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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 16 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 16 June 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) – Indefiniteness
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 16-18 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.
Claims 16 and 18 recite the abbreviation “WDa.” This abbreviation does not appear to have been defined by the instant specification, and it is unclear how this abbreviation further limits the claim. As best understood by the examiner, the abbreviation “Da” refers to Dalton, which is a g/mol and is a unit of molecular weight. The abbreviation “kDa” refers to kilodalton, and is 1000 g/mol. However, it is unclear how the letter “W” further modifies “Da.” As such, it is unclear how the abbreviation “WDa” further modifies the claim.
For the purposes of examination under prior art, the examiner will proceed with the understanding that “WDa” does not further limit the claims.
Claim Interpretation
The instant claims recite a photothermal nanoparticle. As best understood by the examiner, upconversion nanoparticles are a form of a photothermal nanoparticle. See Huang et al. (US 2016/0271072 A1), paragraph 0249, which appears to indicate that upconversion nanoparticles, along with gold nanoparticles and quantum dots are photothermal nanoparticles.
For the purposes of examination under prior art, the examiner understands a nanoparticle comprising a metallic element in a non-zero (i.e. non-metallic) oxidation state to read on the required metal nanoparticle of claims 9-10.
Regarding claims 11-12, the examiner understands these claims to require either Mxene, a gold nanoparticle, a platinum nanoparticle, a polydopamine nanoparticle, or a graphene oxide nanoparticle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1) – Anticipation
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mukherjee et al. (US 2019/0255088 A1).
Mukherjee et al. (hereafter referred to as Mukherjee) is drawn to an organic-inorganic nanocomposite. Mukherjee teaches the following, as of example 3, relevant text reproduced in part below.
PNG
media_image1.png
313
527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, the cationic liposome reads on the drug delivery carrier, the siRNA reads on the nucleic acid, and the gold nanoparticle reads on the photothermal nanoparticle.
As to claim 2, the siRNA in the above-reproduced paragraph reads on the required RNA drug.
As to claims 9-10, the gold nanoparticle of Mukherjee reads on the required metal nanoparticle.
As to claims 11-12, the gold nanoparticle of Mukherjee reads on the additional requirements of these claims.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-10, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (Advanced Healthcare Materials, Vol. 9, 1900635, 2020, pages 1-11).
Wang et al. (hereafter referred to as Wang) is drawn to microneedles for the delivery of nucleic acids such as siRNA, as of Wang, page 1, title and abstract. These microneedles also comprise up-conversion nanoparticles, as of Wang, page 2, Scheme 1, reproduced below, wherein the abbreviation “UCNP” refers to upconversion nanoparticles.
PNG
media_image2.png
788
900
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, the claim requires a drug delivery carrier. The microneedle of Wang is understood to read on the required drug delivery carrier.
As to claim 1, the claim requires a nucleic acid drug. The gene in the gene-loaded particle in the above-reproduced figure is understood to read on this requirement.
As to claim 1, the claim requires a photothermal nanoparticle. The upconversion nanoparticle in the above-reproduced figure is understood to read on this requirement.
As to claim 2, Wang teaches siRNA, as of page 1, right column, bottom paragraph.
As to claims 3-4, Wang teaches a 980 nm infrared laser, as of at least page 3, caption of figure 1 and left column, first paragraph under figure 1.
As to claims 9-10, the upconversion nanoparticle of Wang is made from NaYF4 doped with Erbium and Neodymium, as of Wang, page 3, left column, section 2.1. Sodium, yttrium, erbium, and neodymium are all metals; as such, the nanoparticle of Wang is understood to be a metal nanoparticle. That sodium, yttrium, erbium, and neodymium are all in a non-zero oxidation state is not sufficient to render the nanoparticle of Wang as being other than a metal nanoparticle; see the section above entitled “Claim Interpretation.”
As to claims 13-14, Wang teaches a microneedle patch, as of Wang, page 1, title.
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 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukherjee et al. (US 2019/0255088 A1).
