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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1-21 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 1 recites the limitation “X is a biradical selected from” “-NH(C1-C6)alkyl-,” “-(C1-C6)alkyl-COO-” in lines 25-26, which is indefinite because the definition of “X” is unclear because the “(C1-C6)alkyl” groups in the “-NH(C1-C6)alkyl-” and “-(C1-C6)alkyl-COO-” make them monoradicals. The “(C1-C6)alkyl” groups would need to be “(C1-C6)alkylene” groups in order for them to be biradicals. For further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as “X is a biradical selected from” “-NH(C1-C6)alkylene-,” “-(C1-C6)alkylene-COO-”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “R6, R7, R14, R15 and R19 are independently selected from” “a radical selected from” “(XXVI)” “
PNG
media_image1.png
92
214
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”wherein “*” denotes the attaching point” in lines 85, 88, 91, and 95, which is indefinite because there is no * and therefore no attaching point shown in (XXVI). For further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as “R6, R7, R14, R15 and R19 are independently selected from” “a radical selected from” “(XXVI)” “
PNG
media_image1.png
92
214
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein a * is at the “X2,” ”wherein “*” denotes the attaching point”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “Riii2, Riv2, and Rv2 are independently selected from” “a radical selected from” “(XLII)” “
PNG
media_image2.png
140
262
media_image2.png
Greyscale
” in lines 102, 104, 106, and 110, which is indefinite because there is no * and therefore no attaching point shown in (XLII). For further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as “Riii2, Riv2, and Rv2 are independently selected from” “a radical selected from” “(XLII)” “
PNG
media_image2.png
140
262
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, wherein a * is at the “X2’””.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “R3, R4, R11 and R13 are a biradical independently selected from the group consisting of -(C1-C6)alkyl-, -(C1-C6)alkyl-S-S-(C1-C6)alkyl-, -(C1-C6)alkyl-O-(C1-C6)alkyl-, and -(C1-C6)alkyl-NH-(C1-C6)alkyl-” in lines 139-141, which is indefinite because the definition of “R3, R4, R11 and R13” is unclear because the “(C1-C6)alkyl” groups in the “-(C1-C6)alkyl-, -(C1-C6)alkyl-S-S-(C1-C6)alkyl-, -(C1-C6)alkyl-O-(C1-C6)alkyl-, and -(C1-C6)alkyl-NH-(C1-C6)alkyl-” make them monoradicals. The “(C1-C6)alkyl” groups would need to be “(C1-C6)alkylene” groups in order for them to be biradicals. For further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as “R3, R4, R11 and R13 are a biradical independently selected from the group consisting of -(C1-C6)alkylene-, -(C1-C6)alkylene-S-S-(C1-C6)alkylene-, -(C1-C6)alkylene-O-(C1-C6)alkylene-, and -(C1-C6)alkylene-NH-(C1-C6)alkylene-”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “X is a biradical selected from” “-(C1-C6)alkyl-COO-” in lines 6-7, which is indefinite because the definition of “X” is unclear because the “(C1-C6)alkyl” groups in the and “-(C1-C6)alkyl-COO-” makes it a monoradical.. The “(C1-C6)alkyl” group would need to be “(C1-C6)alkylene” group in order for it to be a biradical. For further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as “X is a biradical selected from” “-(C1-C6)alkylene-COO-”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “-CH2CH2N((CH(CH3)2)), -CH2CH2CH2N((CH(CH3)2))” in line 11, which is indefinite because these are not valid functional groups because each nitrogen has only two covalent bonds but must have three. For further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as “-CH2CH2N((CH(CH3)2))2, -CH2CH2CH2N((CH(CH3)2))2”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “-C(O)CH2CH2N((CH(CH3)2)), -C(O)CH2CH2CH2N((CH(CH3)2))” in line 18, which is indefinite because these are not valid functional groups because each nitrogen has only two covalent bonds but must have three. For further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as “-C(O)CH2CH2N((CH(CH3)2))2, -C(O)CH2CH2CH2N((CH(CH3)2))2”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “-NCH(CH3)2” in line 11, which is indefinite because this is not a valid functional group because the nitrogen has only two covalent bonds but must have three. For further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as “-N(CH(CH3)2)2”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “-CH2CH2N((CH(CH3)2)), -CH2CH2CH2N((CH(CH3)2))” in line 12, which is indefinite because these are not valid functional groups because each nitrogen has only two covalent bonds but must have three. For