IONIZABLE LIPIDS

Application No. 18/265,366

• Filed: Jun 05, 2023
• Priority: Dec 23, 2020 — EU 20216879.5
  • Dec 23, 2021 — nonprovisional of PCTEP2021087492
• Examiner: CARR, DEBORAH D
• Art Unit: 1691
• Tech Center: 1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
• Assignee: Universiteit Gent
• OA Round: 1 (Non-Final)

Office Action

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 the separation of Species I and Species II in the reply filed on 5 May 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Species I and Species II share unity. This is found persuasive because and they two specie groups have been combine. Species III is considered to be withdrawn.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.

Claim 24 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 24 recites, “The ionizable lipid or claim 16, wherein both m and n are 2.” (Google Patents) The phrase “or claim 16” fails to clearly establish the relationship between claim 24 and claim 16. Specifically, use of the disjunctive term “or” renders it unclear whether claim 24 is intended to depend from claim 16 and incorporate all of the limitations thereof, or whether claim 24 is intended to recite an ionizable lipid as an alternative to the subject matter of claim 16. Consequently, it cannot be determined with reasonable certainty which structural limitations are incorporated into claim 24, and the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter are unclear.

Prosecution Timeline

• Jun 05, 2023: Application Filed
• Jul 20, 2026: Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)