DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submissions filed on 18 May and 18 June 2026 have been entered, and the arguments presented therein 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 Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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.
Claim Interpretation
For the purposes of examination under prior art, the examiner will proceed with examination with the understanding that a PEGylated lipid is a lipid which reads on item (B) of claim 1 but is not a polymer that reads on item (D) of claim 1. This position is based upon the fact that instant claim 25 appears to identify a PEGylated lipid as item (B) of claim 1, not as item (D) of claim 1.
Regarding claim 64, the examiner understands that, in view of the “and/or” language in the claim, the claim is understood to require either the recited amount of polymer or the recited amount of one or more salts.
Claim 104 recites a triblock copolymer with two polyoxyethylene units and one polyoxypropylene unit. It is the examiner’s position that the skilled artisan would have recognized that these polymers are commonly known as poloxamers. Additionally, the common trade name “Pluronic” also refers to these polymers. The examiner cites Almeida et al. (Journal of Polymer Research, Vol. 25:31, 2018, pages 1-14) as providing more information regarding such polymers, including their chemical structure as of page 4, figure 1a, reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
88
248
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The instant claims have not been rejected over Almeida because Almeida does not teach a lipid nanoparticle and nucleic acid combination.
Claim 1 requires an amino acid. The examiner interprets this limitation to require that the amino acid be a standalone molecule. In contrast, a protein comprising amino acids covalently bound together through peptide amide bonds is not understood to meet the claimed requirements.
Applicant does not appear to have disputed this claim interpretation in applicant’s response on 18 May 2026. As such, this claim interpretation is still understood to be applicable.
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, 6, 13, 17, 19, 21, 25, 31, 35, 38, 40, 46, 60, 64, 105, and 126 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2020/0069599 A1).
Smith et al. (hereafter referred to as Smith) is drawn to lipid nanoparticles, as of Smith, title and abstract. Smith teaches the following lipid nanoparticle, as of page 46, Example 2, relevant text reproduced below with annotation by the examiner.
PNG
media_image2.png
524
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, part (e), the claim requires an amino acid. Smith teaches cysteine, which is an amino acid, as of paragraph 0237 in a list of excipients. As best understood by the examiner, the cysteine taught here appears to be a singular amino acid that is not part of a protein. As such, 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 1, the claim requires that the composition is formulated as a powder. The composition of Smith is (i.e. freeze-dried), as of Smith, pages 47-48, Example 3, paragraphs 0575-0587. The skilled artisan would have expected that the result of freeze-drying would have been the formation of a dry powder. See e.g. Smith, paragraph 0467 and 0470-0471.
As to claim 1, the claim requires that the nucleic acid is substantially encapsulated in the lipid nanoparticle. Smith teaches this as of at least paragraphs 0039-0043.
As to claim 1, the claim requires sugar in an amount of about 80% to about 99%. As best understood by the examiner, the amount of sugar with respect to the entirety of the sum of the dry ingredients in the above example of Smith is the following:
80
80
+
2
+
21.8
+
10.1
+
5.4
+
2.7
+
0.39
+
2.65
=
a
b
o
u
t
64
%
s
u
g
a
r
The amount of about 64% sugar is lower than the required minimum of about 80% sugar. Nevertheless, generally differences in concentration between the prior art and claimed invention 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 sugar concentration 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 formulation for delivery of a nucleic acid vaccine via inhalation containing sugar has 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 range of sugar concentration via routine experimentation.
The examiner additionally notes here that Smith teaches a sugar concentration of only up to 30% in paragraph 0030. However, as best understood by the examiner, this refers to the concentration of sugar in an aqueous liquid formulation prior to removal of the water. In contrast, the above calculation refers to the concentration of sugar in a dry powder in which the liquid water has been removed. The calculation of sugar in a dry powder formulation is the relevant calculation here because Smith teaches a lyophilized formulation as of at least paragraph 0012 of Smith, and a lyophilized formulation would not have included liquid water.
As to claim 2, the skilled artisan would have expected that the composition formed following lyophilization would have been a dry powder because the lyophilization process would have removed water.
As to claim 6, Smith teaches mRNA, as of paragraph 0554, reproduced above.
As to claim 13, Smith teaches modified RNA, e.g. with pseudouridine, as of paragraph 0275.
As to claim 17, Smith, paragraph 0554, table in paragraph, teaches four different lipids.
As to claim 19, Smith, paragraph 0554, table in paragraph, teaches a first lipid.
As to claim 21, Smith, paragraph 0554, table in paragraph, teaches DSPC. This abbreviation refers to distearoyl phosphatidylcholine, and reads on the second lipid that is a phospholipid.
