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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/04/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Application
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 11, 13-14, 17, 23-26, 28-29 are pending, of which Claims 26, 28-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 11, 13-14, 17, 23-25 are under current examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, is objected to because of recitation of abbreviations at several instances, such SO1861, SA1657 etc.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 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 1-2, 5, 7, 11, 13-14, 17, 23-25 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 11, 13-14, 17, 23-25 are directed to a conjugate having any oligonucleotide, saponin covalently linked together involving a hydrazone via any linker of any chemical nature.
PNG
media_image1.png
351
1027
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
925
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
123
885
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
217
966
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Thus, the instant claims are drawn to millions of compounds.
A disclosure should contain representative examples which provide reasonable assurance to one skilled in the art that ensure that the inventor had possession, as of the filing date of the application, of the specific subject matter claimed by him. The applicants have broadly claimed a conjugate. MPEP states that written description for a genus can be achieved by a representative number of species within a broad generic. It is unquestionable that the instant claims are broad and generic, with respect to all possible compounds encompassed by these claims. There is a very large number of structural variations encompassed by the conjugates. The claims lack in written description because the specification lacks sufficient variety of species to reflect this variance in the genus, especially with respect to saponin and linkers.
Comparison of the scope of the claims and the scope of the specification reveals that the scope of the claims is broader than that supported by the specification. Applicants have disclosed SO1861with BNA; SO1861 conjugated with hydrazide linker EMCH and a peptide; SO1861conjugated with dye Cy3 through PAMAM; SO1861conjugated with dye Cy3 and AlexaFluor488 through PAMAM (paragraphs 0154-0289), i.e., 4 compounds vs millions of compounds encompassed by the instant claims, with only one compound relevant to claims under examination.
The specification does not provide sufficient descriptive support for the myriad of compounds embraced by the claims.
There are millions of combinations of any oligonucleotide, any saponin, any linker of any structure, embraced by the instant claims. Considering the lack of guidance provided in the specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would be burdened with undue experimentation to practice the invention commensurate in the scope of claims 1-2, 5, 7, 11, 13-14, 17, 23-25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11, 13-14, 17, 23, 24 and 25 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 11, 13-14, 17, 23, 24 and 25 are indefinite:
Claim 11, 13-14 recites both broad and narrow limitations within the same. For instance, claim 11 recites “said cleavable linker--- acidic, reductive, enzymatic, light-induced (broad definitions)---selected from a hydrazone---acidic conditions, ---proteolysis---cells (narrower definitions). Since the dependent claims 17 and 23 doesn’t cure the above deficiencies, these claims are also indefinite.
Claims 11, 13-14, 17, 23 and 25 are also indefinite as claim 1 first defines that conjugate has hydrazone bond and claims 11, 13-14, 17, 23, 25 makes hydrazone as optional and can be any covalent bond cleavable under acidic, reductive etc. conditions.
Based on such definitions and hydrazone as optional, claim1 and dependent claims have been interpreted to have any covalent bond that conjugates saponin with oligonucleotide.
Claim 24 is indefinite as it is unclear what applicant means by range or number and how they are different.
Appropriate correction is required at all instances of indefinite issues as raised above.
Because of indefiniteness brought by claims and limited interpretation that can be drawn from claims, the search is only limited to saponin and oligonucleotide covalently bound by any linkage or bond based on claims 11, 13, 14, 17, 23 and 25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph:
Subject to the [fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA )], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims, 11, 13-14, 17, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims, 11, 13-14, 17, 23 and 25 are in an improper dependent form because:
Claims 11, 13-14, 17, 23 and 25 are improper. According to claim 1, saponin is conjugated to oligonucleotide through a linker having a hydrazone bond. However, Claims 11, 13-14, 17, 23 and 25 recites any kind of linker, linkage between saponin and oligonucleotide, such as cleavable, non-cleavable involving peptide, amino acid, thioether, hydrazone, hydrazide, disulfide and thus outside the scope of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 11, 13-14, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Marciani (US20040242502 A1).
Marciani discloses a compound effective to stimulate immune response comprising saponin (encompass SO1861), such as from Quillaja Saponaria (same as in the instant claim 5), triterpenoid etc. and a positively charged cationic chain having a linear or branched aliphatic chain, polysaccharide, guanidine groups, or amino groups, or peptide, protein etc. (with examples of hydrazide, amine, ester, amide etc.) linked to saponin (equivalent to linker) capable of forming a complex with nucleic acid, DNA, or RNA (i.e., saponin is covalently bonded to an effector moiety (DNA, RNA etc.) through a linker (cationic chain)).
