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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 18, 2025 has been entered.
Pursuant to the amendment filed on August 18, 2025, claims 1, 7-9 are currently pending of which claims 1 and 7 have been amended and claims 2-3, and 5-6 have been cancelled in Applicant’s amendment filed on Augst 18, 2025.
Therefore, claims 1, 7-9 are currently under examination to which the following grounds of rejection are applicable.
Response to Arguments
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections in response to Applicants’ arguments or amendments:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In view of Applicants’ amendment to the claims dated August 18, 2025, wherein claims 1 and 7 have been amended and claims 2-3, and 5-6 have been cancelled, the rejection to claims 1 and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarroll et al. in view of Dolatabadi et al. and Singh et al are withdrawn. The rejection to now cancelled claims 2-3 and 5-6 have been rendered moot.
In view of Applicants’ amendment to the claims dated August 18, 2025, wherein claims 1 and 7 have been amended and claims 2-3, and 5-6 have been cancelled, the rejection to claims 7 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarroll et al. in view of Dolatabadi et al. and Singh et al. , in further view of Zhao et al. are withdrawn.
The withdrawn rejections are due to the references not teaching a carbon nanotube composite gene vector comprising an additive is a combination of digoxin, celecoxib, quercetin, resveratrol, and sucrose ester.
Applicants’ arguments are moot in view of the withdrawn rejection. A response to any argument pertaining to a new or maintained rejection can be found below.
New Grounds of Rejection:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 8-9 are newly rejected and claim 7 remains 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation: wherein the vector moiety comprises carbon nanotubes, a peptide lipid, and an additive; a Nitrogen to Phosphorus (N/P) mass ratio of the vector moiety to the polynucleotide sequence is 0.5: 1 to 8: 1; and a mass ratio of the peptide lipid to the carbon nanotubes is 1:0.1 to 1: 100,” and the claim also recites “wherein the N/P mass ratio of the vector moiety to the polynucleotide sequence is 2: 1 to 3: 1; wherein the mass ratio of the peptide lipid to the carbon nanotubes is 1:0.5 to 1:5;” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 1 is indefinite as the claim states the carbon nanotube composite gene vector, comprising a polynucleotide sequence, wherein the polynucleotide sequence is a plasmid DNA, a small interfering RNA, or a Messenger RNA (mRNA), yet the claim also states “carbon nanotubes are bound to the gene”. Therefore, it is unclear if the polynucleotide sequence comprises a gene or rather a plasmid DNA, a small interfering RNA, or a mRNA.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "gene" in line 14 and line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “using passive targeting of the vector moiety…. the composite gene vector is injected into a human body….. thereby improving efficiency of binding with the gene is improved because; and digoxin, celecoxib, quercetin, and resveratrol enhances treatment of tumors by the vector” Claim 1 is indefinite for the recitation of both a carbon nanotube composite gene vector and the methods steps of using the carbon nanotube composite gene vector in the same claim. (See; MPEP 2173.05(p); and IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Ex parteLyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (claim directed to an automatic transmission workstand and the method of using it held ambiguous and properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph).
Claim 7 is indefinite as it states the additives are singular and in the alternative, when claim 1 has described the additive as being the combination of digoxin, celecoxib, quercetin, resveratrol and sucrose ester. Moreover, claim 7 does not include sucrose ester as an additive when claim 1 states it is included in the combination.