As to claim 25, Smith, paragraph 0554, table in paragraph, teaches PEG2000-DMG. This is a PEGylated lipid, wherein the abbreviation “PEG” refers to polyethylene glycol.
As to claim 31, Smith, paragraph 0554, table in paragraph, teaches cholesterol, which reads on the required steroid.
As to claim 35, Smith, paragraph 0554, table in paragraph, teaches four lipids that together form a nanoparticle.
As to claim 38, Smith, paragraph 0554, table in paragraph, teaches sucrose. This is a disaccharide and reads on the required polysaccharide.
As to claim 40, Smith, paragraph 0554, table in paragraph, teaches sucrose. This is a disaccharide and reads on the required polysaccharide.
As to claim 46, Smith, paragraph 0556, teaches Poloxamer 188. Poloxamers are copolymers comprising poly(ethylene oxide)-co-poly(propylene oxide)-co-poly(ethylene oxide).
As to claim 60, Smith teaches trometamol hydrochloride, which reads on the required one or more salts.
As to claim 64, Smith teaches 42 mg/mL of lipid nanoparticles as of page 46, left column, Example 2; this is calculated by adding the amounts of mRNA, MC3 (i.e. ionizable cationic lipid), cholesterol, DSPC, and PEG2000-DMG. Smith teaches 3.04 mg/mL of salt as of page 46, left column, paragraph 0554; this is calculated by adding the amounts of trometamol and trometamol hydrochloride. Smith appears to suggest using poloxamer P188 at an amount of slightly greater than its critical micelle concentration of about 0.1% to 1%, as of paragraph 0556, though the limitation regarding the amount of polymer is optional because the claim appears to require either the amount of the polymer or the amount of the salt. Regarding the amount of sugar, the optimization rationale applied by the examiner with respect to claim 1 also applies to claim 64.
As to claim 105, Smith teaches the following, as of paragraphs 0575-0587, reproduced below.
PNG
media_image3.png
228
398
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
366
404
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The above-reproduced method appears to entail dissolving the starting materials in a liquid formulation (which is also taught by Example 2), followed by freezing by applying a temperature lower than 0°C. While the above-reproduced method does not appear to specifically disclose a collection step, the skilled artisan would have understood that this would have occurred because the lyophilized product would have been removed from the device used for lyophilization.
As to claim 126, Smith teaches temperatures of -60°C and -40°C, as of the above-reproduced paragraph. This would have read on the required additional element of the claim.
Note Regarding Reference Date: The instant application ultimately claims priority to provisional application 63/158,280, filed on 8 March 2021. Smith was published on 5 March 2020. As such, Smith is prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Smith appears to have been published over a year earlier than the earliest effective filing date. As such, the exceptions under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) and 102(b)(1)(B) would not appear to be applicable to overcome this rejection. Additionally, there is no evidence of common inventorship or common assignment between Smith and the instantly claimed invention.
The examiner further notes here that, in accordance with MPEP 2153.01(a), last paragraph, the one-year grace period in AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) is extended to the next succeeding business day if the end of the one-year grace period otherwise falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday. In this case, the end of the one-year grace period would fall on 5 March 2021. The examiner notes that 5 March 2021 was a Friday. This date was not a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday. As such, the provision related to extending the grace period in accordance with MPEP 2153.01(a) does not appear to be applicable here.
The examiner notes that in applicant’s response on 18 May 2026, applicant does not appear to have provided arguments related to the publication date of Smith.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 13, 17, 19, 21, 25, 31, 35, 38, 40, 46, 60, 64, 105, 126, and 163 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2020/0069599 A1) in view of Ball et al. (International Journal of Nanomedicine, Vol. 12, 2017, pages 305-315).
Smith et al. (hereafter referred to as Smith) is drawn to lipid nanoparticles, as of Smith, title and abstract. Smith teaches the following lipid nanoparticle, as of page 46, Example 2, relevant text reproduced below with annotation by the examiner.
PNG
media_image2.png
524
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, the claim requires that the nucleic acid is substantially encapsulated in the lipid nanoparticle. Smith teaches this as of at least paragraphs 0039-0043.
Purely en arguendo, and for the purposes of this ground of rejection only, the examiner understands that Smith fails to teach a composition in the form of a powder.
Ball et al. (hereafter referred to as Ball) is drawn to examining lipid nanoparticles following lyophilization, as of all, page 305, title and abstract. Ball teaches the formation of a lyophilized powder, as of Ball, page 305, first paragraph in “Introduction” section, relevant text reproduced below with annotation by the examiner.
PNG
media_image5.png
332
672
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Ball teaches a lyophilization process, as of page 307, left column, bottom paragraph.
