anderson and Van De Water render obvious the claims discussed above. They do not disclose an SNA comprising a sulfur linkage.
Regarding claim 13, Tan discloses drug-delivery SNAs comprising a disulfide bond linking the SNA core to the DNA, wherein the “bioreductively activated, self-immolative disulfide linker is used to tether the drug, allowing free drug to be released upon cell uptake” (Abstract, page 10834). Tan discloses that “oligonucleotides are an efficient carrier system for improving the water solubility of hydrophobic drugs and facilitating their intracellular delivery” and that the delivery vehicle “bypasses the need for a complex carrier system that often give rise to additional cytotoxic or immunogenic challenges” (page 10837). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant filing would be motivated to combine the teachings of Lu, Anderson, Van De Water and Tan, as Lu teaches topical oligonucleotide formulations for the treatments of scars/scarring, Anderson teaches an enhanced delivery vehicle for oligonucleotides, and Tan teaches the benefits of disulfide linkages connecting the core of the SNA and a drug intended to be delivered. Such a combination would result in a scar-affecting drug delivery vehicle that more effectively penetrates cells and more efficiently delivers drugs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments will be addressed as they pertain to the new grounds of rejection above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4, 6-10, 13, 15-16, 18, 20-21, 23, 26-31 and 33-34 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on references not previously applied in the prior rejection of record.
Thus, for the reasons of record and for the reasons presented above claims 1, 4, 6-10, 13, 15-16, 18, 20-21, 23, 26-31 and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Conclusion and Correspondence
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5877. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm 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, 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.
/JOHN P NGUYEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/ANNA R FALKOWITZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1600
Prosecution Insights