Claim 9 is indefinite as the claim recites the intended use of the carbon nanotube composite gene vector according to claim 1, yet claim established how the gene vector is to be used. Therefore, it is unclear which intended usage is to be considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 1 recites a carbon nanotube composite gene vector, comprising: a vector moiety and a polynucleotide sequence, wherein the vector moiety comprises carbon nanotubes, a peptide lipid, and an additive; a Nitrogen to Phosphorus (N/P) mass ratio of the vector moiety to the polynucleotide sequence is 0.5:1 to 8:1; a molar ratio of an amount of the peptide lipid to an amount of the additive is 1:0.2 to 1:10; and a mass ratio of the peptide lipid to the carbon nanotubes is 1:0.1 to 1:100, and wherein the additive is the combination of digoxin, celecoxib, quercetin, resveratrol and sucrose ester; by using passive targeting of the vector moiety, the composite vector is concentrated around a lesion, under irradiation of 808 nm near-infrared light, the carbon nanotubes in the vector absorb light and convert to heat energy to increase temperature of a tumor site, causing release of carried digoxin, celecoxib, quercetin and resveratrol and genes, tumor cells are killed by using thermal sensitivity of the tumor cells; by combination of drug treatment and photothermal treatment, efficacy of the carbon nanotube composite gene vector on the tumor cells is enhanced;
the composite gene vector is injected into a human body, and then concentrated around a lesion by using passive targeting of the vector moiety; temperature around the lesion is increased by irradiation of near-infrared light; tumor cells are killed by using thermal sensitivity of the tumor cells; carried digoxin, celecoxib, quercetin, resveratrol, and sucrose ester prevent a self-healing mechanism initiated by the tumor cells after heat damage; wherein the peptide lipid carries positive charges and a chemical bond on surfaces of the carbon nanotubes are bound to the gene, thereby improving efficiency of binding with the gene is improved because; and digoxin, celecoxib, quercetin, and resveratrol enhances treatment of tumors by the vector;
wherein the N/P mass ratio of the vector moiety to the polynucleotide sequence is 2:1 to 3:1;
wherein the mass ratio of the peptide lipid to the carbon nanotubes is 1:0.5 to 1:5;
wherein the polynucleotide sequence is a plasmid DNA, a small interfering RNA, or a Messenger RNA (mRNA);
wherein the carbon nanotube is at least one selected from the group consisting of a multi-wall carbon nanotube, a single-wall carbon nanotube, a carboxylated multi-wall carbon nanotube, a carboxylated single-wall carbon nanotube, an aminated multi-wall carbon nanotube, an aminated single-wall carbon nanotube, a hydroxylated multi-wall carbon nanotube, and a hydroxylated single-wall carbon nanotube.
Claims 1, 7-9 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarroll et al. (Bioconjugate chemistry 21.1 (2010): 56-63; of record) in view of Dolatabadi et al (International Journal of Bioscience, Biochemistry and Bioinformatics, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2011; of record), Singh et al. (Journal of the American Chemical Society 127.12 (2005): 4388-4396; of record), Salman et al. (US 9,974,753 B2), and Zhao et al. (Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces 145 (2016): 454-461; of record).
Regarding claim 1, McCarroll teaches a single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWNTs) bound with Tetra-Oleoyl Lysine Dendrimer Generation 3 (TOL7), a lysine-based dendrimer with covalently attached oleoyl lipid chains (synthesis of TOL7 is depicted in Scheme 1); the combination is denoted as TOT (p 58, col 2, par 5; Fig. 1). The TOT was used in RNAi in the form of TOT-siRNA complexes; wherein effective silencing of the target gene was observed at >80% (p 59, col 2, par 2; siRNA reads on the claimed gene). Lastly, McCarroll teaches the final concentration of TOT at 0.2 mg/mL (p 58, col 1, par 2) wherein the loading of the SWNT was 1.35 mg of TOL7 to 1.0 mg of SWNT (p 58, col 2, par 5) (falling within the scope of a mass ratio of the peptide lipid to the carbon nanotubes is 1 : 0. 1 to 1 : 100 as required in claim 1) . The TOL7 reads on lipid peptide based on the specification provided understanding, supported by McCarroll describing, “To create a novel SWNT-based nanomaterial for efficient systemic siRNA delivery, we hypothesized that SWNT should be functionalized with at least two moieties: (1) a positive charge for siRNA binding, and (2) lipid chains to modify the hydrophilic properties of siRNA-SWNT and make contacts with cellular membranes (Figure 1a,b). Thus, we constructed TOL7, a lysine-based dendrimer with covalently attached oleoyl lipid chains (‘Results and Discussion’).
McCarroll does not teach an additive wherein the additive is a combination of digoxin, celecoxib, quercetin, resveratrol, and sucrose ester, and furthermore the described ratios of a Nitrogen to Phosphorus (N/P) mass ratio of the vector moiety to the polynucleotide sequence is 0.5: 1 to 8: 1; a molar ratio of an amount of the peptide lipid to an amount of the additive is 1:0.2 to 1: 10.