Ball is not anticipatory because the examples of Ball are drawn to siRNA rather than mRNA.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed a powder upon lyophilization of the composition of Smith. Smith teaches a lyophilized lipid nanoparticle composition, but is understood to be silent as to whether this composition forms a powder. Ball also teaches a lyophilized lipid nanoparticle composition, and teaches the formation of a powder. As such, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have lyophilized the composition of Smith and to have predictably formed a powder with a reasonable expectation of success, as this was done by Ball.
As to claim 2, the skilled artisan would have expected that the composition formed following lyophilization would have been a dry powder because the lyophilization process would have removed water.
As to claim 6, Smith teaches mRNA, as of paragraph 0554, reproduced above.
As to claim 13, Smith teaches modified RNA, e.g. with pseudouridines, as of paragraph 0275.
As to claim 17, Smith, paragraph 0554, table in paragraph, teaches four different lipids.
As to claim 19, Smith, paragraph 0554, table in paragraph, teaches a first lipid.
As to claim 21, Smith, paragraph 0554, table in paragraph, teaches DSPC. This abbreviation refers to distearoyl phosphatidylcholine, and reads on the second lipid that is a phospholipid.
As to claim 25, Smith, paragraph 0554, table in paragraph, teaches PEG2000-DMG. This is a PEGylated lipid, wherein the abbreviation “PEG” refers to polyethylene glycol.
As to claim 31, Smith, paragraph 0554, table in paragraph, teaches cholesterol, which reads on the required steroid.
As to claim 35, Smith, paragraph 0554, table in paragraph, teaches four lipids that together form a nanoparticle.
As to claim 38, Smith, paragraph 0554, table in paragraph, teaches sucrose. This is a disaccharide and reads on the required polysaccharide.
As to claim 40, Smith, paragraph 0554, table in paragraph, teaches sucrose. This is a disaccharide and reads on the required polysaccharide.
As to claim 46, Smith, paragraph 0556, teaches Poloxamer 188. Poloxamers are copolymers comprising poly(ethylene oxide)-co-poly(propylene oxide)-co-poly(ethylene oxide).
As to claim 60, Smith teaches trometamol hydrochloride, which reads on the required one or more salts.
As to claim 64, Smith teaches 42 mg/mL of lipid nanoparticles as of page 46, left column, Example 2; this is calculated by adding the amounts of mRNA, MC3, cholesterol, DSPC, and PEG2000-DMG. Smith teaches 3.04 mg/mL of salt as of page 46, left column, paragraph 0554; this is calculated by adding the amounts of trometamol and trometamol hydrochloride. Smith teaches 80 mg/mL of sucrose, as of page 46, paragraph 0554. Smith appears to suggest using poloxamer P188 at an amount of slightly greater than its critical micelle concentration of about 0.1% to 1%, as of paragraph 0556, though the limitation regarding the amount of polymer is optional because the claim appears to require either the amount of the polymer or the amount of the salt. As such, in terms of dry weight, the teachings of Smith indicate the presence of
42
42
+
3.04
+
80
=
31.9
%
l
i
p
i
d
n
a
n
o
p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
3.04
42
+
3.04
+
80
=
2.43
%
s
a
l
t
80
42
+
3.04
+
80
=
63
%
s
u
c
r
o
s
e
These amounts appear to be in the claimed range. Nevertheless, even if, purely en arguendo, the above-indicated calculations are incorrect and the amounts taught by Smith are not in the claimed range, it is nevertheless the case that the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have optimized the amounts and concentrations of these ingredients to have achieved the claimed subject matter. Generally, differences in concentration between the prior art and claimed subject matter 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). 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 composition comprising a lipid nanoparticle, a salt (i.e. buffer) and polymer 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 concentration ranges of these ingredients by routine experimentation.
As to claim 105, Smith teaches the following, as of paragraphs 0575-0587, reproduced below.
PNG
media_image3.png
228
398
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
366
404
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The above-reproduced method appears to entail dissolving the starting materials in a liquid formulation (which is also taught by Example 2), followed by freezing by applying a temperature lower than 0°C. Wile the above-reproduced method does not appear to specifically disclose a collection step, the skilled artisan would have understood that this would have occurred because the lyophilized product would have been removed from the device used for lyophilization.
As to claim 126, Smith teaches temperatures of -60°C and -40°C, as of the above-reproduced paragraph. This would have read on the required additional element of the claim.
As to claim 163, Smith teaches vaccination against infectious diseases such as influenza, measles, human papillomavirus (HPV), rabies, meningitis, whooping cough, tetanus, plague, hepatitis, and tuberculosis, as of Smith, paragraph 0269. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to have administered the composition of Smith to a person to have achieved these effects.
