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/Amendment/Claims
This Office action is in response to the communications filed on April 21, 2026.
Currently, claims 1-3, 6-8, 11, 13, 15, 18, 20, 22, 58-59, 62-63, 66-67, and 72-74 are pending in the instant application. Claims 6, 11, 13, 15, 59, 62-63, and 66-67 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to nonelected inventions/species. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 7-8, 18, 20, 22, 58, and 72-74 are under examination on the merits in the instant application.
The following rejections are either newly applied or are reiterated and are the only rejections and/or objections presently applied to the instant application.
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Withdrawn Rejections
Any rejections/objections not repeated in this Office action are hereby withdrawn.
Maintained Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 18, 20, 22, 58, and 72-74 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juliano et al. in view of Hussain et al., Shchepinov et al., and Mirkin et al. for the reasons as set forth in the Office action mailed on October 21, 2025 and for the reasons stated below.
Applicant's arguments filed on April 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are not obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to attach multiple dendrimers instead of one as claimed in order to enhance cellular uptake by pointing out Mirkin’s paragraph 0088, which teaches “a higher density of oligonucleotides” for providing “an increased uptake of nanoparticles”, which thus provides no motivation to use less dendrimers. In response, it is noted that paragraph 0088 teaches nothing about a 6- or 9-oligonucleotide branched oligonucleotide, nor does it teach that the branched dendrimer structure is insufficient to contribute to a cellular uptake of an attached protein core. Further, Mirkin’s paragraph 0088 does not rebut the teachings of Hussain pertaining to the usefulness of an oligonucleotide dendrimer structure, in particular a trebler-linked 9-oligonucleotide branched dendrimer, in providing “improved cellular uptake” and “cellular association” compared to a plurality of single-stranded, separate, individual oligonucleotides, which appear to be pertinent to Mirkin’s paragraph 0088 in view of Scheme 1 showing single-stranded oligonucleotides, each attached individually to the surface of a nanoparticle. As such, it is clear that Mirkin’s paragraph 0088 has nothing to do with the oligo-dendrimer having a dense oligonucleotide structure joined together as in Hussain and Shchepinov as well as in the instantly rejected claims. Moreover, even if paragraph 0088 should include the branched dendrimer structures for the sake of argument, it is noted that Mirkin also taught that the optimal surface density “can be determined empirically” and the optimal surface density is not whatsoever limited to a full density that densely covers the entire surface area of an attached nanoparticle as clearly evidenced by Mirkin’s disclosure of “a surface density of at least 2 pmoles/cm2” up to “at least about 1000 pmol/cm2 or more.” See paragraph 0089. That is, Mirkin contemplated structures having a density that is not sufficient to cover the entire, full surface of an attached nanoparticle, and there is no disclosure/teaching whatsoever in paragraph 0088 that the prior art dendrimer structure cannot provide a desired cellular uptake of an attached protein core. As such, there is no alleged teaching/suggestion in Mirkin’s paragraph 0088 that teaches away from using the art-recognized dendritic multiple oligonucleotides linked and clustered together by a linker, thereby forming a 6-branched or 9-branched structure.
Applicant asserts that there is a “large” number of possible numbers of dendrons and the examiner failed to explain why one skilled in the art would have selected only one oligonucleotide dendrimer attached to one protein core and there is no “finite number of identified, predictable solutions.” Contrary to applicant’s unfounded assertions, the instant ground of rejection as set forth in the last Office action clearly establishes a finite number of dendrimers having either 6 oligonucleotide branches or 9 oligonucleotide branches linked by a trebler moiety as the oligonucleotide that is used in place of Juliano’s individual, unlinked, unbranched oligonucleotides attached to the surface of the protein in view of the expressly disclosed 9-oligonucleotide branched dendrimer structure of Hussain and Shchepinov, wherein use of a trebler moiety can readily render obvious oligonucleotide dendrimer structures having a multiple of three oligonucleotide branches, thereby including a 6-oligonucleotide branched structure, which is one of predictable, readily identifiable dendrimer structures that can be readily pursued in place of the 9-oligonucleotide branched structure disclosed in Hussain and Shchepinov. As such, the number of potential branched oligonucleotides or dendrons linked by a trelber moiety is not infinitely large when the combined teachings of the cited references are properly taken into consideration.