Dolatabadi teaches carbon nanotubes, particularly single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs), that deliver quercetin into cancer cells (abstract). The flavonoid, quercetin, is described as having various beneficial effects, e.g. cardiovascular protection, anticancer activity, antiulcer effects, antiallergic, antiviral, and anti-inflammatory properties, wherein the anticancer properties have been shown in both in-vivo and in-vitro experiments (p 21, col 2, par 2). Moreover, the reference teaches carbon nanotubes have been used for drug and gene delivery techniques (p 23, col 1, par 3). The taught SWCNTs are RGD (Arginine-Aspartate-Glycine peptide)-conjugated SWCNTs loaded with quercetin that can be slowly released into cancer cells after crossing cell membranes (p 23, Sec. C & D). Lastly, in reference to the ratio of the quercetin in relation to the carbon nanotube, the reference states, “On the basis of optical absorbance data and molar extinction coefficients of quercetin and SWCNTs, it is easy to estimate the amount of quercetin that has been bound to SWCNT.” (p 22, col 2).
McCarroll in view of Dolatabadi do not teach the additive is a combination of digoxin, celecoxib, quercetin, resveratrol, and sucrose ester, and furthermore the described ratios of a Nitrogen to Phosphorus (N/P) mass ratio of the vector moiety to the polynucleotide sequence is 0.5: 1 to 8: 1; a molar ratio of an amount of the peptide lipid to an amount of the additive is 1:0.2 to 1: 10.
Salman teaches nanoparticles for encapsulating compounds that can be used in the agricultural, cosmetic, food or pharmaceutical fields, wherein the product of interest can be various nucleotides, polyphenols, i.e. quercetin and resveratrol, digoxin, and anti-inflammatory agents, i.e. celecoxib, and mixtures thereof. (abstract; col 10-11).
McCarroll in view of Dolatabadi and Salman do not teach the additive as including sucrose ester, and furthermore the described ratios of a Nitrogen to Phosphorus (N/P) mass ratio of the vector moiety to the polynucleotide sequence is 0.5: 1 to 8: 1; a molar ratio of an amount of the peptide lipid to an amount of the additive is 1:0.2 to 1: 10.
Singh et al. teaches the binding of plasmid DNA to functionalized carbon nanotubes, particularly lysine-functionalized single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWNT-Lys-NH3+) to act as a gene delivery vector. The vector to DNA concentration rate varied, in which a high compaction of DNA was observed at a 6:1 ratio, “In the case of SWNT-Lys-NH3+3 (Figure 5B) … approximately 74% of DNA appears condensed at a 1:1 charge ratio, gradually increasing to 85% at 6:1, reaching maximum condensation at 10:1, where more than 92% of DNA is condensed.” (p 4393, col 1; Fig. 5b).
McCarroll in view of Dolatabadi, Salman, and Singh do not teach the additive as including sucrose ester, and a molar ratio of an amount of the peptide lipid to an amount of the additive is 1:0.2 to 1: 10.
Zhao teaches a preparation method comprising: dissolving a peptide lipid and an additive, i.e sucrose ester (SE), into an organic solvent, uniformly dispersing the peptide lipid and the additive on a surface of a container, performing vacuum drying (“To prepare liposomes, a suitable amount of lipid and SE were dissolved in 1 mL of chloroform in a glass vial. The solvent was removed under a stream of nitrogen gas, followed by high-vacuum desiccation”), performing ultrasonic oscillation (“subjected to several cycles of sonication in a bath sonicator”), then mixing a vector moiety and a gene dilution at an N/ P mass ratio of the vector moiety to a gene of 0.5: 1 to 8: 1 (“cationic liposomes were mixed with pGL3DNA in DMEM at liposome/DNA (N/P) weight ratios from 0:1 to 8:1 and incubated for 20 min at room temperature.”) (p 455, col 1, par 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the additives that is the combination of digoxin, celecoxib, quercetin, resveratrol and sucrose with the carbon nanotube composite gene vector described by McCarroll based on (1) Dolatabadi teaching the quercetin compound as capable of being loaded onto SWCNTs that comprise peptides for drug delivery to cancer cells, (2) Salman’s teaching these additive compounds being combined and loaded onto nanoparticles, and (3) Zhao teaching the sucrose ester additive in the preparation of nanoparticles. Therefore, the combination of these elements would have been obvious at the time of the claimed invention.
Furthermore, “When a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007) at 1395-1396, quoting Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976) and In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301 (CCPA 1982) (“Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious”). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select appropriate structural and functional parameters, based on known physical and chemical system dynamics, as taught in the prior art, to arrive at the claimed subject matter through routine experimentation. As per MPEP § 716.02, [a]ny differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Moreover, in reference to the claimed ranges, these are seen as results of routine optimization wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate such ranges relating to the carbon nanotube composite gene vector, especially in view of McCarroll teaching a ratio of lipid peptide to carbon nanotubes, Singh teaching a ratio of a vector moiety to DNA, and lastly, Dolatabadi describing the process of determining the amount of a bound additive, e.g. quercetin, to the carbon nanotube. Altogether, it would have been considered routine optimization to claim such ratios to arrive at the claimed invention and in doing so a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed ranges.
Lastly, in reference to the limitations pertaining to “by using passive targeting of the vector moiety,” and “the composite gene vector is injected into a human body” that begin on line 10 and 18 and ends on line 27, they are determined to be intended used in the claim. The structural elements of carbon nanotube composite gene vector, specifically that it comprises a vector moiety and a polynucleotide sequence, wherein the vector moiety comprises carbon nanotubes, a peptide lipid, and an additive and wherein the additive is a combination of digoxin, celecoxib, quercetin, resveratrol and sucrose ester are given patentable weight as it is assumed that equivalent carbon nanotube composite gene vector can be used for other applications. The recitation " by using passive targeting of the vector moiety" is not considered to limit the claimed carbon nanotube composite gene vector because the carbon nanotube composite gene vector may be used for other applications. The burden is placed upon the applicants to establish a patentable distinction between the claimed carbon nanotube composite gene vector and referenced products. The method in which the carbon nanotube composite gene vectors are used is immaterial to their patentability. Based on there being no evidence to show that the carbon nanotube composite gene vector made obvious by McCarroll in view of Dolatabadi, Salman, Singh, and Zhao would not function similarly, these presented limitations do not overcome the rejection set above.
See MPEP § 2111.04 Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, “[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed” (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur.” Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14.See also MPEP § 2143.03I.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, McCarroll teaches the preparation of functional SWNT by sonication of SWNT for 3 hours at 40 - 50̊ C followed by centrifugation at 5000 rpm for 10 minutes (p 57, col 1, par 1). The SWNT are then combined with the TOL7 lipid peptide in an aqueous solution of continuous stirring at room temperature for 2 hours followed by being “filtered through a polycarbonate filter, rinsed, and resuspended in water, followed by dialysis against pure water for 3 days. The larger particles were removed by centrifuge at 7000 rpm for 5 min.” (p 58, col 1, par 2). McCarroll further teaches “TOT-siRNA complexes were prepared by mixing siRNA and TOT in Hepes saline or Opti-MEM culture medium (Invitrogen) and incubating at room temperature for 20 min” (p 58, col 1, par 3).
McCarroll does not teach the preparation steps of dissolving a peptide lipid and an additive into an organic solvent, wherein the organic solvent is one or two of methanol and chloroform, and the following steps of uniform dispersion of a peptide lipid and additive on a surface of a container then vacuum drying. Furthermore, McCarroll does not teach the Nitrogen to Phosphorus (N/P) mass ratio of the vector moiety to a polynucleotide sequence of 0.5: 1 to 8: 1.
Dolatabadi teaches the binding of the Arginine-Aspartate-Glycine peptide (RGD) to SWCNT prior to the loading of quercetin as seen in Fig. 3 as opposed to the claimed method of dissolving a peptide lipid with an additive into an organic solvent prior to combination with the carbon nanotubes.
Singh teaches the Nitrogen to Phosphorus (N/P) mass ratio of the vector moiety to a polynucleotide sequence of 0.5: 1 to 8: 1, in particular a range of 1:1 to 10:1 (p 4393, col 1; Fig. 5b).