Mukherjee et al. (hereafter referred to as Mukherjee) is drawn to an organic-inorganic nanocomposite. Mukherjee teaches the following, as of example 3, relevant text reproduced in part below.
PNG
media_image1.png
313
527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, the cationic liposome reads on the drug delivery carrier, the siRNA reads on the nucleic acid, and the gold nanoparticle reads on the photothermal nanoparticle.
As to claim 1, for the purposes of this rejection, purely en arguendo and in regard to this ground of rejection only, the examiner takes the position that Mukherjee teaches all of the required elements, but not in the same embodiment. As such, the examiner understands that while the prior art teaches all of the claimed components, the prior art is not anticipatory insofar as these components must be selected from various lists/locations in the prior art reference. It would have been prima facie obvious; however, to have selected the recited components from various lists/locations in the prior art reference and to have combined them together. This is because such a modification would have represented nothing more than the predictable use of prior art components according to their established functions. Combining separate prior art components (from a single prior art reference) according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale A.
As to claim 2, the siRNA in the above-reproduced paragraph reads on the required RNA drug.
As to claims 9-10, the gold nanoparticle of Mukherjee reads on the required metal nanoparticle.
As to claims 11-12, the gold nanoparticle of Mukherjee reads on the additional requirements of these claims.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-10 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (Advanced Healthcare Materials, Vol. 9, 1900635, 2020, pages 1-11).
Wang et al. (hereafter referred to as Wang) is drawn to microneedles for the delivery of nucleic acids such as siRNA, as of Wang, page 1, title and abstract. These microneedles also comprise up-conversion nanoparticles, as of Wang, page 2, Scheme 1, reproduced below, wherein the abbreviation “UCNP” refers to upconversion nanoparticles.
PNG
media_image2.png
788
900
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, the claim requires a drug delivery carrier. The microneedle of Wang is understood to read on the required drug delivery carrier.
As to claim 1, the claim requires a nucleic acid drug. The gene in the gene-loaded particle in the above-reproduced figure is understood to read on this requirement.
As to claim 1, the claim requires a photothermal nanoparticle. The upconversion nanoparticle in the above-reproduced figure is understood to read on this requirement.
As to claim 1, for the purposes of this rejection, purely en arguendo and in regard to this ground of rejection only, the examiner takes the position that Wang teaches all of the required elements, but not in the same embodiment. As such, the examiner understands that while the prior art teaches all of the claimed components, the prior art is not anticipatory insofar as these components must be selected from various lists/locations in the prior art reference. It would have been prima facie obvious; however, to have selected the recited components from various lists/locations in the prior art reference and to have combined them together. This is because such a modification would have represented nothing more than the predictable use of prior art components according to their established functions. Combining separate prior art components (from a single prior art reference) according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale A.
As to claim 2, Wang teaches siRNA, as of page 1, right column, bottom paragraph.
As to claims 3-4, Wang teaches a 980 nm infrared laser, as of at least page 3, caption of figure 1 and left column, first paragraph under figure 1.
As to claims 9-10, the upconversion nanoparticle of Wang is made from NaYF4 doped with Erbium and Neodymium, as of Wang, page 3, left column, section 2.1. Sodium, yttrium, erbium, and neodymium are all metals; as such, the nanoparticle of Wang is understood to be a metal nanoparticle. That sodium, yttrium, erbium, and neodymium are all in a non-zero oxidation state is not sufficient to render the nanoparticle of Wang as being other than a metal nanoparticle; see the section above entitled “Claim Interpretation.”
As to claims 13-14, Wang teaches a microneedle patch, as of Wang, page 1, title.
As to claim 15, Wang teaches a 10X10 array, as of Wang, page 4, left column, paragraph below figure 2. Regarding the amount of active agent, Wang appears to be silent regarding the amount of active agent per array. Nevertheless, generally, differences in concentration between the claimed invention and prior art will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In this case, there does not appear to be evidence that the concentration of nucleic acid is critical. Additionally, 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 microneedle including a nucleic acid have been taught by Wang. As such, it would not have been inventive for the skilled artisan to have discovered the optimum or workable ranges of the amount of nucleic acid via routine experimentation.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (Advanced Healthcare Materials, Vol. 9, 1900635, 2020, pages 1-11) in view of Chen et al. (Biomacromolecules, Vol. 16, 2015, pages 1598-1607).