Applicant argues that Hussain’s dendrimer is not attached to any protein core structure and Juliano’s structure does not have a dendrimer structure and the examiner failed to provide “a convincing line of reasoning” for arriving at the claimed structure. In response to applicant's arguments against the Hussain and Juliano references individually, it is noted that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Regarding the alleged lack of “a convincing line of reasoning”, applicant is advised to reread the Office action at pages 7-8.
Applicant argues that attaching a branched oligonucleotide in place of oligonucleotide groups and ligand groups attached to a protein as in Juliano’s disclosed delivery system structure “would fundamentally change the delivery mechanism disclosed by Juliano.” Contrary to applicant’s argument, the instant obviousness rationale also entails attaching a ligand/therapeutic agent group such as antibodies to branched oligonucleotides attached to a nanoparticle core, wherein antibody attachment, for instance, was taught to enable the structure “to traverse a cell membrane more effectively when attached with an oligonucleotide-functionalized nanoparticle” as taught by Mirkin, wherein such attachment of functional moieties such as a “peptide ligand”, “a detectable tag”, and “a fluorophore” via a thiol linkage to oligonucleotides that are attached to a protein core was an art-recognized delivery system as evidenced by Juliano, wherein Hussain also echoed the art-recognized knowledge/goal pertaining to “combination therapy with conventional drugs that may be co-tethered on separate branches within the same ODN-dendrimer conjugate”. Hence, the only structural alteration applied to Juliano’s delivery system is the replacement of the plurality of single-stranded, individually attached oligonucleotides with a trebler-linked 6-oligo or 9-oligo branched oligonucleotide structure that is taught to be more serum stable with improved cellular uptake properties compared to an unbranched oligonucleotide structure. Hence, the structure rendered obvious over the combined teachings of the cited references does result in a structure that preserves and retains the fundamental functional features of Juliano’s delivery system while improving serum stability and cellular uptake efficiency.
Applicant argues that the examiner “dismissed the Ngo declaration” and such dismissal of improper. In response, the examiner strongly disagrees with applicant’s incorrect characterization of examiner’s dismissal of the declaration of record. The §1.132 declaration filed on September 27, 2024 was fully considered in its entirety as clearly evidenced by pages 3-5 of the Office action mailed on January 15, 2025 setting forth the reasons for not finding the declaration (all paragraphs 3-6) unpersuasive and insufficient. The fact that the declaration of record was not found persuasive is not the same as dismissing the declaration of record.
Now, applicant’s attention is directed to the fact that the Ngo declaration was submitted in response to a previous §103 rejection over Mirkin et al. (WO 2015/126502 A2) in view of Shchepinov et al. (Nucleic Acids Research, 1999, 27:3035-3041), none of which is cited in the instant rejection or in any of other §103 rejections maintained in the instant Office action. As such, applicant’s discussion of the declaration that was found insufficient for overcoming a rejection of record that is not the same as the instant rejection appears irrelevant to address the instant rejection because the declaration filed in the year of 2024 does not take into consideration any of the teachings of Juliano et al., Hussain et al., Shchepinov et al. (1997), and Mirkin et al. (WO 2011/028850 A1). Hence, applicant’s discussion of the Ngo declaration bears little or no relevance to the instant ground of rejection, especially in view of the teachings of Hussain pertaining to the advantages/benefits of a clustered oligonucleotide branched structure in providing improved serum stability, improved cellular uptake, and improved cellular association compared to individual oligonucleotides. That is, the improved properties shown by the “6BD” (having a branched oligonucleotide structure attached to the core) compared to the “proSNA” (having individual oligonucleotides attached to the core) were known and suggested in the prior art thus the results pertaining to “6BD” were expected, not unexpected, in view of the teachings of the cited art in the instant rejection. Hence, applicant’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would not have expected that attaching only one oligonucleotide dendron to a protein core would achieve effective cellular uptake” is not found persuasive in view of the teachings cited in the instant rejection.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Ngo’s data are commensurate in scope with the entire claims, the Exhibits submitted with the declaration at best support a 6-oligonucleotide branched structure (6BD) formed via three doubler moieties, each moiety linked to two oligonucleotide branches. This structure is not commensurate in scope with the claims rejected in the instant case requiring that the oligonucleotide dendron should comprise “about 2 to about 27 oligonucleotide branches” linked through “one or more of a doubler moiety, a trebler moiety, or a combination thereof.”