further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as “-CH2CH2N((CH(CH3)2))2, -CH2CH2CH2N((CH(CH3)2))2”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “-C(O)CH2CH2N((CH(CH3)2)), -C(O)CH2CH2CH2N((CH(CH3)2))” in line 19, which is indefinite because these are not valid functional groups because each nitrogen has only two covalent bonds but must have three. For further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as “-C(O)CH2CH2N((CH(CH3)2))2, -C(O)CH2CH2CH2N((CH(CH3)2))2”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “-NCH(CH3)2” in line 16, which is indefinite because this is not a valid functional group because the nitrogen has only two covalent bonds but must have three. For further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as “-N(CH(CH3)2)2”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “-NCH(CH3)2” in line 15, which is indefinite because this is not a valid functional group because the nitrogen has only two covalent bonds but must have three. For further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as “-N(CH(CH3)2)2”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “-CH2CH2N((CH(CH3)2)), -CH2CH2CH2N((CH(CH3)2))” in lines 28, 50, and 62, which is indefinite because these are not valid functional groups because each nitrogen has only two covalent bonds but must have three. For further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as “-CH2CH2N((CH(CH3)2))2, -CH2CH2CH2N((CH(CH3)2))2”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “-C(O)CH2CH2N((CH(CH3)2)), -C(O)CH2CH2CH2N((CH(CH3)2))” in line 35, which is indefinite because these are not valid functional groups because each nitrogen has only two covalent bonds but must have three. For further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as “-C(O)CH2CH2N((CH(CH3)2))2, -C(O)CH2CH2CH2N((CH(CH3)2))2”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “The compound of formula I according to claim 1, which is selected from CP5 St-PAspDET(100) CP6 St-PAspDET(50) CP7 St-S-S-PAspDET(35) CP8 St-S-S-PAspDET(50) CP9 St-S-S-PAspDET(100) CP10 St-PAspDET(71)/DIIPA(29) CP11 St-S-S-PAspDET(45)/DIIPA(21)) CP12 St-S-S-PAspDET(78)/DIIPA(21) CP13 St-S-S-PAspDET(91)/DIIPA(29) CP14 St-S-S-PAspDET(73)/DIIPA(34) CP17 St-S-S-PAspDET(47)-co-PLeu(9) CP18 St-S-S-PAspDET(54)-co-PPhe(4) CP19 St-S-S-PAspDET(57)-co-PPhe(5) CP20 St-S-S-PAspDET(37)-co-PPhe(9) CP21 St-S-S-PAspDET(48)/DIIPA(18)-co-PLeu(4) CP22 St-S-S-PAspDET(31)/DIIPA(12)-co-PLeu(7) CP23 St-S-S-PAspDET(41)/DIIPA(10)-co-PPhe(5) CP30 St-S-S-PAspDET(42)-b-Psar(37) CP31 St-S-S-PAspDET(41)-b-Psar(22) CP32 St-S-S-PAspDET(46)-co-PLeu(8)-b-PSar(50) CP33 St-S-S-PAspDET51-co-PPhe5-b-PSar44 CP34 St-S-S-PAspDET48-co-PPhe9-b-PSar36 CP35 St-S-S-PAspDET(51)/DIIPA(20)-b-PSar(58) CP36 St-S-S-PAspDET(3 8)/DIIPA(2 1) -co-PLeu(11)-b-PSar(50) CP37 St-S-S-PAspDET(46)/DIIPA(13) -co-PPhe(11)-b-PSar(28) CP38 St-S-S-PAspDET(100)-graft into-[ Succ-P Sar(47)-Galactosamine]3 CP39 St-S-S-PAspDET(91)/DIIPA(29)-graft into-[Succ -PSar(23)-iPr]6 CP40 St-S-S-PAspDET(100)-graft into-[Succ-ethyl-S-S-ethyl-PSar(28)]3-COCH3 CP41 St-S-S-PAspDET(100)-graft into-[Succ-ethyl-S-S-ethyl-PSar(28)]2- COCH3 CP42 St-S-S-PAspDET(100)-graft into-[ Succ-ethyl-S- S-ethyl-P Sar(28)] 1-COCH3 CP43 St-S-S-PAspDET(100)-graft into-[ Succ-ethyl-S- S-ethyl-P Sar(28)] 6- COCH3 CP44 St-S-S-PAspDET(57)-co-PPhe(5)-graft into- [Succ-ethyl-S-S-ethyl- PSar(28)]2-COCH3 CP45 St-S-S-PAspTEP(100) CP46 St-S-S-PAspImidazolamine(100) CP48 St-S-S-PAspDET(49)/Imidazolamine(17) CP49 St-S-S-PAspDET(86)/Imidazolamine(31) CP50 St-AlaVal-PAspDET(87)/PPhe(10) CP51 St-S-S-PAspDET(36)/Imidazolamine(12)-co-PPhe(5) CP52 St-S-S-PAspDET(72)-graft into-lipoic acid(5) CP53 St-S-S-PAspDET(65)/Imidazolamine(26) graft into-oleic acid(5) CP54 St-S-S-PAspDET(65)/Imidazolamine(26) graft into-oleic acid(5)/nonanoic acid(13) CP55 St-[Lys(3)]PAspDET(100) CP58 St-S-S-PAspDET(100)-b-PPro(10) CP59 St-S-S-PAspDET(119)-b-PPro(14) wherein the numerical values mentioned in parenthesis refer to the polymerization degree for each monomeric unit and wherein each polymerization degree value is subject to a reasonable uncertainty which is within the DP range ±20%” in lines 1-55, which is indefinite because the claim does not define “St”, “PAspDET”, “DIPA”, “PLeu”, “PPhe”, “Psar”, “PSar”, “DIIPA”, “Succ”, “Galactosamine”, “iPr”, “ethyl”, “PAspTEP”, “PAspImidazolamine”, “Imidazolamine”, “AlaVal”, “lipoic acid”, “oleic acid”, “nonanoic acid”, and “PPro”. Also, “Galactosamine”, “Imidazolamine”, lipoic acid”, “oleic acid”, and “nonanoic acid” are the names of compounds, it is unclear how they are bonded to the rest of the compound of formula I. Also, the numbers “51”, “5”, “44”, “48”, “9”, “36”, “3”, “6”, and “2” are not enclosed in parentheses, which makes it unclear how they limit the formulas. The specification of the instant application does not define these terms and therefore does not clarify this limitation.