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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 19-26, in the reply filed on 02/25/26, is acknowledged.
Applicant’s election without traverse of cysteine (species of chemical handle); fluorescent dye (species of cargo); pAbBD (species of linking moiety); breast cancer (species of cancer); EGFR (species of overexpressed component), in the reply filed on 02/25/26, is acknowledged.
Claims 1-18, 22-23 and 27-37 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/25/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 - Obviousness
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.
Claim(s) 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsourkas et al (US 2018/0344871), in view of Xu et al (US 2016/0009770).
Tsourkas taught a conjugate composition comprising a protein that comprised an antibody-binding domain (AbBD) operably linked to a photoreactive amino acid, wherein said protein was operably linked to an antibody or a fragment thereof [0010, 0054; see also claim 1] (reads on the instant claims 20-21 and 24). Also taught was an anti-CD3 scFv fused to a photoreactive antibody-binding domain (pAbBD) [see Figure 24; see also ¶ 0046] (e.g., reads on the instant claims 25-26). Tsourkas taught labeling the anti-CD3 scFv and scFv-AbBD with a copper chelate [0185] (e.g., reads on labeling with cargo). In some embodiments of Tsourkas, the antibodies were conjugated onto surfaces of nanoparticles [0011, 0138].
Tsourkas did not teach a helical bundle, as recited in claim 19.
Xu taught a conjugate having a peptide, wherein the peptide adopts a helical structure. Xu taught helical bundles formed by self-assembling of the conjugates, and particles formed, thereof, by self-assembling the helical bundles [abstract and claim 1; see also Figure 1]. The bundles order chemical cues on the surfaces of the particles, for site-specific targeting [0072-0073, 0103].
Since Tsourkas taught antibodies conjugated onto the surfaces of nanoparticles, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include, within the teachings of Tsourkas, a helical bundle, as taught by Xu. The ordinarily skilled artisan would have been so motivated, because helical bundles self-assemble to form nanoparticles, and order, thereupon, chemical cues on the surface of the particles, as taught by Xu [0072-0073 and 0103].
Tsourkas, in view of Xu, reads on claims 19-26.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CELESTE A RONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 8 AM-6 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, Sahana S Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/CELESTE A RONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights