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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 10/09/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would be no undue burden in examining all three groups together. This is not found persuasive because the fields of search do not dictate the restriction requirement. Furthermore, the inventions are patentably distinct for the reasons set forth in the restriction requirement. Hence, the burden in the examination of multiple inventions lies in consideration of the patentably distinct inventions in one application.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant’s request for rejoinder if claims 1-20 are found allowable has been noted. Applicant cites MPEP §821.04 as support for the request for rejoinder of the assembly and delivery system claims. However, Examiner notes that rejoinder as discussed in MPEP §821.04 pertains to situations where the product claims were elected (while processes of making or using the product were non-elected) and states that “[a] withdrawn claim that does not require all the limitations of an allowable claim will not be rejoined.” The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP §2113. Since Applicant has elected the process of making in the instant application, and since the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production, in the event of a finding that the process is allowable, rejoinder as set forth in MPEP §821.04 would not occur.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without: a) the post-printing treatment step on the secondary structure including i) chemically treating with a solvent-containing mixture; and ii) sonochemical treatment, mechanical agitation, or combinations thereof; or b) the at least one treatment step on the tertiary structure includes solvent evaporation,
which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). In the specification, Applicant only contemplates that the post-printing step on the secondary structure involves chemically treating the structure with a solvent containing mixture and sonochemical treatment, mechanical agitation, or combinations. See paragraphs 8, 9, 56, and 72. While the language of “comprising” is used, no guidance or suggestion as to what other steps could be used to treat the secondary structure to form a tertiary structure. Therefore, chemically treating with a solvent-containing mixture and sonochemical treatment, mechanical agitation, or combinations thereof are deemed to be required steps of the post-printing treatment of the secondary structure. Similarly, Applicant only contemplates that the treatment step performed on the secondary/tertiary structure to form a quaternary structure is solvent evaporation. See paragraphs 9, 34, 43, 56, 58, and 74. No other examples are given, nor is any guidance given as to what other steps could be carried out on the tertiary structure to achieve the required quaternary structure. Therefore, treating the tertiary structure by solvent evaporation is considered to be a required step of the at least one treatment step on the tertiary structures.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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 10, and 12-14 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the primary structure" in lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the secondary/tertiary structure" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the solvent" in line1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 is rejected based upon its dependency.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
If the rejection 112(a) rejection above is overcome by including the subject matter deemed to be essential to the invention, Examiner anticipates that claim 1 would be found allowable. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record neither teaches nor renders obvious a method of forming a supramolecular structure of lipids comprising, in combination with the remaining claim elements: deposing a micellar ink of lipids on a polymer pen, printing the ink onto a substrate using PPL, wherein the printed lipid micelles rearrange during printing on the substrate to form a secondary structure of patterned lipids, performing a treatment on the secondary structure to form a tertiary structure, said treatment including: i) chemical treatment with a solvent-containing mixture; and ii) sonochemical treatment, mechanical agitation, or combinations thereof; performing at least one treatment step on the tertiary structure to form a quaternary structure of patterned lipids, said treatment comprising solvent evaporation.
“Writing Behavior of Phospholipids in Polymer Pen Lithography (PPL) for Bioactive Micropatterns” by Angelin et al. (Polymers 2019, 11, 891) is considered the closest prior art. Angelin et al. disclose writing phospholipids using PPL to form secondary structures, but do not contemplate forming quaternary structures by treating secondary structures from the secondary structures chemically treating the secondary structures with a solvent and then sonochemical treatment and/or mechanical agitation to form tertiary structures which are then treated by evaporating solvent to form the quaternary structures as recited.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 9:30AM-6:30PM, First Fridays: 9:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853