DETAILED ACTION
Applicants’ arguments, filed 9 January 2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Note Regarding Color Figures
The examiner notes that in applicant’s response on 9 January 2026 (hereafter referred to as applicant’s response), applicant’s arguments therein rely upon the disclosures of various figures in the instant application, as of applicant’s response, paragraph bridging pages 9-10. However, upon viewing the figures in the file record, the examiner took the position that the teachings of some of the figures were unclear because the figures are in the file record available to the examiner in black and white. Consequently, examiner placed a telephone call to representative of applicant requesting that (a) applicant submit an internet communication authorization, and (b) representative of applicant provide a color copy of figures 4A and 4B via electronic mail, so that the examiner could evaluate the color figures. Representative of applicant did so on 20 January 2026. As such, the examiner’s evaluation of figures 4A and 4B, set forth in the section below entitled “Response to Arguments” is dependent upon the color figures provided by representative of applicant via electronic mail.
Claim Interpretation – Part 1
Claim 1 recites a peptide that comprises LLELLESL (SEQ ID NO: 1). The examiner notes that the term “comprises” does not exclude additional unrelated elements. See MPEP 2111.03(I).
As such, a peptide that comprises both the recited amino acids and additional unrecited acids is understood to meet the claim limitation. For example, a peptide with the sequence:
“GLFEALLELLESLWELLLEA”
is understood to read on the claimed requirement because “LLELLESL” is found within the above sequence GLFEALLELLESLWELLLEA.
The recited sequences in claim 5 will be interpreted in a similar manner.
Applicant does not appear to have provided arguments in an attempt to rebut this claim interpretation. As such, the examiner will proceed in examination with the understanding that applicant does not dispute this claim interpretation.
Claim Interpretation – Part 2
Claim 1 recites an ionizable lipid. The examiner will examine the claims as if the phrase “ionizable lipid” refers to a lipid which is ionized at certain pH values but not at all pH values. The examiner does not understand the scope term “ionizable lipid” to include zwitterionic lipids because zwitterionic lipids do not have a net charge.
The examiner’s search will concentrate on cationic lipids comprising at least one amine group that is not a quaternary ammonium ion. This is because these lipids represent the structures disclosed in the instant specification on page 48, paragraph 0177 through at least page 50. Also, these lipids are used in known RNA delivery systems such as the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (which are not intended for delivery to the spleen). In support of this position, the examiner cites Schoenmaker et al. (International Journal of Pharmaceutics 601 (2021) 120586, pages 1-13), which teaches ionizable cationic lipids at multiple locations in the reference, including on page 8, figure 6, reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
348
868
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nevertheless, the claimed ionizable lipid is not understood to be limited to ionizable cationic lipids, and also includes ionizable anionic lipids. With that being said, the examiner’s search has concentrated on ionizable cationic lipids such as those taught by Schoenmaker, as they would have been known for the delivery of nucleic acids at the time of filing.
Applicant does not appear to have provided arguments in an attempt to rebut this claim interpretation. As such, the examiner will proceed in examination with the understanding that applicant does not dispute this claim interpretation.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-9, 21, 23, 26, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harashima et al. (WO 2020/262150 A1) in view of Ahmed et al. (Biochimie 160 (2019), pages 61-75).
As an initial matter, Harashima et al. (WO 2020/262150 A1) was written in Japanese. The examiner has provided an English-language translation through Google translate. See ( https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2020262150A1/en?oq=WO+2020262150+ accessed 25 September 2025, pages 1-14). All page and paragraph citations will be to the English-language document obtained via Google Translate; however, the material cited therein is understood to have been present in the original Japanese-language document.
Harashima et al. (hereafter referred to as Harashima) is drawn to a lipid nanoparticle for use in a method of delivery of a gene product to the spleen, as of Harashima, page 1, title and abstract, wherein the abstract is reproduced below with annotation by the examiner.
PNG
media_image2.png
217
759
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As such, Harashima teaches administration of a lipid nanoparticle comprising a gene payload and an ionizable cationic lipid for delivery of said gene.
Harashima fails to teach the required peptide with the structure of Seq. ID #1.
Ahmad et al. (hereafter referred to as Ahmad) is drawn to the use of endosomolytic peptides, as of Ahmad, page 61, title and abstract. These appear to be useful in causing delivered synthetic genes to be capable of escaping the endosome to reach the cytoplasm where they can be translated, as of Ahmad, page 61, abstract. Ahmad teaches various endosomolytic peptides, as of Ahmad, page 65, Table 2, reproduced below with annotation by the examiner.
PNG
media_image3.png
346
1054
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The use of these peptides enables the achievement of endosomal escape and enables enhanced gene expression of genetic cargo, as of Ahmad, page 64, right column, last paragraph above table.
Ahmad does not teach a lipid nanoparticle with cationic lipids.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the peptide of Ahmad with the lipid nanoparticle composition used in the method of Harashima. Harashima is drawn to a method of delivering a genetic therapeutic product to the spleen. As Harashima is drawn to delivery of a genetic product, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have improved the gene expression of the genetic cargo of Harashima. Ahmad teaches that delivering a genetic product with an endosomolytic peptide such as that known as JTS-1 would have increased gene expression. As such, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have added the peptide of Ahmad to the composition used in the method of Harashima to have predictably improved the gene delivery of the composition of Harashima with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 2, the DOPE of Harashima, abstract, is understood to read on the required neutral lipid.
As to claim 7, Harashima teaches a siRNA or mRNA payload, as of the third paragraph on page 2. Harashima also teaches a siRNA payload as of the fourth to last paragraph of page 4.
As to claim 8, Harashima teaches 640 nmol of lipid per 30 microgram of nucleic acid, as of Harashima, page 6 of translation, relevant text reproduced below.
PNG
media_image4.png
84
1124
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It is unclear if this would have resulted in the required N:P ratio. Nevertheless, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In this case, the general conditions of a lipid nanoparticle encapsulating nucleic acid has been taught by Harashima. As such, it would not have been inventive for the skilled artisan to have discovered the optimum or workable ratio of lipids to nucleic acids via routine experimentation.
As to claim 9, Harashima teaches a siRNA or mRNA payload, as of the third paragraph on page 2. Harashima also teaches a siRNA payload as of the fourth to last paragraph of page 4.
As to claim 21, Harashima teaches a lipid nanoparticle, as of Harashima, title and abstract.
As to claim 23, Harashima teaches liposomes, as of page 4, relevant text reproduced below.
PNG
media_image5.png
72
1110
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As to claim 26, Harashima teaches intravenous administration, as of page 5 of translation, third paragraph.
As to claim 28, Harashima teaches the following as of figure 10A, reproduced below from the original Japanese document and annotated by the examiner.
PNG
media_image6.png
428
740
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As such, the examiner understands the above-reproduced figure to indicate that expression in dendritic cells has been achieved.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harashima et al. (WO 2020/262150 A1) in view of Ahmed et al. (Biochimie 160 (2019), pages 61-75), the combination further in view of Jessee (US 2011/0200624 A1).
Harashima is drawn to a method of delivering a nucleic acid to the spleen using a lipid nanoparticle. Ahmed is drawn to the use of an endosomolytic peptide to aid in delivery. See the rejection above over Harashima in view of Ahmed.
Neither of Harashima nor Ahmed teach the peptide required by instant claim 5.
Jessee is drawn to peptides that enhance the delivery of macromolecules into cells, as of Jessee, title and abstract. Jessee teaches the following, as of paragraph 0010, reproduced below with annotation by the examiner.
PNG
media_image7.png
254
404
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
492
406
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The above-indicated peptide appears to have seq I.D. 25 therein and appears to be useful for enhancing transfection.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the peptide of Jessee in the composition used in the method of Harashima in view of Ahmed. The composition used in the method of Harashima is intended for intracellular delivery of nucleic acid, and the peptide of Ahmed aids in that purpose. The peptide of Jessee appears useful for enhancing transfection. As such, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have combined the peptide of Jessee with the composition used in the method of Harashima in view of Ahmed in order to have predictably enhanced delivery of the nucleic acid delivered by Harashima and Ahmed with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 5, the peptide of Jessee is understood to read on the additional requirement of this claim.
As to claim 6, Jessee teaches the following, as of paragraph 0067, which is reproduced below with text highlighted by the examiner.
PNG
media_image9.png
242
404
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The indicated range of peptide concentration appears to overlap with the claimed range. While the prior art does not disclose the exact claimed values, but does overlap: in such instances even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Additional Relevant Prior Art
The examiner notes the presence of additional prior art. As relevant prior art in this regard, the examiner cites Sgouros et al. (US 2011/0165223 A1), which is drawn to liposomal delivery of a vaccine to the spleen, as of Sgouros, title and abstract.
Sgouros differs from the claimed invention because Sgouros lacks the required peptide with the formula of Seq ID No: 1 (in this respect, Sgouros is similar to Harashima). Also, Sgouros does not appear to teach an ionizable lipid (to the extent that a zwitterionic lipid does not read on the required ionizable lipid). As such Sgouros is not the closest prior art, and no rejection over Sgouros has been written by the examiner.
In selecting the references to be used in rejecting the claims, the examiner should carefully compare the references with one another and with the applicant’s disclosure to avoid an unnecessary number of rejections over similar references. The examiner is not called upon to cite all references that may be available, but only the "best." (See 37 CFR 1.104(c).) Multiplying references, any one of which is as good as, but no better than, the others, adds to the burden and cost of prosecution and should therefore be avoided. See MPEP 904.03. As such, no rejection over Sgouros has been written by the examiner.
Nevertheless, the examiner takes the position that the teachings of Sgouros may become relevant in prosecution. Specifically, Sgouros teaches a particular diameter range of greater than about 300 nm to target the spleen, as of Sgouros, abstract. As such, the skilled artisan would have looked to Sgouros to have determined optimal targeting strategies to the spleen.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has provided arguments regarding the previously applied rejection, as of applicant’s response on 9 January 2026 (hereafter referred to as applicant’s response). These arguments are addressed below. The examiner will first address applicant’s arguments related to alleged unexpected results, and subsequently will address applicant’s response relating more specifically to the prima facie case of obviousness.
PNG
media_image10.png
302
792
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
198
792
media_image11.png
Greyscale
In response, the examiner notes that both figures 4A and 4B, which are discussed in the above response, appear to compare a formulation known as “LP11” against a formulation known as “LP12.” In view of this, the examiner reviewed the instant specification in an attempt to determine the chemical composition of these formulations. As best understood by the examiner, the phrases “LP11” and “LP12” refer to different lipid formulations, and are silent as to whether the recited peptide of Seq. ID #1 is present. This determination is made at least in view of the legend of the graph of figure 7A, which teaches the presence of LP11, LP11 without peptide, LP12, and LP12 without peptide.
As such, figures 4A and 4B appear to be comparing methods of administering two formulations, wherein both formulations comprise the peptide required by claim 1. In contrast, figures 4A and 4B do not appear to compare the claimed method against a comparative method. Direct and indirect comparative tests can be probative of non-obviousness. See MPEP 716.02(b)(III). However, figures 4A and 4B do not appear to show direct or indirect comparative testing and are therefore not probative of non-obviousness.
In contrast, figure 7A does appear to show comparative testing. This figure is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image12.png
612
1002
media_image12.png
Greyscale
As best understood by the examiner, the term “peptide” in the legend at the above-shown right corner of the graph refer to the peptide with Seq. ID #6 – see the instant specification on page 10, paragraph [0052], which is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image13.png
130
780
media_image13.png
Greyscale
In order to overcome a rejection based upon unexpected results, the claimed invention must be compared with the closest subject matter to actually exist in the prior art. See MPEP 716.02(e). In this case, the examiner understands the comparative example to be at least as close to the claimed invention as the example of Harashima. This is because both the comparative example and Harashima are drawn to a method of administering a lipid nanoparticle comprising an ionizable lipid and a payload, but in the absence of the required peptide. Regarding Ahmad and Jessee, the examiner takes the position that while these references teach a peptide that is within the scope of the peptide required by Seq. ID #1 of the claimed method, both Ahmad and Jessee teach this peptide, but in a long list of peptides rather than as a single example. As such, neither Ahmad nor Jessee exemplify a method of administering a composition comprising the required peptide. Although evidence of unexpected results must compare the claimed invention with the closest prior art, applicant is not required to compare the claimed invention with subject matter that does not exist in the prior art. See MPEP 716.02(e)(III). In this case, a method utilizing a composition having an ionizable lipid, a payload, AND the peptide required by Seq. ID #1 is not understood to actually exist in Ahmad and Jessee.
In order to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness based upon unexpected results, the burden is on applicant to establish that the results have statistical and practical significance. In this case, the data presented by figure 7A shows a statistically significant increase in delivery to dendritic cells. This has practical significance because dendritic cells are the cell type which presents an antigen payload to the adaptive immune system in order to train T-cell and B-cells on a particular antigen. With that being said, it is unclear as to what extent there is a nexus between delivery to dendritic cells and delivery to the spleen. See MPEP 716.01(b) regarding the nexus requirement.
Additionally, the data provided by applicant in figure 7A does not appear to be commensurate with the scope of instant claim 1, which is the broadest claim under examination. Specifically, the data in figure 7A relates to a peptide with the sequence ID #6. See the instant specification on page 10, paragraph [0052]. This does not appear to be commensurate with the full scope of peptides within the scope of Seq. ID #1 recited by the instantly claimed invention. See the section above entitled “Claim Interpretation” set forth above. The reason for the lack of commensurateness in scope is because there is no evidence that peptides different from Seq. ID #6, which is the peptide used in the examples discussed in figure 7A, would have had a similar effect as compared with the peptide of Seq. ID #6.
Regarding the prima facie case of obviousness, applicant makes the following argument as of page 8, relevant text reproduced below.
PNG
media_image14.png
268
792
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Even if, purely en arguendo, the above-reproduced text is factually correct, it is insufficient to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness. As the method of Harashima, by itself or in view of another reference, successfully targets the spleen, this is sufficient to meet the claimed requirements even if the reason why the method of Harashima targets the spleen differs from the reason why the claimed method targets the spleen. “The discovery of … a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition (or in this case method) patentably new to the discoverer.” See MPEP 2112(I).
The examiner further notes that even if, purely en arguendo, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have modified Harashima with the method of Ahmad for a reason that differs from targeting the spleen, that would still be sufficient to meet the claimed requirements. The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See MPEP 2144(IV). In this case, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have modified the composition used in the method of Harashima with the peptide of Ahmad to have increased gene expression generally; see page 7 of the prior office action. This would have been sufficient to have resulted in a prima facie case of obviousness even though this rationale differs from that of targeting the spleen.
Applicant then makes the following argument on page 8, third paragraph, relevant text reproduced below.
PNG
media_image15.png
100
788
media_image15.png
Greyscale
The examiner understands the above-reproduced text to be an admission that the prior art method of Harashima successfully targets the spleen. An argument by the applicant is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection. See MPEP 2145(I). In view of this, this bolsters the examiner’s case that there would have been a reasonable expectation that the product administered in the method of Harashima in view of Ahmad would have successfully targeted the spleen; this is for essentially the same reason that the skilled artisan would have expected that the product administered in the method of Harashima would have been expected to have targeted the spleen.
Applicant makes the following arguments regarding Ahmed, which are set forth below.
PNG
media_image16.png
172
790
media_image16.png
Greyscale
These arguments are not persuasive. Regarding the peptide sequence, the examiner notes that pages 6-7 of the prior office action describe how the peptide sequence of Ahmed reads on the claimed peptide sequence. Nothing in applicant’s arguments specifically addresses the positions taken on pages 6-7 of the prior office action. As such, the argument that Ahmed fails to teach the claimed peptide sequence is not persuasive.
Regarding Ahmed’s alleged lack of teaching of spleen targeting, this is not persuasive because spleen targeting has already been taught by Harashima. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP 2145(IV).
Regarding the Jessee reference, applicant argues that the teachings of Jessee relate to in vitro experiments, whereas the claimed invention is drawn to in vivo delivery, as of the paragraph bridging pages 8-9 of applicant’s response. This is not persuasive at least because Jessee suggests in vivo delivery, as of at least paragraph 0045. If, purely en arguendo, applicant is arguing that Jessee fails to be enabling for in vivo delivery, this is not persuasive. When the reference relied on expressly anticipates or makes obvious all of the elements of the claimed invention, the reference is presumed to be operable. Once such a reference is found, the burden is on applicant to rebut the presumption of operability. See MPEP 2121(I). The assertions made regarding the teachings of Jessee in applicant’s response on pages 8-9 are insufficient to rebut the presumption of operability.
Applicant also argues that Jessee does not teach that the peptides taught by Jessee would have been useful for spleen delivery, as of applicant’s response on the top of page 9. This is not persuasive because the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have added these peptides for a different reason; namely, to increase transfection generally. See pages 10-11 and the top of page 12 of the prior office action. The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See MPEP 2144(IV).
The examiner has included text of a proposed amendment to place the application in condition for allowance on the next page.
Proposed Examiner’s Amendment
The examiner proposes amending the instant claims in the following manner in order to place the instant claims in condition for allowance.
X) Claim 1 is proposed to be amended in the following manner:
Claim 1 (Proposed Amendment): A method for delivering a payload to dendritic cells in the [[ ]] spleen [[ ]] of a subject, comprising:
providing a lipid complex comprising:
at least one ionizable lipid,
at least one peptide, wherein the peptide [[ ]] consists of SEQ ID NO: 6; and
at least one payload molecule; and
administering the lipid complex to a subject.
X) Claim 2 is proposed to be allowed without further amendment.
X) Claims 3-4 have already been cancelled.
X) Claim 5 is proposed to be allowed without further amendment.
X) Claim 6 is proposed to be amended in the following manner:
Claim 6 (Proposed Amendment): The method of claim 1, wherein said peptide that consists of SEQ ID NO: 6 is at a concentration from about 0.001 to about 0.5 mg/mL, or from about 0.05 mg/mL to about 0.5 mg/mL.
X) Claim 7 is proposed to be allowed without further amendment.
X) Claim 8 is proposed to be allowed without further amendment.
X) Claim 9 is proposed to be allowed without further amendment.
X) Claims 10-20 have already been cancelled.
X) Claim 21 is proposed to be allowed without further amendment.
X) Claim 22 has been cancelled without prejudice or disclaimer.
X) Claim 23 is proposed to be allowed without further amendment.
X) Claims 24-25 have been cancelled without prejudice or disclaimer.
X) Claim 26 is proposed to be allowed without further amendment.
X) Claims 27-66 have either been cancelled without prejudice or disclaimer or are proposed to be cancelled without prejudice or disclaimer.
Reasons for Proposed Amendments
The examiner presents the following reasons for setting forth the proposed examiner’s amendment.
First, the amendment to claim 1 is proposed in order to render claim 1 commensurate in scope with the results provided by applicant.
Secondly, claim 28 is proposed to be cancelled because it is not further limiting in view of the proposed amendments to claim 1.
Third, the non-elected claims are proposed to be cancelled and are not eligible for rejoinder. The examiner notes that the restriction requirement mailed on 10 July 2025 states the following on page 7, relevant text reproduced below.
PNG
media_image17.png
262
790
media_image17.png
Greyscale
As such, the rejoinder provisions are for a case in which applicant elects product (i.e. composition claims) which are found allowable; in that situation, the examiner should consider method claims for rejoinder. There is no provision for the examiner to rejoin product claims in the case in which method claims are found to be allowable. As such, the examiner has proposed cancelling non-elected claims in order to expediently place the instant application in condition for allowance.
The examiner further notes that in order to obtain a patent based upon unexpected results, the results must truly be unexpected. See MPEP 716.02(c). In this case, the results of the peptide of Seq. ID #6 providing improved delivery to dendritic cells in the spleen appears to be unexpected. The prior art teaches the peptide of Seq. ID #6. However, this peptide appears to have been used for membrane destabilization, as taught by Ahmad. The skilled artisan would have expected that the inclusion of this peptide would have resulted in somewhat improved delivery to all cell types in the case where the active agent is a nucleic acid encoding a protein. This would have been expected due to greater penetration of the active agent through the cell membrane. The skilled artisan would not have expected delivery to the dendritic cells of the spleen. As such, applicant’s results in the specification appear to result in a significant improvement in delivery of an active agent to the dendritic cells of the spleen that would not have been expected by the skilled artisan.
The examiner also notes that the proposed limitation to specify dendritic cells appears to differentiate the claimed invention from Harashima. In support of this position, the examiner cites figure 10A of Harashima, which was previously reproduced on page 9 of the prior office action mailed on 10 October 2025 and is reproduced below with annotation, and side-by-side next to instant figure 7A.
PNG
media_image6.png
428
740
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
612
1002
media_image12.png
Greyscale
The examiner notes that in figure 10A of Harashima, there is a difference in the scale of the y-axis for the different cell types. The y-axis for T-cells goes up to 60, and the y-axis for B-cells goes up to 150. In contrast, the y-axis for dendritic cells only goes up to 10. This appears to indicate greater delivery to the B-cells and T-cells than to the dendritic cells. In contrast, figure 7A of the instant application appears to show greater delivery to the dendritic cells. As such, although both Harashima and the claimed invention are drawn to delivery to the spleen, the claimed invention appears to teach delivery to dendritic cells in the spleen, whereas Harashima appears to teach more delivery to alternate cell types in the spleen such as B-cells and T-cells and less (though not zero) delivery to dendritic cells.
Regarding claim 8, the examiner takes the position that the differing numerical ranges presented in the claim are acceptable and not subject to an indefiniteness rejection because these ranges are clearly presented in the alternative. The examiner notes that the Markush group, "selected from the group consisting of amino, halogen, nitro, chloro and alkyl" should be acceptable even though "halogen" is generic to "chloro." See MPEP 2173.05(h)(I), last paragraph in section. Similarly, the Markush group reciting a N/P ratio of either “0.01 to 0.2” or “0.02 to 0.5” would appear to be acceptable even though these ranges partially overlap. As such, it would be clear that a N/P ratio of e.g. 0.3 would be within the claim scope because it is within the scope of the range of 0.02 to 0.5, which is one of the alternatives recited by claim 8. As such, as the numerical ranges of claim 8 are clearly presented in the alternative, claim 8 is clearly not indefinite.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed at this time.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISAAC SHOMER whose telephone number is (571)270-7671. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM Monday Through Friday.
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 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.
ISAAC . SHOMER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1612
/ISAAC SHOMER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612