PNG
media_image5.png
551
1027
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
752
1084
media_image6.png
Greyscale
same saponin of a 12,13-dehydroleanane with CHO functionality at C23 (claim 1, 2 and 5), same oligonucleotide (claim 2) and linkage (same linkage based on limited interpretation of claims 11, 13, 14 and 18) (entire application, especially abstract, paragraphs 0013-0183 and claims):
Although the cited prior art is silent about “linker as cleavable or non-cleavable etc.”, the cited prior art teaches same linker as in the instant claims and is expected to be capable “cleavable or non-cleavable”. Further, if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation”); Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d at 152, 88 USPQ2d at 480-81 (preamble is not a limitation where claim is directed to a product and the preamble merely recites a property inherent in an old product defined by the remainder of the claim); STX LLC. v. Brine, 211 F.3d 588, 591, 54 USPQ2d 1347, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Thus, the cited prior art reads on all limitations of the instant claims.
Since the cited prior art reads on all the limitations of the instant claims 1-2 and 7, these claims are anticipated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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 th`e invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 5, 7, 11, 13-14, 17 elected species saponin SO1861, BNA, and conjugate are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marciani (US20040242502 A1).
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art
Marciani discloses a compound effective to stimulate immune response comprising saponin (encompass SO1861), such as from Quillaja Saponaria (same as in the instant claim 5), triterpenoid etc. and a positively charged cationic chain having a linear or branched aliphatic chain, polysaccharide, guanidine groups, or amino groups, or peptide, protein etc. (with examples of hydrazide, amine, ester, amide etc.) linked to saponin (equivalent to linker) capable of forming a complex with nucleic acid, DNA, or RNA (i.e., saponin is covalently bonded to an effector moiety (DNA, RNA etc.) through a linker (cationic chain)).
PNG
media_image5.png
551
1027
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
752
1084
media_image6.png
Greyscale
same saponin of a 12,13-dehydroleanane with CHO functionality at C23 (claim 1, 2 and 5), same oligonucleotide (claim 2) and linkage (same linkage based on limited interpretation of claims 11, 13, 14 and 18) (entire application, especially abstract, paragraphs 0013-0183 and claims):
Although the cited prior art is silent about “linker as cleavable or non-cleavable etc.”, the cited prior art teaches same linker as in the instant claims and is expected to be capable “cleavable or non-cleavable”. Further, if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation”); Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d at 152, 88 USPQ2d at 480-81 (preamble is not a limitation where claim is directed to a product and the preamble merely recites a property inherent in an old product defined by the remainder of the claim); STX LLC. v. Brine, 211 F.3d 588, 591, 54 USPQ2d 1347, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Thus, the cited prior art reads on all limitations of the instant claims.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
Marciani discloses a compound effective to stimulate immune response comprising saponin (encompass SO1861), such as from Quillaja Saponaria, triterpenoid etc. and a positively charged cationic chain having a linear or branched aliphatic chain, polysaccharide, guanidine groups, or amino groups, or peptide, protein etc. (with examples of hydrazide, amine, ester, amide etc.) linked to saponin (equivalent to linker) capable of forming a complex with nucleic acid, DNA, or RNA (i.e., saponin is covalently bonded to an effector moiety (DNA, RNA etc.) through a linker (cationic chain)). However, the cited prior art fails to teach example with saponin SO1861, BNA.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
With regards to the above difference, Marciani discloses a compound effective to stimulate immune response comprising saponin (encompass SO1861), such as from Quillaja Saponaria, triterpenoid etc. and a positively charged cationic chain having a linear or branched aliphatic chain, polysaccharide, guanidine groups, or amino groups, or peptide, protein etc. (with examples of hydrazide, amine, ester, amide etc.) linked to saponin (equivalent to linker) capable of forming a complex with nucleic acid, DNA, or RNA (i.e., saponin is covalently bonded to an effector moiety (DNA, RNA etc.) through a linker (cationic chain)). Thus, based on the guidance provided by the cited prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success that other saponin species, such as SO1861 and nucleic acid species, such as BNA may be used in making the conjugates. This is because Marciani teaches genus saponin (encompassing SO1861) and using any saponin species to make the conjugate. Further, Marciani teaches using any nucleic acid (encompassing BNA), including any DNA, RNA to make the conjugate.
