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 the Claims
Claims 1, 3 – 5, 10 – 11, 14 – 16, 18, and 19 – 20 were pending, with non-elected claims 10 – 11 and 19 – 20 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1, 3, 5 and 18 have been amended; claims 4 and 14 – 16 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3, 5, 10 – 11 and 18 – 20 are currently pending, with claims 10 – 11 and 19 – 20, drawn to non-elected subject matter, withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1, 3, 5 and 18 are the subject of this Office Action.
OBJECTIONS/REJECTIONS WITHDRAWN
Claim Objections
Claim 18 was objected to because of informalities.
In view of the amendment to claim 18 in the reply of 04/27/2026, this objection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 14 – 15 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In view of the cancelation of claims 14 – 15 in the reply of 04/27/2026, this rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1, 14, and 15 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a natural product) without significantly more.
In view of the claim amendments in the reply of 04/27/2026, this rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1 and 14 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)( (1) as being anticipated by SEQURA (“ICAM-1 on exosomes from mature dendritic cells is critical for efficient naïve T-cell priming,” Segura et al, published July 1, 2005; an IDS reference submitted 08/15/2022; see PTO-892 of 05/06/2025).
In view of the claim amendments in the reply of 04/27/2026, this rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, 14, 16, and 18 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEOW (US20170182182A1, Seow et al; see PTO-892 of 05/06/2025) in view of KLIMUK and WIKLANDER (GB-2552774-A; see PTO-892 of 05/06/2025).
In view of the claim amendments in the reply of 04/27/2026, this rejection is withdrawn.
Claims 1 and 4 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEOW in view of KLIMUK and WIKLANDER, as applied to claim 1, 3, 14, 16, and 18 above, and further in view of ALEXANDER (WO2016179417 Alexander et al, published November 11, 2016; see PTO-892 of 05/06/2025).
In view of the claim amendments in the reply of 04/27/2026, this rejection is withdrawn.
Claim 15 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEOW in view of KLIMUK and WIKLANDER, as applied to claims 1, 3, 14, 16, and 18 above, and further in view of HONG (US20180028600A1, Hong et al, published February 1, 2018; see PTO-892 of 05/06/2025) and UDENSI (“Dual effect of oxidative stress on leukemia cancer induction and treatment,” UDNESI (Udensi et al, published December 18, 2014; see PTO-892 of 05/06/2025).
In view of the claim amendments in the reply of 04/27/2026, this rejection is withdrawn.
NEW REJECTIONS NECESSITATED BY CLAIM AMENDMENTS
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the specification as filed does not teach: “a) nano-electroporating skin with a plasmid encoding ICAM1, GLUT-1, and miR146a b) culturing the skin in a culture medium”. In particular, the present specification does not teach performing any method with skin nor any plasmid encoding ICAM1, GLUT-1, and miR146a. Thus, the claims are not supported by the specification and claims as filed. Claims 3, 5 and 18 depend from claim 1, either directly or indirectly, and thus inherit the deficiencies of claim 1.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 18 are rejected.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Estella Gustilo whose telephone number is (703)756-1706. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Gregory Emch can be reached at 571-272-8149. 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.
/ESTELLA M. GUSTILO/Examiner, Art Unit 1646
/PETER J REDDIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1646
Prosecution Insights