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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipate by Nordlund et al. (Nature communications, published 2 July 2014, pp. 1-8, disclosed by applicant). Nordlund et al. disclose a first vesicle containing a SMAP-25/syntaxin on its surface and carrying ATP synthase and a second vesicle containing synaptobrevin on its surface and carrying ubiquinol bo 3 oxidase. Nordlund et al. disclose both peptides specifically bind together facilitating fusion of both vesicles resulting in formation of a nano-vesicle reactor capable of producing ATP (p. 2, column 2 and Fig. 1). Nordlund et al. discloses extracellular vesicles and the first and second vesicle carry different enzymes; wherein an average diameter of 30-800nm. Nordlund et al. disclose a method wherein the vesicles are prepared and mixed to initiate fusion (p. 2, right column, 3 rd and 4 th paragraph; Fig.1) 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. 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) 1-11, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordlund et al. (Nature communications, published 2 July 2014, pp. 1-8, disclosed by applicant) in view of Voskuhl et al. (Chem. Soc. Rev., 2009, Vo. 38, pp. 495-505, disclosed by applicant) . Nordlund et al. disclose a first vesicle containing a SMAP-25/syntaxin on its surface and carrying ATP synthase and a second vesicle containing synaptobrevin on its surface and carrying ubiquinol bo 3 oxidase. Nordlund et al. disclose both peptides specifically bind together facilitating fusion of both vesicles resulting in formation of a nano-vesicle reactor capable of producing ATP (p. 2, column 2 and Fig. 1). Nordlund et al. discloses extracellular vesicles and the first and second vesicle carry different enzymes; wherein an average diameter of 30-800nm. Nordlund et al. disclose a method wherein the vesicles are prepared and mixed to initiate fusion (p. 2, right column, 3 rd and 4 th paragraph; Fig.1). Nordlund et al. differs from the instant claims the claimed ligand systems. Voskuhl et al. disclose aggregation and fusion of vesicles induced by coordination of metals to membrane embedded ligands including receptors on the surface thereof . Voskuhl et al. disclose Fe 2+ binds to amphiphilic terpyridines, EU 3+ binds to amphiphilic diketones, and Ni 2+ and Co 2+ bind to amphiphilic dipyrdines (p. 500, Fig.5). V oskuhl et al. disclose representation of vesicle fusion (p. 498, Fig.2). Voskuhl et al. disclose ligands which appear to meet the limitation of bonding compound of the instant claims (p. 499, Fig.3). Voskuhl et al. disclose the average diameter of the vesicles is about 150 nm with a membrane thickness of 4-5 nm (p. 501, paragraph 3). Generally, it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose. The idea for combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have combined the vesicle formulation of the references to formulate the nan-vesicle reactor of the instant claims. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have varied the proteins of the vesicles motivated by the function of the proteins needed by the vesicle. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT NANNETTE HOLLOMAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5231 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9am-6pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Sahana S. Kaup can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /NANNETTE HOLLOMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612