Applicant argues that at least claims 72-73 are commensurate in scope with the declaration of record and the instant specification. In response, it is noted that claims 72-73 recite “comprises”, which is open-ended thus the dendron is not limited to “6BD” or “9BD” disclosed in the declaration of record and/or the specification.
Applicant argues that the single structure in the 2024 declaration of record supports the entire scope of the claims because “a skilled artisan would readily extend across the full scope of the claims” by pointing out MPEP §716.02(d). In response, the examiner fails to find any relevant, analogous teaching in the MPEP section pointed out by applicant. On the contrary, MPEP §716.02(d) supports the examiner’s position as following: “Evidence of nonobviousness consisted of comparing a single composition within the broad scope of the claims with the prior art. The court did not find the evidence sufficient to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness because there was "no adequate basis for reasonably concluding that the great number and variety of compositions included in the claims would behave in the same manner as the tested composition."” The data submitted in 2024 do not support a 2-oligonucleotide branched structure or a 27-oligonucleotide branched structure linked by a doubler/trebler/combination moiety would behave in the same manner as the “6BD” structure. Applicant’s attention is directed to the fact that there is no statement/evidence in the 2024 declaration pertaining to the “6BD” structure being representative of a structure having “about 2 to about 27 oligonucleotide branches” linked through “one or more of a doubler moiety, a trebler moiety, or a combination thereof.” That is, if the “6BD” “unexpectedly” outperformed the inventors’ previous SNA structure in cellular uptake as stated by applicant, the single dendrimer structure cannot represent the entire genus of the claimed dendrimer structure variants for the unexpected outperformance as such finding with “6BD” appears to have been unexpected by the instant inventors that also created SNA structures.
In view of the foregoing, this rejection is maintained.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 18, 20, 22, 58, and 72-74 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirkin et al. in view of Hussain et al. and Shchepinov et al. for the reasons as set forth in the Office action mailed on October 21, 2025 and for the reasons stated below.
Applicant's arguments filed on April 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are not obvious because of the same reasons provided in the above rejection. In response, it is noted that applicant’s arguments provided above are not found persuasive for the reasons stated above.
Applicant argues that the Mirkin’s paragraph 0107 does not support the obviousness of the rejected claims that require only one dendron and that the examiner failed to establish how “sparse coverage” to mean “one dendron”. In response to applicant's arguments against the Mirkin reference alone, it is noted that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As explained in the last Office action, covering the “protein” surface “sparsely” with polynucleotides was taught by Mirkin, and the examiner explicitly stated that Mirkin does not teach that the polynucleotides that sparsely cover the surface of protein core has a dendron structure. See page 9. Now, as set forth in the last Office action, the combined teachings of the cited references, not just the Mirkin reference alone, render obvious the instantly claimed structure.
Applicant argues that paragraph 0108 of Mirkin teaches “a higher density of polynucleotides” provides an increased cellular uptake thus one skilled in the art would not have obtained the claimed single dendron. In response, it is noted that the “higher density” disclosed in paragraph 0108 is not defined to exclusively read on an evenly spaced polynucleotides over the surface of a protein core. As disclosed in paragraph 0107, the “density of coverage of the protein is, in one aspect, even over the entire surface, or in the alternative, the density is uneven over the surface.” As such, an “uneven” “density of coverage” over the surface of the protein provided by a densely packed/clustered branched oligonucleotide is not excluded from the “higher density” mentioned in paragraph 0108. Furthermore, there is nothing in paragraph 0108 that teaches that a densely packed/clustered branched oligonucleotide structure cannot provide a “higher density” that is associated with an increased cellular uptake. In fact, paragraph 0109 goes on to further explain that the “surface density” that is “adequate to provide a stable” structure can have a density of “at least 2 pmol/cm2” up to “at least about 1000 pmol/cm2 or more.” Hence, when the teachings of Mirkin pertaining to the density of coverage of the protein core surface are considered as a whole, there is no teaching that teaches away from using a single branched oligonucleotide structure of Hussain or Shchepinov or a 6-oligonucleotide branch structure that can be readily obtainable as explained in the rejection of record.
