DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, and species of example 1, in the reply filed on December 31, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that unity of invention exists between Groups I-III since the technical relationship is special in that it makes a contribution over the prior art. This is not found persuasive because the claimed limitations are generic and these generic concepts are taught by the prior art. See references in the international search report. Furthermore, see prior art rejections set forth in this office action.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
3. Examination followed guidelines provided by MPEP 803.02. The elected species appeared to be obvious over the prior art. Moreover, nonelected species were anticipated by the prior art. Therefore, the Markush claims were rejected and claims to nonelected species were withdrawn from further consideration. The claims were searched to the extent of the elected species and the nonelected species set forth in this office action, below.
4. Claims 7, 13-15, 17 and 18 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected subject matter. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on December 31, 2025.
Priority
5. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 11, 2023 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. The IDS was considered. A signed copy of form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Status of Claims
7. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-6, 8-12, 16, 19 and 20 are elected, claim 1 is independent. Claims 7, 13-15, 17 and 18 are nonelected and withdrawn.
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.
8. Claim 12 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.
The claim refers to a decorated cell. However, neither the specification nor the state of the art provide a definition for the term. For this reason, the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be ascertained. Appropriate correction is requested. This claim could not be examined because the limitation associated with this claim could not be interpreted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
9. Claim(s) 1-5, 8-11, 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20090311324. The reference has a publication date of December 17, 2009 which antedates the present claims having an effective filing date of October 15, 2021 and priority claim to foreign application dated October 15, 2020.
Regarding claims 1-3, 8, 10, 11, 16 and 19, the reference teaches polymer matrices (ie. polymeric particles) for specifically tethering surface epitopes or receptors of cells (ie. peptide, protein, enzymes, cell portions, cells, etc.), wherein the polymer matrix is pretreated by molecular imprinting (ie. template or target molecule). Abstract. The polymer matrices are obtained by crosslinking a polymer with polymerizable double bonds such as acrylamide (a polyamide, ie. biocompatible functionalized polymer) in a liquid (eg solvent, claim 19). Paragraph [0033]. Regarding claims 4, 5, 9, the polymer matrix comprises functionalized polymer of, for example, gelatin and also comprises electrically charged groups for recognition. Paragraphs [0019] and [0029].
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.
10. Claim(s) 1-6, 8-11, 16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090311324 as applied to claims 1-6, 8-11, 16, 19 and 20 above, and further in view of Xing et al. and Li et al.
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art
Regarding claims 1-3, 8, 10, 11, 16 and 19, US 20090311324 teaches polymer matrices (ie. polymeric particles) for specifically tethering surface epitopes or receptors of cells (ie. peptide, protein, enzymes, cell portions, cells, etc.), wherein the polymer matrix is pretreated by molecular imprinting (ie. template or target molecule). Abstract. The polymer matrices are obtained by crosslinking a polymer with polymerizable double bonds such as acrylamide (a polyamide, ie. biocompatible functionalized polymer) in a liquid (eg solvent, claim 19). Paragraph [0033]. Regarding claims 4, 5, 9, the polymer matrix comprises functionalized polymer of, for example, gelatin and also comprises electrically charged groups for recognition. Paragraphs [0019] and [0029].
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
The difference between US 20090311324 and Applicant’s elected species is that the reference does not teach the target molecule of bovine serum albumin or the functionalized polymer of silk fibroin.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art and considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness
MPEP 2143 B provides basic requirements of prima facie case of obviousness including examples of rationale of the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. To reject a claim based on this rationale the following is considered below and applied to the present claims:
A finding that the prior art method differs from claimed method by the substitution of some component with another component
US 20090311324 does not teach the target molecule of bovine serum albumin or the functionalized polymer of silk fibroin. The prior art differs from the claims to the elected species by substitution of components of polymer nanoparticle.
A finding that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art
Li et al. teaches the preparation of polymer nanoparticles that are templates for bovine serum albumin.
Xing et al. teaches the preparation of molecularly imprinted polymer using silk fibroin. The polymer matrix is for targeting dopamine.
a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable
One of ordinary skill has the knowledge that the polymeric nanoparticles can be prepared using various functionalized polymers for various target molecules. Thus, the present invention results from the substitution of elements that are known in the state of the art with predictable crosslinking as well as recognition. For these reasons, the present claims to the elected species are found to be prima facie obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN JAE YOO whose telephone number is (571)272-9074. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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.
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.
/SUN JAE YOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1621