Further, Case law has established that it is prima facie obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. KSR Int'I Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute saponin in examples of the cited prior art with SO1861 and nucleic acid as BNA, with expected result of obtaining a conjugate to stimulate immune response (equivalent to effector moiety of the instant claims). Thus, the cited prior art meets limitation of the instant claims.
Based on the above established facts, it appears that the teachings of above cited prior art read applicants’ moiety.
Therefore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled person in the art could have modified the elements with no change in their respective functions, and the modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness
To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, three basic criteria must be met: (1) the prior art reference must teach or suggest all the claim limitations; (2) there must be some suggestion or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; and (3) there must be a reasonable expectation of success; and (MPEP § 2143).
In this case, Marciani discloses a compound effective to stimulate immune response comprising saponin (encompass SO1861), such as from Quillaja Saponaria, triterpenoid etc. and a positively charged cationic chain having a linear or branched aliphatic chain, polysaccharide, guanidine groups, or amino groups, or peptide, protein etc. (with examples of hydrazide, amine, ester, amide etc.) linked to saponin (equivalent to linker) capable of forming a complex with nucleic acid, DNA, or RNA (i.e., saponin is covalently bonded to an effector moiety (DNA, RNA etc.) through a linker (cationic chain)).
In KSR International Vo. V. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d (U.S. 2007), the Supreme Court particularly emphasized “the need for caution in granting a patent based on a combination of elements found in the prior art,” (Id. At 1395) and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be obvious. Importantly, the Supreme Court reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” (Id. At 1395). See MPEP 2143 - Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness [R-9].
In this case at least prong (E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success would apply.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.”KSR, 550 U.S. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, there is a reasonable expectation of success that saponin SO1861 and BNA may be conjugated and can be made by teachings of the above cited prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by taking the advantage of the teaching of the above cited references and to make the instantly claimed moiety with a reasonable expectation of success.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 11, 13-14, 17-19, 23-25 in the instant application are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims 1, 4-6, 9, 12, 13, 20-24, 29-31, 33, 35, 38, 43 and 44 of co-pending US application 17415759; Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 15, 17-19, 22-25, 33-35, 38 of co-pending US application 17312311; Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 11, 17, 19, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 39-43 of co-pending US application 17312019; Claims 87-94, of co-pending US application 17629598 . Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons:
The claims of instant application and co-pending application are drawn to either same conjugated effector moiety or a process of using conjugated effector moiety (thus, teaches conjugated effector moiety) with a difference in wording.
The difference of wording, however, does not constitute a patentable distinction, because the claims in the present invention simply fall within the scope of co-pending applications. For the foregoing reasons, the instantly claimed moiety is made obvious.
This is provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not been patented yet.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment, IDS and remarks, filed on 03/04/2026, have been fully considered but not found persuasive.
Applicant argued over rejection under 112a:
PNG
media_image7.png
851
945
media_image7.png
Greyscale
This is not found persuasive and the instant claims stand rejected under 112a. This is because contrary to applicant’s argument that the instant claims are drawn to a specific handle-hydrazone and a specific linkage-hydrazone linkage via a linker involving a hydrazone bond, the instant claims are neither limited to specific handle nor to a specific linker. Please see rejection under 112a, 112b and 112d.
Applicant argued over rejection under 112b:
PNG
media_image8.png
670
932
media_image8.png
Greyscale
This is not found persuasive and the instant claims stand rejected. This is because applicant only took care of 112b issues in a couple of claims, such as 1, 2, 5 and 7. However, the issue remained as explained in rejection under 112b set forth above.
Applicant argued over rejection under 112d:
PNG
media_image9.png
166
917
media_image9.png
Greyscale
This is not found persuasive and the instant claims stand rejected. This is because applicant only took care of 112d issues in a couple of claims, such as 1, 2, 5 and 7. However, the issue remained as explained in rejection under 112d set forth above.
Applicant argued over rejection under 102 and 103:
PNG
media_image10.png
540
903
media_image10.png
Greyscale
This is not found persuasive and the instant claims stand rejected. This is because the instant claims are not limited to a hydrazone bond linking oligonucleotide to saponin but to any linker linking oligonucleotide to saponin through any cleavable or non-cleavable bonds. Please see rejection under 112b and 112d, wherein the dependent claims are broader than independent claim.
Applicant didn’t argue over ODP rejection. The ODP rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
No Claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PANCHAM BAKSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-3463. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thu 7-4.30 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, Milligan Adam can be reached at 571-2707674. 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.
/PANCHAM BAKSHI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1623
Prosecution Insights