Applicant argues the examiner failed to explain how the modified structure rendered obvious in the instant rejection “would be consistent with the disclosures” of Mirkin, which teach “it is advantageous to more completely cover the entire surface of the protein core” by pointing out paragraph 0007, which discloses, “It is contemplated herein that the dense and highly anionic surface imparted on the protein by the oligonucleotide shell prevents aggregation and unfolding of the functionalized proteins, and will also provide a barrier that limits degradation by cellular proteases.” In response, it is noted that the “dense and highly anionic surface imparted on the protein by the oligonucleotide shell” in paragraph 0007 is not defined or limited to “completely cover the entire surface of the protein core” as alleged by applicant, especially when Mirkin’s disclosure of an “uneven” density of coverage by polynucleotides with a resultant protein that is “sparsely covered with the polynucleotides” is explicitly taught as an option alterative to an “even” density of coverage over the entire surface as disclosed in paragraph 0107, which teaches that “the protein is, in one aspect, completely covered with polynucleotides, or in an alternative aspects, significantly covered with polynucleotides, or sparsely covered with the polynucleotides. The density of coverage of the protein is, in one aspect, even over the entire surface, or in the alternative, the density is uneven over the surface”, so much so that the “surface density of polynucleotides” can range from “at least 2 pmol/cm2” up to “at least about 1000 pmol/cm2 or more.” See paragraph 0109. That is, the teachings of Mirkin are not exclusively limited to polynucleotides that “completely cover the entire surface of the protein core” thus applicant’s argument that the modified structure that is rendered obvious in the instant rejection is inconsistent with the teachings of Mirkin is not found persuasive.
In view of the foregoing, this rejection is maintained.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 18, 20, 22, 58, and 72-74 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brodin et al. in view of Hussain et al., Shchepinov et al., and Mirkin et al. for the reasons as set forth in the Office action mailed on October 21, 2025 and for the reasons stated below.
Applicant's arguments filed on April 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are not obvious because of the same reasons provided in the rejection over Juliano. In response, it is noted that applicant’s arguments provided above are not found persuasive for the reasons stated above.
Applicant argues that the examiner failed to explain how the modified structure in the instant rejection is consistent with the teachings of Brodin such that a “dense shell of oligonucleotides” “promotes cellular uptake” by pointing out abstract and page 2. In response, it is noted that the “dense shell of oligonucleotides” in Brodin was deemed equivalent to the densely clustered branched oligonucleotide structure of Hussain as explained in the last Office action because both structures were each known to be associated with improved cellular uptake. As such, the use of densely structured oligonucleotides for improved cellular uptake is unchanged and remains consistent with Brodin’s teachings.
Applicant argues that the examiner failed to explain how a single dendron on the surface of a protein “would form a 3-D shell architecture or engage scavenger receptors in the manner disclosed by Brodin.” In response, it is noted that the instant claims do not require formation of “a 3-D shell architecture”, nor do claims require that the claimed structure should “engage scavenger receptors”. In addition, Brodin expressly taught the following: “This work is an initial proof-of-concept that lays the foundation for creating a new class of biologically active materials from a nearly limitless library of protein nanoparticles that can serve as the ProSNA core. Further design iterations will allow tuning of both the DNA shell, which compared to other polymers is highly monodisperse and sequence specific, as well as the protein core, which presents multiple orthogonal functional groups on its surface that should allow for the attachment of several distinct functionalities such as imaging agents, targeting moieties, and functional oligonucleotides.” See page 4. As such, “tuning” of “the DNA shell”, which would result in a different “design” from the structure in Brodin’s “proof-of-concept”, was expressly suggested, thus Brodin’s teachings are not limited to the “proof-of-concept” but rather encompasses a protein core attached to a differently tuned/designed DNA shell, wherein there is no teaching in Brodin that excludes a DNA shell formed by a single 6-oligonucletoide or 9-oligonucleotide branched structure. Hence, applicant’s argument that the structure rendered obvious in the instant rejection is inconsistent with the teachings of Brodin is not found persuasive.
Accordingly, this rejection is maintained.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 18, 20, 22, 58, and 72-74 remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 and 22-24 of U.S. Patent No. 9,139,827 B2 in view of Mirkin et al., Hussain et al., and Shchepinov et al. for the reasons as set forth in the Office action mailed on October 21, 2025 and for the reasons stated below.
Applicant's arguments filed on April 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the secondary references do not render the instant claims obvious over the reference claims for the reasons stated in the §103 rejections. In response, it is noted that applicant’s arguments provided in the §103 rejections are not found persuasive. Hence, this rejection is maintained.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 18, 20, 22, 58, and 72-74 remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 and 14-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,391,116 B2 in view of Mirkin et al., Hussain et al., and Shchepinov et al. for the reasons as set forth in the Office action mailed on October 21, 2025 and for the reasons stated below.
