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 .
Applicant’s reply filed 9/24/2025, is acknowledged. Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-17, 19, 20 and 22-24 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, 12-17, 19, 20 and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fedorchak et al. (US2022/0249700) in view of Zhang et al., Nanoscale Research Letters, 2011, 6:555, 1-22.
Regarding claim 1, Fedorchak et al. teaches polymer-based implants for treating retina diseases and/or retinopathies. See Abstract. The implant may be performed via injection. See para. [0005]. The polymer implant may be used to treat ocular tumors. See para. [0084]. Further, the implant may include chemotherapeutics for retinoblastoma and carbon nanotubes (“CNTs”) (current claims 4, 12 and 22). See para. [0074]. Fedorchak et al. does not provide an explicit example of a complex of a carbon nanotube and a therapeutic agent. However, the use of carbon nanotube for delivery treating cancer was within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art.
For instance, Zhang et al. teaches that “CNTs are promising drug carriers in the target drug delivery systems for cancer therapies.” Page 2, col. 1. Zhang et al. also teaches that for this purpose CNTs may be functionalized in two way covalently and non-covalently (current claims 2, 3, 14 and 15). See page 2, col. 2.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention in view of Feorchak et al. and Zhang et al. to arrive at the claimed invention. In this regard, it is prima facie obviousness to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). It would have been obvious to employ a CNT and a chemotherapeutic agent to treat an ocular tumor as taught by Fedorchak et al.
Regarding claims 6-8, 16, 17 and 24, Zhang et al. teaches that water-soluble precursor CNTs have been covalently conjugated with tumor-specific mAbs, radiometal-ion chelates, and fluorescent probes (current claim 23). See page 12, col. 2. The fluorescent probes imply signal detection (current claim 13).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Zhang et al. teaches single walled carbon nanotubes. See page 14, col. 2.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Zhang et al. teaches CNT that are 900 nm long and 11 nm in diameter. See page 2, col. 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S CABRAL whose telephone number is (571)270-3769. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, Ali Soroush can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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.
/ROBERT S CABRAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614