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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of the invention of Group I in the reply filed on 02/23/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant’s further election of the lipid species of claim 11 as the synthetic charged lipid, embodiments in which the modified PMP comprises both a sterol and a PEGylated lipid, embodiments in which the heterologous functional agent is encapsulated , and RNA as the heterologous functional agent in the reply filed on 02/23/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, 14-17, 19-22, 25-26, 29-32, 35-37, 39-44, 46-82, 84-86, 88-90, 92-93, 96- 107, 109-121, 123-128, 131-135, and 137-138 are cancelled. Claims 45, 83, 87, 91, and 108 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 02/23/2026. Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 11-13, 18, 23-24, 27-28, 33-34, 38, 94-95, 122, 129-130, and 136 are under current examination. The claims were read in view of the species election detailed above. Priority This application is a national stage entry of PCT/US2022/033433 , filed 06/14/2022. Priority has been claimed to US PRO 63/210,464 , filed 06/14/2021. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 0 3 /2 8 /2024, 0 7 /2 2 /202 4 , 0 8 / 05 /2025, and 0 2 / 23 /202 6 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the Examiner. Specification The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Objections Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is suggested that the Markus h language “wherein the polynucleotide is chosen from an mRNA, … a miniplasmid , or a DNA molecule encoding any of these RNAs” should read “wherein the polynucleotide is chosen from an mRNA, … a miniplasmid , and a DNA molecule encoding any of these RNAs” ( see MPEP 2117 I.) . Claim 94 is objected to because of the following informalities: the abbreviation “PMP” should be defined upon its first appearance in independent claim 94. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 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. Claim s 1, 8, 12, 23-24, 27, 33-34, 38, and 94 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim s 1 and 94 contain the trademark/trade name Lipid 5 (Moderna). Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson , 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the synthetic charged lipid heptadecan-9-yl 8-((2- hydroxyethyl)( 8-( nonyloxy )-8-oxooctyl)amino)octanoate and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the synthetic charged lipid, purified PMP lipids, sterol, and PEGylated lipid" in line s 2, 4, and 6, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the…purified PMP lipids” as no purified PMP lipids are previously recited, and it is unclear if this is a required component of the composition comprising a modified PMP. The specification defines PMP ( emphasis added ) as “ derived from (e.g., enriched, isolated or purified from) a plant source or segment, portion, or extract thereof, including lipid or non-lipid components (e.g., peptides, nucleic acids, or small molecules) associated therewith and that has been enriched, isolated or purified from a plant, a plant part, or a plant cell, the enrichment or isolation removing one or more contaminants or undesired components from the source plant ” (pg. 12, line 37- pg. 13, line 4), and thus does not require the presence of a purified PMP lipid. Claim 8 further recites percent values of synthetic charged lipid, purified PMP lipids, sterol, and PEGylated lipid , but does not recite a unit with the % (such as mass, volume, mol, etc.), rendering the metes and bound of the claim uncertain. Similarly, claim 12 recites a percent values of a lipid of formula I, but does not recite a unit with the % (such as mass, volume, mol, etc.), rendering the metes and bound of the claim uncertain. Claims 12, 23 -24 , 34 , and 38 recite the limitation “the modified PMPs” in the plural . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims as claim 1, from which claims 12, 23 -24 , 34, and 38 depend, recites “a plant messenger pack (PMP) modified” in the singular. It is unclear if the claims require the presence of multiple modified PMPs or not. Claim 27 recites the limitation " the heterologous functional agent " in lines 1-2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 1, from which claim 27 depends, does not recite a heterologous functional agent. For purposes of examination and applying prior art, claim 27 is interpreted as depending from claim 23 which recites a heterologous functional agent. Claim 33 recites the limitation "the polynucleotide" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 1, from which claim 33 depends, does not recite a polynucleotide. For purposes of examination and applying prior art, claim 33 is interpreted as depending from claim 27 which recites a polynucleotide. The term “ increased ” in claim 38 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ increased ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim does not provide a point of comparison from which cell