Applicant's arguments filed on April 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the secondary references do not render the instant claims obvious over the reference claims for the reasons stated in the §103 rejections. In response, it is noted that applicant’s arguments provided in the §103 rejections are not found persuasive. Hence, this rejection is maintained.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 18, 20, 22, 58, and 72-74 remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-35 of U.S. Patent No. 11,213,593 B2 in view of Mirkin et al., Hussain et al., and Shchepinov et al. for the reasons as set forth in the Office action mailed on October 21, 2025 and for the reasons stated below.
Applicant's arguments filed on April 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the secondary references do not render the instant claims obvious over the reference claims for the reasons stated in the §103 rejections. In response, it is noted that applicant’s arguments provided in the §103 rejections are not found persuasive. Hence, this rejection is maintained.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 18, 20, 22, 58, and 72-74 remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,264,344 B2 in view of Mirkin et al., Hussain et al., and Shchepinov et al. for the reasons as set forth in the Office action mailed on October 21, 2025 and for the reasons stated below.
Applicant's arguments filed on April 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the secondary references do not render the instant claims obvious over the reference claims for the reasons stated in the §103 rejections. In response, it is noted that applicant’s arguments provided in the §103 rejections are not found persuasive. Hence, this rejection is maintained.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 18, 20, 22, 58, and 72-74 remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 and 22-24 of U.S. Patent No. 9,139,827 B2 in view of Mirkin et al., Hussain et al., and Shchepinov et al. for the reasons as set forth in the Office action mailed on October 21, 2025 and for the reasons stated below.
Applicant's arguments filed on April 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the secondary references do not render the instant claims obvious over the reference claims for the reasons stated in the §103 rejections. In response, it is noted that applicant’s arguments provided in the §103 rejections are not found persuasive. Hence, this rejection is maintained.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 18, 20, 22, 58, and 72-74 remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 and 12-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,319,711 B2 in view of Mirkin et al., Hussain et al., and Shchepinov et al. for the reasons as set forth in the Office action mailed on October 21, 2025 and for the reasons stated below.
Applicant's arguments filed on April 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the secondary references do not render the instant claims obvious over the reference claims for the reasons stated in the §103 rejections. In response, it is noted that applicant’s arguments provided in the §103 rejections are not found persuasive. Hence, this rejection is maintained.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 18, 20, 22, 58, and 72-74 remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 6-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,378,280 B2 in view of Mirkin et al., Hussain et al., and Shchepinov et al. for the reasons as set forth in the Office action mailed on October 21, 2025 and for the reasons stated below.
Applicant's arguments filed on April 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the secondary references do not render the instant claims obvious over the reference claims for the reasons stated in the §103 rejections. In response, it is noted that applicant’s arguments provided in the §103 rejections are not found persuasive. Hence, this rejection is maintained.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 18, 20, 22, 58, and 72-74 remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,378,560 B2 in view of Mirkin et al., Hussain et al., and Shchepinov et al. for the reasons as set forth in the Office action mailed on October 21, 2025 and for the reasons stated below.
Applicant's arguments filed on April 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the secondary references do not render the instant claims obvious over the reference claims for the reasons stated in the §103 rejections. In response, it is noted that applicant’s arguments provided in the §103 rejections are not found persuasive. Hence, this rejection is maintained.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 18, 20, 22, 58, and 72-74 remain provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-41 of U.S. Patent being issued in Application No. 17/684,269 (issue fee paid) in view of Mirkin et al., Hussain et al., and Shchepinov et al. for the reasons as set forth in the Office action mailed on October 21, 2025 and for the reasons stated below.
Applicant's arguments filed on April 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the secondary references do not render the instant claims obvious over the reference claims for the reasons stated in the §103 rejections. In response, it is noted that applicant’s arguments provided in the §103 rejections are not found persuasive. Hence, this rejection is maintained.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 18, 20, 22, 58, and 72-74 remain provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 15-16, 21-22, 28-29, 31, 34, 36-37, 50, 53, 56-62 of Application No. 16/611,548 in view of Mirkin et al., Hussain et al., and Shchepinov et al. for the reasons as set forth in the Office action mailed on October 21, 2025 and for the reasons stated below.