Claim(s) 9 and 104 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2020/0069599 A1) in view of Stewart-Jones et al. (WO 2021/154763 A1).
Claim(s) 9 and 104 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2020/0069599 A1) in view of Ball et al. (International Journal of Nanomedicine, Vol. 12, 2017, pages 305-315), the combination further in view of Stewart-Jones et al. (WO 2021/154763 A1).
Smith is drawn to a lyophilized lipid nanoparticle mRNA vaccine. Ball is drawn to a lipid nanoparticle with a nucleic acid that is lyophilized to form a powder. See the rejections above over Smith by itself, as well as Smith in view of Ball.
Neither Smith nor Ball teach RNA encoding a SARS-CoV-2 antigen.
Stewart-Jones et al. (hereafter referred to as Stewart-Jones) is drawn to an RNA vaccine for coronaviruses, as of the title and abstract. Stewart-Jones teaches the following vaccine, as of page 2, lines 5-19, relevant text reproduced below.
PNG
media_image6.png
404
656
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Stewart-Jones is drawn to RNA encoding the above antigen, as of Stewart-Jones, page 2. The composition of Stewart-Jones is in the form of a lipid nanoparticle, as of Stewart-Jones, page 6 line 25.
Stewart-Jones does not teach a lyophilized composition.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the nucleic acid encoding the SARS-CoV-2 antigen taught by Stewart-Jones in the composition of Smith, by itself or in view of Ball. Smith is drawn to a lipid nanoparticle comprising mRNA. The mRNA in Smith can encode for antigens to act as vaccines for a wide range of diseases, as of Smith, paragraph 0269. The composition of Stewart-Jones describes mRNA encoding an antigen to act as a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2. As such, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have used the mRNA encoding an antigen of Stewart-Jones as the mRNA in the composition of Smith (by itself or in view of Ball) in order to have predictably vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 9, the nucleic acid of Stewart-Jones reads on the additional requirements of this claim.
As to claim 104, the nucleic acid of Stewart-Jones reads on the additional requirements of part (A) of this claim. Regarding parts (B), (C), and (D) of this claim, these features have been taught by Smith, paragraphs 0554-0556, which have been discussed above.
Note Regarding Reference Date: Stewart-Jones was effectively filed prior to the effective filing date of the instant application. As such, Stewart-Jones appears to be prior art at least under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). There does not appear to be common inventors or a common assignee between Stewart-Jones and the instant application. As such, exceptions under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A), 102(b)(2)(B), or 102(b)(2)(C) would not appear to be applicable. The examiner notes that applicant does not appear to have provided an argument related to the issue of prior art date in applicant’s response on 27 January 2026.
Response to Arguments Regarding Prior Art Rejection
Applicant has presented arguments regarding the previously applied prior art rejections, as of applicant’s response on 18 May 2026 (hereafter referred to as applicant’s most recent response). These arguments are reproduced below.
As an initial matter, applicant provided arguments regarding the previously pending anticipation rejection, as of applicant’s response on pages 6-7, part B. The previously applied anticipation rejection has been withdrawn in view of the claim amendment. As such, applicant’s arguments regarding the previously applied anticipation rejection have not been addressed substantively by the examiner in this response as they are moot in view of the withdrawal of the previously applied anticipation rejection.
Regarding the applied obviousness rejection, applicant makes the following argument, as of page 7, relevant text reproduced below.
PNG
media_image7.png
212
800
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In response, paragraph 0030 of Smith has been reproduced below with annotation by the examiner.
PNG
media_image8.png
180
508
media_image8.png
Greyscale
According to paragraph 0030 of Smith, the maximum of 30% sugar concentration taught by paragraph 0030 of Smith refers to the concentration of sugar in an aqueous liquid formulation. This is not applicable to dry powder formulations. The skilled artisan would have understood that the sugar concentration would have increased upon lyophilization of a liquid composition due to removal of the water. The concentration of sugar taught by Smith in a solid powder lyophilized formulation is much higher than 30%, and is closer to 64%, based upon the formulation exemplified in Example 2 of Smith. The examiner presented a calculation to that effect in the rejection above. The reason that a higher number was obtained in the calculation on the dry powder formulation is because the calculation on the dry powder formulation is
m
a
s
s
o
f
s
u
g
a
r
m
a
s
s
o
f
s
u
g
a
r
+
m
a
s
s
o
f
o
t
h
e
r
s
o
l
i
d
e
x
c
i
p
i
e
n
t
s
whereas the calculation on the aqueous liquid formulation is
m
a
s
s
o
f
s
u
g
a
r
m
a
s
s
o
f
s
u
g
a
r
+
m
a
s
s
o
f
o
t
h
e
r
s
o
l
i
d
e
x
c
i
p
i
e
n
t
s
+
m
a
s
s
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
As the denominator in the case of the aqueous liquid formulation is higher, the weight percentage of sugar will by definition be lower in an aqueous formulation as compared with a dry solid formulation.
