DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s Amendment/Remarks filed 11/25/2025.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/25/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 4, 9, 13, 14 and 22 have been amended. Claims 7, 20 and 23-25 are cancelled. No claims are newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-6, 8-19, 21 and 22 remain pending in the application and are currently under examination.
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. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application Nos. 62/250,569 and 15/363,077, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
The instant claims recite, “a first surface functionalizing polymer and a second surface functionalizing polymer” and “wherein the first surface functionalizing polymer is selected from the group consisting of an ionic surfactant, a non-ionic surfactant, and a block copolymer with surfactant properties” (instant claims 1 and 13), “wherein the second surface functionalizing polymer is a charged polyelectrolyte selected from the group consisting of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyethyleneimine (PEI), and an amphiphilic conjugate between a block copolymer and a functional molecule, and combinations thereof” (instant claim 1), and “wherein the second surface functionalizing polymer is a conjugate between a hydrophilic block of a block copolymer and hydrophilic functional molecules” (instant claim 13). The general concepts of “a first surface functionalizing polymer and a second surface functionalizing polymer”, “wherein the first surface functionalizing polymer is selected from the group consisting of an ionic surfactant, a non-ionic surfactant, and a block copolymer with surfactant properties, wherein the second surface functionalizing polymer is a charged polyelectrolyte selected from the group consisting of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyethyleneimine (PEI), and an amphiphilic conjugate between a block copolymer and a functional molecule, and combinations thereof”, and “wherein the second surface functionalizing polymer is a conjugate between a hydrophilic block of a block copolymer and hydrophilic functional molecules” are not supported by the disclosure of the prior filed applications ‘569 and ‘077. Additionally, poly(lactic acid), poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid), poly(caprolactone), poly(aspartic acid), poly(glutamic acid) recited in claims 3 and 16, the hydrophobic drugs recited in claims 9 and 22 (with the exception of doxorubicin and camptothecin), folic acid recited in claim 14 are not supported by the disclosure of the prior filed applications ‘569 and ‘077. Accordingly, the instant claims are afforded an effective priority date of November 14, 2019.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 11/22/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of USPN 11,833,486 B2 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Withdrawn Rejections
Applicant’s amendment renders the various rejections of claims 4, 9 and 22 under 35 USC 112(b) moot. Specifically, the claims have been amended to remedy the improper Markush group and indefinite issues. Thus, said rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
37 CFR §1.118 (a) states that "No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of an application after the filing date of the application".
There is no explicit or implicit teaching in the specification for a charged polyelectrolyte that is an amphiphilic conjugate between a block copolymer and a functional molecule, and combinations thereof (instant claim 1); the subject matter was not properly described as filed. The instant specification states that the second surface functionalizing polymer can be “an amphiphilic conjugate between a hydrophobic block and hydrophilic functional molecules” ([0080]). MPEP 2163 states, “Under certain circumstances, omission of a limitation can raise an issue regarding whether the inventor had possession of a broader, more generic invention”. In this case, the instant specification specifies that the block is hydrophobic and the functional molecules are hydrophilic whereas the claimed limitation does not specify the hydrophobicity/hydrophilicity of the block and the functional molecules and, as such, the claimed subject matter is broader in scope than what is disclosed in the instant specification. Accordingly, omission of the hydrophobicity of the block and the hydrophilicity of the functional molecules raises the issue of whether the inventor had possession of the broader, more generic invention claimed.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-12 do not remedy the written description issue and, as such, said dependent claims suffer from the same deficiency.
Applicant is invited to identify the portion of the specification that teaches said limitation, as the examiner has not been able to locate the applicable disclosure. The claims within this rejection are examined as written by the applicant; at this time new matter must be considered as part of the claimed subject matter.
MPEP 2163.06 notes: "If new matter is added to the claims, the examiner should reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph - written description requirement. In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981)." MPEP 2163.02 teaches that "Whenever the issue arises, the fundamental factual inquiry is whether a claim defines an invention that is clearly conveyed to those skilled in the art at the time the application was filed...If a claim is amended to include subject matter, limitations, or terminology not present in the application as filed, involving a departure from, addition to, or deletion from the disclosure of the application as filed, the examiner should conclude that the claimed subject matter is not described in that application. MPEP 2163.06 further notes "When an amendment is filed in reply to an objection or rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, a study of the entire application is often necessary to determine whether or not "new matter" is involved. Applicant should therefore specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure".
This is a new matter rejection. Correction is respectfully requested.
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 4 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.
Claim 4 recites, “wherein the charged polyelectrolyte is selected from the group of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyethyleneimine (PEI), and an amphiphilic conjugate between a block copolymer and a functional molecule, and combinations thereof”. Claim 4 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites, “wherein the charged polyelectrolyte is selected from the group consisting of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyethyleneimine (PEI), and an amphiphilic conjugate between a block copolymer and a functional molecule, and combinations thereof”. Claim 4 essentially recites the same charged polyelectrolyte Markush group. Accordingly, the subject matter of claim 4 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 1. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al. (US 2017/0151347 A1, published Jun. 1, 2017, hereafter as “Peng”).
The instant claims are drawn to a particle, comprising: a cellulose acetate and a cargo agent, wherein the cargo agent is non-covalently bonded to the cellulose acetate, a molecular coating, the molecular coating being a functionalized surface, wherein the molecular coating comprises a first surface functionalizing polymer and a second surface functionalizing polymer, each being non-covalently bonded to the cellulose acetate, wherein the first surface functionalizing polymer is selected from the group consisting of an ionic surfactant, a non-ionic surfactant, and a block copolymer with surfactant properties, wherein the second surface functionalizing polymer is a charged polyelectrolyte selected from the group consisting of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyethyleneimine (PEI), and an amphiphilic conjugate between a block copolymer and a functional molecule, and combinations thereof.
Regarding instant claim 1, Peng teaches cellulose acetate nanoparticles or rods that encapsulate active substances and the particle/rod surface is functionalized (abstract). Peng teaches that the active substance (i.e., cargo agent) is non-covalently bonded to the cellulose acetate ([0009]). Peng teaches that the particle further comprises a general polymer that is physically bonded to the cellulose acetate ([0013]). It is noted that the instant specification equates the terms, non-covalently bonded and physically bonded at [0006] of the instant specification. Peng also teaches that the general polymer is either an ionic surfactant, a non-ionic surfactant, or a charged polyelectrolyte and names the specific polymers, polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), Pluronic-F 127 (PF127), polyethyleneimine (PEI), or polyethylene glycol (PEG) ([0013]). Peng also teaches a specific embodiment comprising the combination of polymers, PEI and PEG (Table 3). It is noted that PF127 is known in the art as a non-ionic surfactant that is a triblock copolymer composed of a central hydrophobic chain of poly(propylene oxide) flanked by two hydrophilic chains of poly(ethylene oxide). Thus, said PF127 reads on the claimed, a first surface functionalizing polymer that is a non-ionic surfactant and a block copolymer with surfactant properties.
Peng is silent to a particular embodiment comprising the combination of a first surface functionalizing polymer and a second functionalizing polymer, wherein the first surface functionalizing polymer is an ionic surfactant, a non-ionic surfactant or a block copolymer with surfactant properties and wherein the second surface functionalizing polymer is a charged polyelectrolyte selected from the group consisting of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyethyleneimine (PEI), and an amphiphilic conjugate between a block copolymer and a functional molecule, and combinations thereof.
However, MPEP 2144.06 (I) states that "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art."
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a first surface functionalizing polymer selected from an ionic surfactant, a non-ionic surfactant or a block copolymer with surfactant properties and a charged polyelectrolyte selected from the group consisting of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyethyleneimine (PEI), and an amphiphilic conjugate between a block copolymer and a functional molecule, and combinations thereof as a second functionalizing polymer with a reasonable expectation of success because it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which are taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose (i.e., functionalizing the particle surface), in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.
Regarding instant claim 2, Peng teaches that the particles have diameters ranging from 30-200 nm ([0004]).
Regarding instant claim 3, Peng, as discussed above, teaches PF127 which is known in the art as a triblock copolymer composed of a central hydrophobic chain of poly(propylene oxide) flanked by two hydrophilic chains of poly(ethylene oxide). Poly(ethylene oxide) and the claimed hydrophilic block, polyethylene glycol, are chemically identical and known as synonyms in the art. Accordingly, PF127 meets the limitations of the claim.
Regarding instant claim 4, Peng, as discussed above, teaches PVP and PEI.
Regarding instant claims 5 and 6, Peng teaches that the cargo agent is fluorescent and in some embodiments, the particle exhibits fluorescent ultrabrightness ([0011]).
Regarding instant claims 8 and 9, Peng teaches that the cargo agent is a hydrophobic drug including camptothecin or doxyrubicin ([0012]).
Regarding instant claims 10-12, Peng provides an exemplary embodiment wherein the particle has a rod shape, the guest cargo is Nile Red dye, and the rod diameters range from less than 50 nm to 200-300 nm and lengths range from 1 to 8 microns ([0042]-[0044]; Figs. 3A and 3B).
Thus, the teachings of Peng render the instant claims prima facie obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 11/25/2025, regarding the 103 rejection over Peng have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the second functionalizing polymer imparts targeting functionality of the particles, as exemplified by folic acid (Example 7 of the specification, [0101]-[0104]). Applicant notes that folic acid is known to allow particles to be captured by folate receptors on the surface of biological cells and cites a Nature article. Applicant further states that unexpectedly, the use of such second functionalizing polymer in combination with fluorescent dyes enables the resulting particles to achieve fluorescence ultrabrightness (Table 6 of the specification). Remarks, pages 2-3 of Remarks.
In response, it is respectfully submitted that the instant claims do not require folic acid and ultrabrightness is not recited in the independent claim. Further, Peng teaches the claimed second functionalizing polymers such as PVP and PEI ([0013]). Peng also teaches that the particle can exhibit fluorescent ultrabrightness ([0011]). Thus, Peng not only teaches the claimed charged polyelectrolyte polymers but also teaches that the particle can exhibit fluorescent ultrabrightness. MPEP 716.02 states, “Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected”. Thus, the teachings of Peng contradict applicant’s assertion of unexpected results. MPEP 716.02(c)(II) states, “Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention, just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness thereof”. In this case, Peng’s teachings provide evidence of expected results which weighs in the favor of obviousness.
Thus, for these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive. Said rejection is maintained.
Claims 13-19, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al. (US 2017/0151347 A1, published Jun. 1, 2017, hereafter as “Peng”) in view of Wang et al. (US 2011/0085987 A1, published Apr. 14, 2011, hereafter as “Wang”).
The instant claims are drawn to a particle, comprising: a cellulose acetate and a cargo agent, wherein the cargo agent is non-covalently bonded to the cellulose acetate, a molecular coating, the molecular coating being a functionalized surface, wherein the molecular coating comprises a first surface functionalizing polymer and a second surface functionalizing polymer, each being non-covalently bonded to the cellulose acetate, wherein the first surface functionalizing polymer is selected form the group an ionic surfactant, a non-ionic surfactant, a block copolymer with surfactant properties, wherein the second surface functionalizing polymer is a conjugate between a hydrophilic block of a block copolymer and hydrophilic functional molecules.
Regarding instant claims 13 and 14, Peng teaches cellulose acetate nanoparticles or rods that encapsulate active substances and the particle/rod surface is functionalized (abstract). Peng teaches that the active substance (i.e., cargo agent) is non-covalently bonded to the cellulose acetate ([0009]). Peng teaches that the particle further comprises a general polymer that is physically bonded to the cellulose acetate ([0013]). It is noted that the instant specification equates the terms, non-covalently bonded and physically bonded at [0006] of the instant specification. Peng also teaches that the general polymer is either an ionic surfactant, a non-ionic surfactant, or a charged polyelectrolyte and names the specific polymers, polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), Pluronic-F 127 (PF127), polyethyleneimine (PEI), or polyethylene glycol (PEG) ([0013]). Peng also teaches a specific embodiment comprising the combination of polymers, PEI and PEG (Table 3). It is noted that PF127 is known in the art as a non-ionic surfactant and is a triblock copolymer composed of a central hydrophobic chain of poly(propylene oxide) flanked by two hydrophilic chains of poly(ethylene oxide). Peng also teaches that the cargo agent is a hydrophobic drug including chemotherapeutic agents, camptothecin or doxyrubicin ([0012]).
Peng is silent to a particular embodiment comprising the combination of a first surface functionalizing polymer and a second functionalizing polymer, wherein the first surface functionalizing polymer is selected form the group an ionic surfactant, a non-ionic surfactant, a block copolymer with surfactant properties.
However, MPEP 2144.06 (I) states that "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art."
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a first surface functionalizing polymer selected form the group an ionic surfactant, a non-ionic surfactant, a block copolymer with surfactant properties and a second functionalizing polymer with a reasonable expectation of success because it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which are taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose (i.e., functionalizing the particle surface), in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.
Peng is also silent to “the second surface functionalizing polymer is a conjugate between a hydrophilic block of a block copolymer and hydrophilic functional molecules” (instant claim 13) and “wherein the second surface functionalization polymer is a conjugate between a hydrophilic block of the block copolymer and folic acid” (instant claim 14).
Wang teaches nanoparticles, in particular, a folic acid-mediated magnetic nanoparticle, which acts as a drug carrier for cancer therapy and a contrast agent for magnetic resonance imaging ([0001]). Wang teaches the particular chemotherapeutic agent, doxorubicin ([0019]). Wang teaches reacting folic acid (FA) with a polymer, wherein said polymer is PF127 and synthesis of FA-PF127 involves conjugating the hydroxyl groups of PF127 with the carboxylic acid groups of FA ([0006], [0027] and [0062]). Wang teaches that FA conjugated onto PF127-bound MNPs meets most of the promising characteristics for folate receptors as tumor targeting agents and the inclusion of FA showed an increase in cellular uptake by 10 fold ([0029] and [0073]).
Peng and Wang are both drawn to nanoparticles comprising doxorubicin and the polymer, PF127, for chemotherapy applications, thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to conjugate folic acid to the hydrophilic block of PF127 as suggested by Wang into the invention of Peng with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Wang teaches that conjugating folic acid to PF127 of a chemotherapeutic nanoparticle effectively improves cellular uptake/tumor targeting properties.
Regarding instant claim 15, Peng teaches that the particles have diameters ranging from 30-200 nm ([0004]).
Regarding instant claim 16, Peng, as discussed above, teaches PF127 which is known in the art as a triblock copolymer composed of a central hydrophobic chain of poly(propylene oxide) flanked by two hydrophilic chains of poly(ethylene oxide). Poly(ethylene oxide) and the claimed hydrophilic block, polyethylene glycol, are chemically identical and known as synonyms in the art. Accordingly, PF127 meets the limitations of the claim.
Regarding instant claim 17, Peng, as discussed above, teaches PF127 which reads on “poloxamer”.
Regarding instant claims 18 and 19, Peng teaches that the cargo agent is fluorescent and in some embodiments, the particle exhibits fluorescent ultrabrightness ([0011]).
Regarding instant claims 21 and 22, Peng teaches that the cargo agent is a hydrophobic drug including chemotherapeutic agents, camptothecin or doxyrubicin ([0012]).
Thus, the combined teachings of Peng and Wang render the instant claims prima facie obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 11/25/2025, regarding the 103 rejection over Peng in view of Wang have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks regarding Peng are discussed above.
Applicant also argues that there are fundamental differences between the claimed invention and Wang, namely, the architecture and material of the particles. Applicant states that Wang teaches micelles and liposomes formed solely by amphiphilic polymers, without any cellulose acetate matrix, dual-polymer surface configuration, non-covalent coating over a pre-formed solid particle, which defines the particle functionality. Remarks, page 2 of Remarks.
In response, it is respectfully submitted that the rejection is based on the combined teachings of Peng and Wang. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Rather, "[T]he test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to [a PHOSITA]" (MPEP 2145 (IV). While Peng is silent to the limitations, “the second surface functionalizing polymer is a conjugate between a hydrophilic block of a block copolymer and hydrophilic functional molecules” (instant claim 13) and “wherein the second surface functionalization polymer is a conjugate between a hydrophilic block of the block copolymer and folic acid” (instant claim 14), Wang teaches nanoparticles, in particular, a folic acid-mediated magnetic nanoparticle, which acts as a drug carrier for cancer therapy and a contrast agent for magnetic resonance imaging ([0001]). Wang teaches the particular chemotherapeutic agent, doxorubicin ([0019]). Wang teaches reacting folic acid (FA) with a polymer, wherein said polymer is PF127 and synthesis of FA-PF127 involves conjugating the hydroxyl groups of PF127 with the carboxylic acid groups of FA ([0006], [0027] and [0062]). Wang teaches that FA conjugated onto PF127-bound MNPs meets most of the promising characteristics for folate receptors as tumor targeting agents and the inclusion of FA showed an increase in cellular uptake by 10 fold ([0029] and [0073]). Both Peng and Wang are drawn to nanoparticles comprising doxorubicin and the polymer, PF127, for chemotherapy applications. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to conjugate folic acid to the hydrophilic block of PF127, as suggested by Wang, into the invention of Peng with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Wang teaches that conjugating folic acid to PF127 of a chemotherapeutic nanoparticle effectively improves cellular uptake/tumor targeting properties. Accordingly, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established.
Thus, for these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive. Said rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
All claims have been rejected; no claims are allowed.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY HAGOPIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6097. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 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, Sue Liu can be reached on 571-272-5539. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/CASEY S HAGOPIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1617