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “A method of using a therapeutic product for medicine, wherein the therapeutic product is a conjugate as defined in claim 12” in lines 1-2, which is indefinite because the claim does not recite any steps in the “method of using a therapeutic product for medicine, wherein the therapeutic product is a conjugate as defined in claim 12”, which makes it unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art is to perform the method. The specification of the instant application does not clarify this limitation.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “A method of delivering a nucleic acid into a cell, wherein the method comprises using a device comprising the polymer complex according to claim 15” in lines 1-3, which is indefinite because it is unclear how “the method comprises using a device comprising the polymer complex according to claim 15” limits the “method of delivering a nucleic acid into a cell” because the claim does not recite how “a device comprising the polymer complex according to claim 15” is used in the method, which makes it unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art is to perform the method. Based on the specification of the instant application [00071-00073], for further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as “A method of delivering a nucleic acid into a cell, wherein the method comprises using delivering a nucleic acid into a cell with a device comprising the polymer complex according to claim 15”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein Ri2, Riii2, Riv2, Rv2, Rvi2, Rvii2, Rviii2, Rix2, Rviii2’, and Rix2’ are optionally substituted by one or more substituents selected from” “-(C1-C6)alkyl-NHNH2” in lines 33-35, which fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends because claim 7 depends from claim 1, and claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein Ri2, Riii2, Riv2, Rv2, Rvi2, Rvii2, Rviii2, Rix2, Rviii2’, and Rix2’ are optionally substituted by one or more substituents selected from” ““-(C1-C30)alkyl,” “-NHNH2” in lines 131-134, which does not allow for the limitation in claim 7. The Office suggests that Applicant change the limitation in claim 7 to “wherein Ri2, Riii2, Riv2, Rv2, Rvi2, Rvii2, Rviii2, Rix2, Rviii2’, and Rix2’ are optionally substituted by one or more substituents selected from” “-(C1-C6)alkyl, -NHNH2”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “Riii2, Riv2, and Rv2 are independently selected from” “-(C2-C30)alkynyl” in lines 28-29, which fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends because claim 8 depends from claim 1, and claim 1 recites the limitation “Riii2, Riv2, and Rv2 are independently selected from the group consisting of H, -(C1-C30)alkyl, -(C2-C30)alkenyl, -(C1-C30)alkylNH2, -(C1-C30)alkyl-N((C1-C30)alkyl)2, -(C1-C30)alkyl-NH(C1-C30)alkyl, and a radical selected from the group consisting of (XXXII), (XXXIII), (XXXIV), (XXXV), (XXXVI), (XXX?VII), (XXXVIII), (XXXIX), (XL), (XL), (XLI), (XLII), (XLIII), (XLIV), (XLV), and (XLVI)” in lines 102-106, which does not allow for the limitation of claim 8. The Office suggests that Applicant change the limitation in claim 8 to “Riii2, Riv2, and Rv2 are independently selected from” “-(C1-C30)alkyl”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “Rviii2, Rix2, Rviii2’, and Rix2’’ are independently selected from” “-(C2-C6)alkenyl, -(C2-C6)alkynyl” in lines 36-37, which fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends because claim 8 depends from claim 1, and claim 1 recites the limitation “Rviii2, Rix2, Rviii2’, and Rix2’’ are independently selected from the group consisting of H, -(C1-C12)alkyl, -(C1-C12)alkylNH2, -(C1-C12)alkyl-N((C1-C12)alkyl)2, -(C1-C12)alkyl-NH(C1-C12)alkyl, -O(C1-C12)alkyl, -COH, -CO(C1-C12)alkyl, and -O(C2-C30)alkenyl” in lines 114-117, which does not allow for the limitation of claim 8. The Office suggests that Applicant delete “-(C2-C6)alkenyl, -(C2-C6)alkynyl” from the definition of “Rviii2, Rix2, Rviii2’, and Rix2’’” in claim 8.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “Riii2, Riv2, and Rv2 are independently selected from” “-(C2-C30)alkynyl” in lines 44-45, which fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends because claim 10 depends from claim 1, and claim 1 recites the limitation “Riii2, Riv2, and Rv2 are independently selected from the group consisting of H, -(C1-C30)alkyl, -(C2-C30)alkenyl, -(C1-C30)alkylNH2, -(C1-C30)alkyl-N((C1-C30)alkyl)2, -(C1-C30)alkyl-NH(C1-C30)alkyl, and a radical selected from the group consisting of (XXXII), (XXXIII), (XXXIV), (XXXV), (XXXVI), (XXX?VII), (XXXVIII), (XXXIX), (XL), (XL), (XLI), (XLII), (XLIII), (XLIV), (XLV), and (XLVI)” in lines 102-106, which does not allow for the limitation of claim 10. The Office suggests that Applicant change the limitation in claim 8 to “Riii2, Riv2, and Rv2 are independently selected from” “-(C1-C30)alkyl”.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 1, Vicent Docon et al. (US 2018/0228911 A1, cited in IDS) teaches polyglutamate as depicted below:
PNG
media_image3.png
482
676
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein m [0025] is an integer selected from 1 to 500 [0015], R1 [0025] is selected from
PNG
media_image4.png
46
186
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein L1 represents a spacer selected from
PNG
media_image5.png
44
140
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
46
316
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, p, v, and w are integers selected from 1 to 300 respectively [0015], R5 [0025] is a radical independently selected from H, and (C1-C500)-alkyl [0008], CL is selected from
PNG
media_image7.png
82
88
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[0025], wherein R17 re independently selected from
PNG
media_image8.png
50
186
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein p is an integer independently selected from 0 to 500 [0025], and x is a number from 0.01*m to 0.5*m [0017], which reads on a compound of formula I
PNG
media_image9.png
220
320
media_image9.png
Greyscale
wherein A, A’, A’’ are each independently selected from a radical of formula II, and of A, A', and A’’ sub-units may be same or different,
PNG
media_image10.png
284
462
media_image10.png
Greyscale
wherein the wavy line denotes the attaching point, and though the repeating units defined by square brackets with their numerical value, r, s, t, and u respectively in the formula II are shown in a particular order for convenience of description, the repeating units may be present in any order and the repeating units may be block or randomly present, and wherein each of the repeating units, may comprise blocks of monomer units which may be the same or different form each other, wherein K, K’, and K’’ are each independently -NH-, L is selected from
PNG
media_image11.png
228
262
media_image11.png
Greyscale
wherein α, α’, and α’’ are an integer that is 0, each wavy lines denote the attaching points to A, A’, and A’’, and “*” denotes the attaching point to K, K’, or K’’, wherein R2 is -NH-, wherein R1 is a biradical selected from the group consisting of (III) and (IV):
PNG
media_image12.png
50
228
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
64
86
media_image13.png
Greyscale
wherein the wavy lines denote the attaching points, wherein y an z are integers independently ranging from 1 to 20, X is a biradical selected from a straight -(C1-C30)alkylene-, wherein a and a’ are integers independently that are 0, r and t are integers independently ranging from 0 to 250, s and u are integers independently ranging from 0 to 495, wherein at least one of r or t are ≥1, where in the radical of formula (II), the repetitive unit defined by square brackets with numerical value r is denoted as PAA1, the repetitive unit defined by square brackets with the numerical value s is denoted as PAA2, the repetitive unit defined by square brackets with the numerical value t is denoted as PAA3, and the repetitive unit defined by squared brackets with the numerical value u is denoted as PAA4, wherein the molar ratio of the PAA1 monomer to the PAA2 is from 50/50 to 1/99, wherein the molar ratio of the PAA1 monomer to the PAA4 is from 50/50 to 1/99, wherein the molar ratio of the PAA3 monomer to the PAA4 is from 50/50 to 1/99, wherein the molar ratio of the PAA3 monomer to the PAA2 is from 50/50 to 1/99, and wherein the molar ratio of the sum of PAA1 + PAA3 monomers to the sum of the PAA2 + PAA4 is from 50/50 to 1/99, R9 and R17 are a radical independently selected from -(C2)alkyl-COORiil, wherein Riil is independently selected from H, wherein W1 and W2 are each independently selected from N, R6, R7, R14, and R15 are independently selected from H, R19 is selected from H and -(C1-C30)alkyl, wherein R3 and R11 are a biradical independently selected from –(C2)alkyl, and R4 and R13 are a biradical independently selected from –(C1-C6)alkyl-, R5, R8, R10, R12, R16, and R18 are a radical independently selected from H as claimed. The molar ratios are based on the calculations x / (m-x) = 0.01*m / (m-0.01*m) = 0.01*m / (0.99*m) = 1 / 99 and x / (m-x) = 0.5*m / (m-0.5*m) = 0.5*m / (0.5*m) = 50 / 50.