The examiner takes the position that as the claimed formulation is a dry powder formulation, comparison of the weight percentages in a dry powder formulation in the prior art to that of the claimed invention is a more appropriate comparison as compared with comparison of claimed invention to the weight percentages of an aqueous liquid formulation.
Applicant then makes the following argument, as of page 7, relevant text reproduced below.
PNG
media_image9.png
84
798
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The examiner disagrees. Smith teaches a composition comprising cysteine, as of paragraph 0237. The cysteine discussed here appears to be an amino acid, and is not part of a protein.
Response to Arguments Drawn to Alleged Unexpected Results: Applicant then cites Table 1 of the instant application, as of applicant’s response page 8, second full paragraph, relevant text reproduced below.
PNG
media_image10.png
126
792
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In view of this argument, the examiner has reproduced Table 1 below.
PNG
media_image11.png
420
744
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The examiner notes that direct and indirect comparative tests can be probative of non-obviousness. See MPEP 716.02(b)(III). In this case, it is unclear if direct and indirect comparative tests have been conducted. The above-reproduced table reports on information related to mRNA/COVID vaccines. It is unclear if these mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are intended to refer to an inventive example or to the commercially available mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (e.g. from Moderna and/or Pfizer) being used as comparators. Additionally, the above-reproduced table does not appear to present stability data related to these formulations. As such, it is unclear if comparative testing has been conducted in the above-reproduced table.
Additionally, it is unclear if there is a nexus between the above-discussed formulations and the claimed invention. See MPEP 716.01(b). In support of the idea that there is no nexus between the above-indicated formulations and the claimed invention, the examiner notes that the instant specification discloses that the composition of Formula I is the following, as of page 37, paragraph 00117 of the instant specification, reproduced below.
PNG
media_image12.png
398
792
media_image12.png
Greyscale
As an initial matter, it is unclear if the phrase “approved mRNA COVID-19 vaccine” refers to the mRNA in combination with the lipid nanoparticle, or the mRNA by itself in the absence of the lipid nanoparticle. Secondly, it is unclear as to whether this formulation comprises a sugar and an amino acid. As such, in view of the apparent lack of sugar, amino acid, and possibly lipids in Formulation 1, it is unclear if “Formulation 1” is actually within the claim scope. As such, it is unclear if there is a nexus between “Formulation 1” and the instantly claimed invention.
Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness; the examiner understands this also to apply to data presented in the instant specification. See MPEP 716.02(b)(II). In this case, it is not actually clear whether or not applicant has conducted testing on comparative examples based upon a review of Table 1 by the examiner. In view of this, the examiner takes the position that applicant has failed to explain the provided data in Table 1. As such, the data in Table 1 is not probative of non-obviousness.
Applicant then cites Tables 2 and 3, as of page 8, bottom paragraph. Table 2 has been reproduced below.
PNG
media_image13.png
194
744
media_image13.png
Greyscale
As best understood by the examiner, the following process was used to collect the data set forth in the above-reproduced table.
PNG
media_image14.png
572
790
media_image14.png
Greyscale
As best understood by the examiner, encapsulation of mRNA in the lipid nanoparticle of an approved COVID-19 vaccine would have been conducted by the manufacturer of the vaccine, not by the experiments conducted in the specification. As such, it is unclear as to how encapsulation efficiency of the approved COVID-19 vaccine can be measured. As such, the actual experiments conducted here are unclear to the examiner and do not appear to have been explained fully. Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness; the examiner understands this also to apply to data presented in the instant specification. See MPEP 716.02(b)(II). In this case, the actual experiments described in Table 2 appear unclear to the examiner.
Table 3 is also reproduced below.
PNG
media_image15.png
324
800
media_image15.png
Greyscale
It is unclear if the above-reproduced table is drawn to comparative examples or only to inventive examples. As such, it is unclear if the above-reproduced table is drawn to comparative testing. See MPEP 716.02(b)(II) and 716.02(b)(III), as discussed above.
In applicant’s response, applicant argues that Ball and Stewart-Jones fail to cure the alleged deficiencies of Smith, as of applicant’s response, pages 9-10. These arguments are not persuasive as Smith is not deficient for the reasons set forth above.
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