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
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
This application, Serial No. 18/028,669 (PGPub: US2023/0366886) was filed 03/27/2023. This application is a 371 of PCT/CZ2021/050103 filed 09/29/2021. This application claims priority to Czechia PV 2020-535 filed 09/29/2020.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 03/27/2023 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 should be corrected to say “The process according to claim 3”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 2, the phrases "more preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 4, the claim is drawn to “the process…according to claim 1”, however, claim 1 has not recited a process and thus the claim lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 9, the claim is drawn to the process of claim 1 and is indefinite since claim 1 is drawn to surface-modified particles and not a process. Claim 9 should be amended to be dependent on the particles, for example, “A process of using the surface-modified particles of claim 1 for in vitro detection…”.
Regarding claim 9, the claim states that detection includes interaction of modified particles with said biomolecules. However, claim 1 has an alternative where z in the structure could be equal to 0. It is unclear how, if z=0 (thus deleting the Z monomer and attached R group), the biomolecules would be able to be conjugated to the claimed modified particles.
State of the Prior Art
The prior art fails to teach the claimed surface-modified particles with an outer shell consisting of a layer of a polymer of Formula II.
WO 2010/139942 teaches the modification of nanoparticles with a linker comprising lipoic acid (via two thiol groups) and polyethylene glycol (page 7, line 8, claims 1, 15 and Figures 1-2), as seen in the first half of the Formula II structure). However, the reference does not teach the incorporation of a brush polymer comprising isopropanol amide, seen in the second half of Formula II structure.
Yang et al. (Chem. Mater. 2017, 29, pages 8757-8765) teaches in vivo nanopolymersomes incorporating the polymer structure seen in Figure 1. However, Yang fails to specifically teach particles having a polymer outershell with a structure of Formula II.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA M GIERE whose telephone number is (571)272-5084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Bao-Thuy L Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-0824. 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.
/REBECCA M GIERE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1677