Vicent Docon does not teach that the molar ratio of the PAA1 monomer to the PAA2 is from 100/0 to 60/40, that the molar ratio of the PAA1 monomer to the PAA4 is from 100/0 to 60/40, that the molar ratio of the PAA3 monomer to the PAA4 is from 100/0 to 60/40, that the molar ratio of the PAA3 monomer to the PAA2 is from 100/0 to 60/40, and that the molar ratio of the sum of PAA1 + PAA3 monomers to the sum of the PAA2 + PAA4 is from 100/0 to 60/40. Although Vicent Docon teaches that the polyglutamate is as depicted below:
PNG
media_image3.png
482
676
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein m [0025] is an integer selected from 1 to 500 [0015], and x is a number from 0.01*m to 0.5*m [0017], Vicent Docon’s teachings read on wherein the molar ratio of the PAA1 monomer to the PAA2 is from 50/50 to 1/99, wherein the molar ratio of the PAA1 monomer to the PAA4 is from 50/50 to 1/99, wherein the molar ratio of the PAA3 monomer to the PAA4 is from 50/50 to 1/99, wherein the molar ratio of the PAA3 monomer to the PAA2 is from 50/50 to 1/99, and wherein the molar ratio of the sum of PAA1 + PAA3 monomers to the sum of the PAA2 + PAA4 is from 50/50 to 1/99. The molar ratios are based on the calculations x / (m-x) = 0.01*m / (m-0.01*m) = 0.01*m / (0.99*m) = 1 / 99 and x / (m-x) = 0.5*m / (m-0.5*m) = 0.5*m / (0.5*m) = 50 / 50. The prior art of record do not teach or suggest modifying the values of Vicent Docon’s x and m in Vicent Docon’s formula to read on the claimed molar ratios. Also, the prior art of record do not teach or suggest the claimed molar ratios in combination with the compound of formula I.
Since claim 12 recites a conjugate comprising a radical derived from a compound of formula (I) according to claim 1, and since claim 1 would be allowable, claim 12 would be allowable.
Since claim 13 recites a polymer complex comprising the compound of formula (I) according to claim 1, and since claim 1 would be allowable, claim 13 would be allowable.
Since claim 17 recites a composition comprising at least one conjugate according to claim 12, and since claim 12 would be allowable, claim 17 would be allowable.
Since claim 18 recites a method of using a therapeutic product for medicine, wherein the therapeutic product is a conjugate as defined in claim 12, and since claim 12 would be allowable, claim 18 would be allowable.
Since claim 19 recites a method of delivering a nucleic acid into a cell, wherein the method comprises using a device comprising the polymer complex according to claim 15, since claim 15 recites the polymer complex according to claim 14, since claim 14 recites the polymer complex according to claim 13, and since claim 13 would be allowable, claim 19 would be allowable.
Since claim 20 recites a method of delivering a nucleic acid into a target cell, which comprises contacting a solution that contains the polymer complex according to claim 15 to an animal with the target cell, since claim 15 recites the polymer complex according to claim 14, since claim 14 recites the polymer complex according to claim 13, and since claim 13 would be allowable, claim 20 would be allowable.
Since claim 21 recites a method of transfecting a cell comprising contacting the cell with the polymer complex according to claim 13, and since 13 would be allowable, claim 21 would be allowable.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID KARST whose telephone number is (571)270-7732. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM-5:00 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/DAVID T KARST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights