CTFR 17/634,497 CTFR 88600 DETAILED ACTION This communication responds to the Amendment filed February 12, 2026. Claims 1, 7-10, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 36, 37, 43, 44, 67, and 75-82 are currently pending. Non-elected claims 16, 20, 24, and 28 remain WITHDRAWN. The rejections of claims 1, 7-10, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 36, 37, 43, 44, 67, and 75-79 set forth in the Office Action dated August 19, 2025 are MAINTAINED for the reasons set forth below. To ensure Applicant’s newly-added limitations are fully addressed, the rejections are set forth in full. New claims 80 and 81 are REJECTED for the reasons set forth below. New claim 82 is OBJECTED TO as depending from a rejected claim, but otherwise contains allowable subject matter. This action is final. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 7-10, 12, 36, 37, 43, 44, 67, and 76-81 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Blum et al. (US 2018/0042843) . Regarding claims 1, 7-10, 36, 37, 76-78, and 81 , Blum teaches a high density brush peptide polymer for delivering cell penetrating peptides. (Abstract.) The polymer structure is shown below: PNG media_image1.png 336 549 media_image1.png Greyscale (Fig. 19A.) Regarding claim 9 specifically, Q 1 is a C 6 aryl group, and Q 2 is a C 29 substituted, heteroatom-containing alkylaryl group. An exemplar copolymer with PEG-guanidinium peptide has an Mw/Mn (PDI) of 1.07 and has a block structure with the peptide block having an Mn of 8300 g/mol and the ethylene oxide block having an Mn of 12,000, giving a total Mn of 20,300, which yields an Mw of ~21,700 g/mol, or 21.7 kDa. Each of these values are within the claimed ranges. Regarding claim 36 specifically, Blum defines “high density” as when as many as 99% of the polymeric monomers are attached to a polypeptide. (para. [0097].) Regarding claim 12 , Blum teaches a number of peptides attached to the polymer, including vasopressin ( see para. [0255]), which is a terlipressin analogue. This disclosure is sufficiently specific to constitute anticipation under 35 USC 102. Regarding claims 43 and 44 , Blum teaches that the linker L 1 may be cleaved by an enzyme such as an MMP. (paras. [0191], [0057], Fig. 16.) Regarding claim 67 , Blum teaches a method of treating a disease by administering an effective amount of the polymer. (para. [0017].) Regrading claims 79 and 80 , Blum is silent as to the spacing of adjacent polymer side groups. However, given the Blum teaches a polymer that is substantially identical to the claimed polymer, including the polymer backbone, the degree of polymerization, the linking groups, and the peptides, it is reasonable to infer that the polymer of Blum will have the same physical characteristics, including spacing . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim 75 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum et al. (US 2018/0042843) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Overwijk et al., “gp100/pmel 17 Is a Murine Tumor Rejection Antigen: Induction of “Self”-reactive, Tumoricidal T Cells Using High-affinity, Altered Peptide Ligand,” J. Exp. Med. , Vol. 188, No. 2, 1998, 277-286 . Regarding claim 75 , Blum teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. ( See paragraph 12 above, which is incorporated by reference herein.) The difference between Blum and claim 75 is that, although Blum teaches that the peptide may be an anti-cancer peptide ( see para. [0195]), Blum does not teach the specific peptides recited in claim 75. However, such peptides are known in the art. For example, Overwijk teaches that gp100/pmel (KVPRNQDL) is a peptide known to have anti-melanoma properties. (Abstract; pp. 277-278.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated gp100/pmel into the polymer of Blum to more easily deliver the peptide to a subject. (Blum, paras. [0004]-[0006].) Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 82 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: After a thorough and complete search, the examiner cannot find prior art teaching or fairly suggesting a polymer comprising the recited peptide . Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 CATHERINE S BRANCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3539. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday. 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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at 571-272-1130. 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. CATHERINE S. BRANCH Primary Examiner Art Unit 1763 /CATHERINE S BRANCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763 Application/Control Number: 17/634,497 Page 2 Art Unit: 1763 Application/Control Number: 17/634,497 Page 3 Art Unit: 1763 Application/Control Number: 17/634,497 Page 4 Art Unit: 1763
Prosecution Insights