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 without traverse of Group I (claims 1-2) in the reply filed on 2/19/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 3-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/19/26 and entitled to rejoinder if Group I is found allowable.
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laptev et al. (US 2009/0012008) in view of Ito et al. (WO 2004/067678) and Butzloff (WO 2021/162725 priority 2/16/2020)).
With regards to instant claim 1, Laptev teaches a C60 fullerene (see abstract) that is covalently bonded to an amino acid such as glutamine, gamma amino butyric acid (see 0012).
However Laptev fails to the fullerene has an adenosine phosphate functional group as required by instant claims 1-2.
Ito teaches nanostructures such as fullerene (see translation) wherein the fullerence is a C60, wherein the amino acid is glutamine, wherein the nucleic acid-related substances include adenosine-phosphate. Ito teaches in order to administer the fullerenes the need for cell activators such as adenosine-phosphate ie., adenosine-triphosphate.
Butzloff teaches a nanoparticle composition comprising adenosine-triphosphate fullerene C60 nanoparticles (see abstract, 0060) wherein the fullerene is bonded to one functional group of adenosine triphosphate (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would have expanded the teachings of Laptev by substituting the adenosine triphosphate taught by Ito with that of Butzloff with a reasonable expectation of success because Butzloff specifically teach a nanoparticle composition comprising adenosine-triphosphate functional group, thus motivating one of ordinary skill in the art to use a adenosine triphosphate functional group to result in the instant nanoparticle compound comprising a buckministerfullerene C60 bonded to a glutamine, a gamma amino butyric acid and an adenosine phosphate functional group.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIRLEY V GEMBEH whose telephone number is (571)272-8504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Robert A. Wax can be reached at 571-272-0623. 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.
/SHIRLEY V GEMBEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615 3/11/26
Prosecution Insights