Applicant's arguments filed on April 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the secondary references do not render the instant claims obvious over the reference claims for the reasons stated in the §103 rejections. In response, it is noted that applicant’s arguments provided in the §103 rejections are not found persuasive. Hence, this rejection is maintained.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 18, 20, 22, 58, and 72-74 remain provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 7, 9-14, 18, 25, 28-29, 42, 44, 46-48 of Application No. 17/749,977 in view of Mirkin et al., Hussain et al., and Shchepinov et al. for the reasons as set forth in the Office action mailed on October 21, 2025 and for the reasons stated below.
Applicant's arguments filed on April 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the secondary references do not render the instant claims obvious over the reference claims for the reasons stated in the §103 rejections. In response, it is noted that applicant’s arguments provided in the §103 rejections are not found persuasive. Hence, this rejection is maintained.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 18, 20, 22, 58, and 72-74 remain provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10-22, 25, 36 of Application No. 17/814,211 in view of Mirkin et al., Hussain et al., and Shchepinov et al. for the reasons as set forth in the Office action mailed on October 21, 2025 and for the reasons stated below.
Applicant's arguments filed on April 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the secondary references do not render the instant claims obvious over the reference claims for the reasons stated in the §103 rejections. In response, it is noted that applicant’s arguments provided in the §103 rejections are not found persuasive. Hence, this rejection is maintained.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 18, 20, 22, 58, and 72-74 remain provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13, 15-22 of Application No. 18/225,400 for the reasons as set forth in the Office action mailed on October 21, 2025 and for the reasons stated below.
Applicant's arguments filed on April 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the secondary references do not render the instant claims obvious over the reference claims for the reasons stated in the §103 rejections. In response, it is noted that applicant’s arguments provided in the §103 rejections are not found persuasive. Hence, this rejection is maintained.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 18, 20, 22, 58, and 72-74 remain provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 14, 30-31, 47, 49-50, 55-56, 58, 60, 62, 64-65, 83-85 of Application No. 18/279,034 in view of Mirkin et al., Hussain et al., and Shchepinov et al. for the reasons as set forth in the Office action mailed on October 21, 2025 and for the reasons stated below.
Applicant's arguments filed on April 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the secondary references do not render the instant claims obvious over the reference claims for the reasons stated in the §103 rejections. In response, it is noted that applicant’s arguments provided in the §103 rejections are not found persuasive. Hence, this rejection is maintained.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 18, 20, 22, 58, and 72-74 remain provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 8, 28-30, 40, 51, 67, 69, 71-72, 74, 77, 79, 83, 85-86, 94 of Application No. 18/283,699 in view of Mirkin et al., Hussain et al., and Shchepinov et al. for the reasons as set forth in the Office action mailed on October 21, 2025 and for the reasons stated below.
Applicant's arguments filed on April 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the secondary references do not render the instant claims obvious over the reference claims for the reasons stated in the §103 rejections. In response, it is noted that applicant’s arguments provided in the §103 rejections are not found persuasive. Hence, this rejection is maintained.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 18, 20, 22, 58, and 72-74 remain provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 18, 21-24, 30, 32, 43, 47 of Application No. 18/784,244 in view of Mirkin et al., Hussain et al., and Shchepinov et al. for the reasons as set forth in the Office action mailed on October 21, 2025 and for the reasons stated below.
Applicant's arguments filed on April 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the secondary references do not render the instant claims obvious over the reference claims for the reasons stated in the §103 rejections. In response, it is noted that applicant’s arguments provided in the §103 rejections are not found persuasive. Hence, this rejection is maintained.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 18, 20, 22, 58, and 72-74 remain provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3-8, 13, 15, 17-19, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 41-46 of Application No. 18/949,786 in view of Mirkin et al., Hussain et al., and Shchepinov et al. for the reasons as set forth in the Office action mailed on October 21, 2025 and for the reasons stated below.
Applicant's arguments filed on April 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the secondary references do not render the instant claims obvious over the reference claims for the reasons stated in the §103 rejections. In response, it is noted that applicant’s arguments provided in the §103 rejections are not found persuasive. Hence, this rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA H SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8008. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 8am - 6:30pm.
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, RAM SHUKLA can be reached at 571-272-0735. 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.
/DANA H SHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1635
Prosecution Insights