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. DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-16 are pending in the application and are under examination. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to KR10-2021-0003600 and KR10-2021-0181002 . A c ertified cop y of KR10-2021-0181002 ha s been filed , but no certified copy of KR10-2021-0003600 . Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), a certified copy of KR10-2021-0003600 must be submitted and certified English translation s of the foreign application s must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Similarly, PCT/KR2021/019898 was not filed in English. A certified translation of every foreign benefit application or Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) application not filed in English is required. See 35 U.S.C. 119 (b)(3) and 372(b)(3) and 37 CFR 1.55(g)(3)( i ) and 41.154(b) . If no certified translation is in the official record for the application, the examiner must require the applicant to file a certified translation . The applicant should provide the required translation if applicant wants the application to be accorded benefit of the non-English language application. Any showing of priority that relies on a non-English language application is prima facie insufficient if no certified translation of the application is on file. See 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e) and MPEP 2304.01(c). Failure to provide certified translations may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English applications. Accordingly, the effective filing date of the instant claims is the filing date of the instant application , namely June 6, 2023. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1 1 2 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. Claim 14 is 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. In this case, claim 1 4 depends from clam 1 3 which recites a “ drug delivery system of claim 12, further comprising an antibody”, while claim 14 recites “wherein the antibody is co-administered with the exosomes to a subject in need thereof”. Therefore, claim 14 fails to further limit claim 1 3 because it merely recites the intended use of how the antibody is administered without further limiting the drug delivery device . 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. Claims 1- 4 and 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Seeger et al (WO2015/058148 A1) . With respect to claim 1, Seeger et al disclose methods for producing exosomes containing an overexpressed CD64 comprising: preparing a genetic construct encoding a full-length CD64; transducing the genetic construct into cells that do not naturally express CD64; expressing the full-length CD64 in the cells; culturing the cells in a medium; and isolating exosomes containing the full-length CD64 or the portion thereof (see abstract, pages 2, 11-14 and 22-23 and claims) . With respect to claims 2-3, Seeger et al disclose that exosomes can be isolated after being secreted into the medium (see abstract, pages 2, 10, 13 and 43). With respect to claim 4, Seeger et al disclose that the CD64 is on the surface of the exosomes (see Figure 1). With respect to claims 6 , 12 and 15, Seeger et al disclose methods that include providing a composition comprising the exosomes comprising F c receptors described herein (see page 4) . Notably, while the preambles of claims 6 , 12 and 15 recite the intended use a pharmaceutical , drug delivery system or a cosmetic, the preambles do not structurally or materially limit the claimed compositions from those in Seeger which can also be used as a pharmaceutical , drug delivery system or a cosmetic. With respect to claim 16, Seeger et al disclose the exosomes can be in an aerosol composition (see page 15). With respect to claims 7-8, Seeger et al disclose the exosomes can be in a composition including a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient (carrier) and have enhanced anti-cancer effect (see pages 6, 11, 15 and 37). With respect to claims 9-11 and 13-14, Seeger et al disclose the compositions can further comprise cancer cell killing agents such as antibodies fused to CD64 and/or cell killing agents inside the exosomes ( see pages 2-5 and 10 and Figure 1 ) . Therefore, the methods of Seeger et al is deemed to anticipate the claim s absent a showing otherwise. 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 . Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seeger et al (WO2015/058148 A1) and KR 10-2018-0063841 A, IDS. With respect to claim 1, Seeger et al disclose methods for producing exosomes containing an overexpressed CD64 comprising: preparing a genetic construct encoding a full-length CD64; transducing the genetic construct into cells that do not naturally express CD64; expressing the full-length CD64 in the cells; culturing the cells in a medium; and isolating exosomes containing the full-length CD64 or the portion thereof (see abstract, pages 2, 11-14 and 22-23 and claims) . With respect to claims 2-3, Seeger et al disclose that exosomes can be isolated after being secreted into the medium (see abstract, pages 2, 10, 13 and 43). With respect to claim 4, Seeger et al disclose that the CD64 is on the surface of the exosomes (see Figure 1). With respect to claims 6, 12 and 15, Seeger et al disclose methods that include providing a composition comprising the exosomes comprising F c receptors described herein (see page 4). Notably, while the preambles of claims 6, 12 and 15 recite the intended use a pharmaceutical, drug delivery system or a cosmetic, the preambles do not structurally or materially limit the claimed compositions from those in Seeger which can also be used as a pharmaceutical, drug delivery system or a cosmetic. With respect to claim 16, Seeger et al disclose the exosomes can be in an aerosol composition (see page 15). With respect to claims 7-8, Seeger et al disclose the exosomes can be in a composition including a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient (carrier) and have enhanced anti-cancer effect (see pages 6, 11, 15 and 37). With respect to claims 9-11 and 13-14, Seeger et al disclose the compositions can further comprise cancer cell killing agents such as antibodies fused to CD64 and/or cell killing agents inside the exosomes (see pages 2-5 and 10 and Figure 1). Seeger et al disclose cells that do not express the Fe receptors (such as CD64/FcyR1 or CD16/ FcyR3) could be genetically engineered to express the receptors and so engender their exosomes with the ability to bind antibodies, thus allowing targeting of exosomes from a variety of cells including but not limited to mesenchymal stromal cells, dendritic cells, regulatory T cells, macrophages and/or stem cells . Seeger et al does not disclose HEK293 or HEK293T cells to produce exosomes . KR 10-2018-0063841 A discloses using HEK293 or HEK293T cells that do not express HLA molecules to produce exosomes (see claims and pages 2 and 3 of translation ). Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use HEK293 or HEK293T cells of KR 10-2018-0063841 in order to produce exosomes that express CD64 as taught by Seeger et al to produce exosome s that express CD64 and not HLA molecules to reduce any immune response targeting the exosomes upon administration . Furthermore, as such cells were known to be used to produce exosomes this combination would also be seen as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results . Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, absent a showing otherwise. Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brad Duffy whose telephone number is (571) 272-9935. The examiner works a flexible schedule . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Julie Wu can be reached on (571) 27 2 - 5205. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. Respectfully, Brad Duffy 571-272-993 5 /Brad Duffy/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1643 December 19, 2025