Wang is drawn to a microneedle comprising an upconversion nanoparticle and a siRNA payload. Wang teaches an infrared laser. See the rejection above over Wang by itself.
Wang is silent as to the illumination density of the laser.
Chen et al. (hereafter referred to as Chen) is drawn to near-infrared responsive microneedles for transdermal drug delivery, as of Chen, page 1598, title and abstract as well as page 1599, figure 1, reproduced below.
PNG
media_image3.png
716
928
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Chen teaches irradiation with a near-infrared laser, as of Chen, page 1599, left column. Chen teaches an 808 nm laser, as of Chen, page 1599, right column, second to last paragraph.
Chen differs from the claimed invention because, while Chen teaches a drug, Chen does not teach a nucleic acid drug.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the lanthanum hexaboride of Chen in place of the upconversion nanoparticle of Wang and to have substituted the infrared laser of Chen in place of that of Wang. Both Chen and Wang are drawn to microneedles for triggered release of drugs with a laser. Chen and Wang teach a different photoactive agent (e.g. upconversion nanoparticles in Wang and lanthanum hexaboride in Chen) and teach different lasers (e.g. a 980 nm laser in Wang and an 808 nm laser in Chen). Nevertheless, both the laser and nanoparticle combinations in Chen and Wang are useful for triggered release of a drug in a microneedle, and the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have substituted the laser+photothermal nanoparticle system of Chen in place of that of Wang to have been used in the microneedle of Wang to have predictably delivered the nucleic acid active agent of Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element (e.g. the photothermal nanoparticle and laser of Chen) in place of another (e.g. the photothermal nanoparticle and laser of Wang) in order to achieve predictable results (triggered release of an active agent from a microneedle) is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale B.
As to claim 5, both the 980 nm laser of Wang and the 808 nm laser of Chen have an emission wavelength within the claimed range. Regarding the illumination density, Chen teaches an illumination density of 7 or 5 W/cm2, as of Chen, page 1599, right column, second to last paragraph. This illumination density is higher than the claimed illumination density of 3 W/cm2 to 4 W/cm2. 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 (e.g. of illumination density) by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In this case, the general conditions of a microneedle comprising active agent, a photothermal nanoparticle, and a laser to trigger release of the active agent by activating the photothermal nanoparticle have been taught by the prior art. As such, it would not have been inventive for the skilled artisan to have discovered the optimum or workable ranges of illumination density of the laser via routine experimentation.
As to claim 6, this claim is rejected for the same reason that claim 5 is rejected.
As to claim 7, Chen teaches an 808 nm laser as of page 1599, right column, second to last paragraph. The above-applied position regarding routine optimization as applied in the rejection of claim 5 also applies to claim 7.
As to claim 8, this claim is rejected for the same reason that claim 7 is rejected.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (Advanced Healthcare Materials, Vol. 9, 1900635, 2020, pages 1-11) in view of Chen et al. (US 2012/0283695 A1).
Wang is drawn to a microneedle comprising an upconversion nanoparticle and a siRNA payload. Wang teaches an infrared laser. See the rejection above over Wang by itself.
Wang differs from the claimed invention because the up-conversion nanoparticle of Wang differs from the required gold nanoparticle.
Chen et al. (hereafter referred to as Lai after the last named inventor) is drawn to a transdermal drug delivery system comprising microneedles with nanoparticles therein, as of Lai, title, abstract, paragraph 0012, and the figure on the front page of Lai, which is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image4.png
442
706
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Lai teaches the use of near-infrared irradiation to release the active agent, as of Lai, abstract. Lai teaches gold nanoparticles as photothermal nanoparticles as of paragraph 0046 of Lai; the examiner notes that this paragraph identifies the gold nanoparticles as item #14 in the above-reproduced figure. Lai suggests DNA from a list of active agents in paragraph 0051.
Lai is not anticipatory because, although Lai suggests DNA, Lai does not teach a specific embodiment comprising both DNA, microneedles, and photothermal nanoparticles.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the gold nanoparticles of Lai in place of the up-conversion nanoparticles of Wang to be used with the microneedle system of Wang. Wang is drawn to a microneedle system in which microneedles are impregnated with drug and up-conversion nanoparticles, wherein the up-conversion nanoparticles aid in causing light release of the active agent. Lai also teaches microneedles impregnated with both active agent and photothermal nanoparticles for light triggered release of active agent; however, the photothermal nanoparticle of Lai is made from gold rather than NaYF4:Yb/Er/Nd, as in Wang. Nevertheless, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have substituted the photothermal gold nanoparticles of Lai in place of the photothermal up-conversion nanoparticles of Wang to be used in the microneedle of Wang in order to have predictably formed microparticles that engage in triggered release of active agent upon irradiation with a reasonable expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element (gold nanoparticles, as of Lai) in place of another (upconversion nanoparticles, as of Wang) in order to achieve predictable results (formation of photothermal microneedles) is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale B.
As to claims 9-12, the gold nanoparticles of Lai read on the additional requirements of these claims.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (Advanced Healthcare Materials, Vol. 9, 1900635, 2020, pages 1-11) in view of Albadr et al. (Drug Delivery and Translational Research, Vol. 12, 2022, pages 931–943).
Wang is drawn to a microneedle comprising an upconversion nanoparticle and a siRNA payload. Wang teaches an infrared laser. Wang also teaches hyaluronic acid microneedles. See the rejection above over Wang by itself.
Wang does not teach polyvinyl pyrrolidone (PVP) in combination with the hyaluronic acid.
Albadr et al. (hereafter referred to as Albadr) is drawn to a microneedle for delivery of amphotericin B, as of Albadr, page 931, title and abstract. Albadr teaches the following microneedle formulations, as of page 933, left column, relevant table reproduced below.
PNG
media_image5.png
370
558
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Formulations F8 and F9 appear to be made from combinations of polyvinylpyrrolidone and hyaluronic acid. Albadr further teaches that formulation F9 had the best tolerance to compression of any formulation tested, as of Albadr, page 935, right column, fourth paragraph in “Results” section.
Albadr differs from the claimed invention because Albadr teaches delivery of a water-insoluble hydrophobic active rather than a nucleic acid. Also, Albadr appears to be primarily drawn to ocular delivery, which differs from the delivery mode of Wang.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have formulated the microneedles of Wang using the polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) and hyaluronic acid (HA) combination taught by Albadr. Albadr indicates that a PVP/HA combination is useful for formulating a microneedle that delivers active agents. As such, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have used the PVP/HA combination of Albadr to have predictably formulated the microneedle of Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. Although Albadr delivers a different type of drug as compared with Wang and is used for a different route of administration, it is nevertheless, the case that the improved tolerance to compression taught by Wang would have been useful regardless of the drug or route of administration; and as such, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have modified the microneedle of Wang in the manner taught by Albadr in order to have predictably improved tolerance to compression with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 16, the claim recites molecular weights of PVP and hyaluronic acid. Albadr teaches the following on page 932, right column, relevant text reproduced below.
PNG
media_image6.png
200
556
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The PVP of 58,000 Daltons (i.e. 5.8 kDa) appears slightly lower molecular weight than what is required by the instant claims. Regarding the hyaluronic acid, it is unclear whether the molecular weight taught by Albadr reads on the required molecular weight; see the indefiniteness rejection above regarding the abbreviation “WDa”. Regardless, 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 microneedle comprising PVP and HA have been taught by Albadr. As such, it would not have been inventive for the skilled artisan to have discovered the optimum or workable molecular weight of the HA and of the PVP by routine experimentation.
As to claim 16, the claim requires ratios of PVP to HA of from 10:3 to 30:3. This is equivalent to a ratio of about 3.33:1 to about 10:1 of PVA to HA. The ratios taught by Albadr are 20:5 and 30:5; these are ratios of 4:1 and 6:1. As such, the ratio range taught by Albadr appears to be within the scope of the range required by the instant claims.
As to claim 17, this claim requires a ratio of 20:3; this is a ratio of about 3.33:1. The ratio range of Albadr is from 4:1 to 6:1, as explained above, which is slightly different from the claimed ratio range. 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 microneedle comprising PVP and HA have been taught by the prior art, as such, it would not have been inventive for the skilled artisan to have determined the optimum or workable PVP to HA range by routine experimentation. Additionally, it is prima facie obvious for the skilled artisan to optimize a result-effective variable; see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, Albadr appears to have tested two different ratios of PVP to HA (namely as formulations F8 and F9) and achieved different results would appear to indicate that the ratio of PVP to HA in Albadr would appear to be a result-effective variable. As such, it would have been prima facie obvious for the skilled artisan to have optimized the PVP to HA ratio.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (Advanced Healthcare Materials, Vol. 9, 1900635, 2020, pages 1-11) in view of Petersson et al. (US 2018/0078498 A1).
Wang is drawn to a microneedle comprising an upconversion nanoparticle and a siRNA payload. Wang teaches an infrared laser. Wang also teaches hyaluronic acid microneedles. See the rejection above over Wang by itself.
Wang does not teach polyvinyl pyrrolidone (PVP) in the backing layer.
Petersson et al. (hereafter referred to as Petersson) is drawn to a microneedle for delivering active agent to skin, as of Petersson, title and abstract. Petersson teaches that the microneedle is in the form of a patch with a polyvinylpyrrolidone (i.e. PVP) backing layer, as of Petersson, at least paragraphs 0018 and 0110-0111.
Petersson differs from the claimed invention because the microneedle of Petersson appears to be used for delivery of a non-polar active agent as it comprises the non-polar polymer PLGA; this differs from the claimed invention which is drawn to the delivery of a polar nucleic acid.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the PVP of Petersson as the backing layer in the microneedle array of Wang. Wang is drawn to a microneedle array, and this would appear to comprise a backing layer as of at least the top of scheme 1 on page 2 of Wang. Petersson teaches that PVP may be used as a backing layer in a microneedle array. As such, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have used the PVP of Petersson to have predictably formed the backing layer of a microneedle array, such as that of Wang, with a reasonable expectation of successfully forming a microneedle array capable of drug delivery. Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material (e.g. PVP) for incorporation into a composition (e.g. that of Wang), based on its recognized suitability for its intended use (as the backing layer in a microneedle array). See MPEP 2144.07.
As to claim 18, the claim recites a molecular weight of PVP of 32 WDa to 38 WDa. This will be examined as if it further limit the claims in view of the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). As such, the claimed molecular weight does not result in a patentable distinction between the claimed invention and the prior art.
Relevant Prior Art – No Rejection Due to AIA Exception
As relevant prior art, the examiner cites Wang et al. (CN 115252584 A). As best understood by the examiner, this reference is drawn to essentially the same subject matter as required by the instant claims.
With that being said, the instant claims have not been rejected over Wang et al. (CN 115252584 A). The examiner presents the following rationale in support of this position.
The instant application was filed with the USPTO on 9 October 2023, and does not appear to have priority claims. As such, the effective filing date of the instant application is 9 October 2023.
Wang et al. (CN 115252584 A) was published on 1 November 2022. This is less than a year earlier than the effective filing date of the instant application.
As best understood by the examiner, the inventive entity of Wang et al. (CN 115252584 A) appears to be the same as that of the instant application. In view of this, as well as the fact that Wang was published less than a year earlier than the earliest effective filing date of the instant application, Wang would not appear to be prior art in view of the exception under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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
Prosecution Insights