Zhao teaches a preparation method comprising: dissolving a peptide lipid and an additive, i.e sucrose ester (SE), into an organic solvent, uniformly dispersing the peptide lipid and the additive on a surface of a container, performing vacuum drying (“To prepare liposomes, a suitable amount of lipid and SE were dissolved in 1 mL of chloroform in a glass vial. The solvent was removed under a stream of nitrogen gas, followed by high-vacuum desiccation”), performing ultrasonic oscillation (“subjected to several cycles of sonication in a bath sonicator”), then mixing a vector moiety and a gene dilution at an N/ P mass ratio of the vector moiety to a gene of 0.5: 1 to 8: 1 (“cationic liposomes were mixed with pGL3DNA in DMEM at liposome/DNA (N/P) weight ratios from 0:1 to 8:1 and incubated for 20 min at room temperature.”) (p 455, col 1, par 4).
Zhao does not teach the length of the vacuum drying as 12 to 36h.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the vector preparation methods in view of Zhao teaching the respective steps relating to the additive (sucrose ester) wherein the steps of the film dispersion process and N/P ratios steps/ outcomes are found. The combination of methods would have yielded the predictable outcome of the derivation of the claimed method for the preparation of carbon nanotube composite gene vector.
Secondly, the conditions such as temperature of the ultrasonic oscillation, length of the drying, and ratio of N/P are seen as outcomes of routine optimization that would naturally occur due to unclaimed variables, e.g. the particular lipid peptide, the amount of each compound (SWNT, lipid peptide, gene and additive), the desired vector size, the length of the gene, and etc., impacting these variables. Lastly, in reference to the electrostatic compounding process, this process is not defined in the specification nor are examples provided, and as such are understood as being taught by Zhao on page 455, col 1, par 4 as seen in describing the dissolving both the additive and lipid peptide in chloroform followed by solvent removal via nitrogen and high-vacuum desiccation, and then resuspension of the dry lipid film. In reference to the electrostatic compounding process, this is taught by McCarroll with the mixing of siRNA and TOT for 20 min (p 58, col 1, par 3), and by Zhao with the mixing of the cationic liposomes with the plasmids (p 455, col 1, par 4).
Regarding claim 9, dependent on claim 1, McCarroll teaches an application of the carbon nanotube composite gene vector for the preparation of drugs (“This new technology not only can be used for systemic RNAi, but may also be used to deliver other drugs in vivo.” (abstract)).
Response to Applicants’ Arguments as they apply to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 103
Starting on page 5 of the remarks filed on August 18, 2025, Applicants essentially argue the following:
In relation to claim 1, Applicants' state : 1) “In addition, claim 1 as presently amended has achieved the following technical effects: by using passive targeting of the vector moiety, the composite vector is concentrated around a lesion, under irradiation of near-infrared light, the temperature around the tumor is increased, and tumor cells are killed by using thermal sensitivity of the tumor cells; the composite vector carries digoxin, celecoxib, quercetin, resveratrol and sucrose ester for drug treatment, by combination of drug treatment and photothermal treatment, efficacy of the carbon nanotube composite gene vector on tumor is enhanced. That is to say, with specific additives and photothermal treatment, better efficacy can be obtained which are not taught by the state of the art, all of the cited documents have not taught this.” and 2) “digoxin is used to inhibit expression of heat shock proteins (HSP), celecoxib is employed to inhibit the passage of the COX- 2 inflammations, quercetin is configured to reduce DNA damage repair and resveratrol is to induce apoptosis. The synergistic effects of all the additives can arrive at better effects. In the meanwhile, an oily film of thermos sensitivity that can carry genes is enclosed over the surface of the carbon nanotubes for combined photothermal and gene tumor therapy.”
In response to the argument it has been fully considered but is not persuasive due to the following reasons:
In response to applicant's argument of using passive targeting of the vector moiety, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the carbon nanotube composite gene vector made obvious by McCarroll in view of Dolatabadi, Salman, Singh, and Zhao would not function similarly.
Moreover, regarding the synergistic effects of all the additives can arrive at better effects, it is noted that the synergistic effects are a direct result of the structure of the structural elements of carbon nanotube composite gene vector of the independent claim, absent evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 7-9 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A RIGA whose telephone number is (571)270-0984. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8AM-6PM).
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, Maria G Leavitt can be reached at (571) 272-1085. 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.
/MICHAEL ANGELO RIGA/Examiner, Art Unit 1634
/MARIA G LEAVITT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1634