uptake must be increased, and the metes and bounds of the claim are uncertain. Claim Interpretation Claim 94 recites “A composition comprising a plurality of lipid reconstructed PMPs (LPMPs) , wherein the LPMPs are produce d by a process comprising the steps of…” which is a product-by-process claim . Per MPEP 2113, “"[E] ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe , 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).” Here, the structure defined by the process is interpreted as a composition comprising a plurality of LPMPs comprising a synthetic charged lipid having one or more of the recited characteristics ( i )-(v) which is not selected from those recited in the claim at lines 16-18. Claim 95 recites further process limitations which the Examiner interprets do not further structurally limit the composition of claim 94 , absent evidence to the contrary . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 11-13, 18, 23-24, 27-28, 33-34, 38, 94-95, 122, 129-130, and 136 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Rooijen et al. (WO 2020/041783 A1, published February 27, 2020; included on IDS submitted 03/28/2024), hereafter “Van Rooijen ”, as evidenced by Tam et al. (“Advances in Lipid Nanoparticles for siRNA Delivery” Pharmaceutics 2013 , 5 , 498-507; of record), hereafter “Tam”, in view of Mitchell et al. (WO 2021/077067 A1, published April 22, 2021; included on IDS submitted 08/05/2025), hereafter “Mitchell” . Regarding instant claim 1, Van Rooijen teaches compositions including a plurality of plant messenger packs (PMPs) that are modified to have enhanced cell uptake for the use in a variety of therapeutic methods (see entire document, particularly abstract, claims 1 and 12-1 4 ); the PMP is taught to comprise an exogenous cationic lipid (claim 1) which is synthetic (see Fig. 1; pg. 174 “b) Modification of PMPs with cationic lipids”). Exemplary exogenous lipids include ionizable lipids (pg. 14, lines 27-28 ; Example 14 beginning on pg. 177 ). Van Rooijen teaches that the modified PMPs may include a cell-penetrating ionizing lipid agent such as DLin-MC3-DMA (MC3) (see pg. 24, lines 22-28; pg. 26, lines 9-14; Example 14), which is not one of those excluded by the instant claims. As evidenced by Tam, DLin-MC3-DMA has a pKa of 6.44 (pg. 501, paragraph 3) and comprises an ionizable amine and a heterorganic group separated by a chain of at least two atoms (Figure 1 at pg. 500). Regarding instant claims 3 and 6, Van Rooijen teaches that PMPs can include the exogenous lipids of sterols, e.g., cholesterol (pg. 18, lines 3-5) to further alter the functional and structural characteristics of the PMP (pg. 26, lines 32-35). Van Rooijen further exemplifies modified PMPs prepared with DSPE-PEG2000-DBCO, a pegylated lipid ( pg. 138, “b) Modification of PMPs with cellulase”). Regarding instant claim 8, Van Rooijen teaches that exogenous lipids (inclusive of synthetic charged lipids, cholesterol, and PEGylated lipids, as detailed above) may be included in the lipid composition in at least 1 %, 2%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, 95%, or more than 95% (pg. 14, lines 25-28), overlapping the claimed ranges. Van Rooijen further teaches that the PMP is a lipid extracted PMP (LPMP) derived from a lipid structure purified from a plant source and may comprise between 10% and 100% lipids derived from the lipid structure from the plant source, e.g., may contain at least 10%, at least 20%, at least 30%, at least 40%, at least 50%, at least 60%, at least 70%, at least 80%, at least 90%, at least 95%, or 100% lipids derived from the lipid structure from the plant source (pg. 13, line 38-pg. 14, line 11) , overlapping the claimed range of purified PMP lipids. Per MPEP 2144.05 I., “ In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ”. Regarding instant claim 12, as noted above, Van Rooijen teaches that exogenous lipids may be included in the lipid composition in at least 1 %, 2%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, 95%, or more than 95% (pg. 14, lines 25-28 ), overlapping the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05 I., “ In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ”. Regarding instant claims 13 and 18, as noted above, Van Rooijen teaches the inclusion of exogenous ionizable lipids. Van Rooijen further teaches that the composition may have a zeta potential greater than -30 mV when in the absence of cargo, greater than -20 mV, greater than -5 mV, greater than 0 mV, or about 30 mV (pg. 31, “E. Zeta Potential”), overlapping the claimed range s ; Van Rooijen teaches measurements of zeta potential at pH 4 (pg. 16, lines 32-34, Fig. 8) Regarding instant claims 23-24, Van Rooijen teaches that the PMPs can include a heterologous functional agent, and that the PMP may encapsulate the heterologous functional agent (pg. 37, “II. Heterologous Functional Agents”). Regarding instant claims 27-28, Van Rooijen teaches examples of heterologous functional agents that can be loaded into the PMPs (pg. 37- 70), i ncluding various types of heterologous RNA molecules and therapeutic RNA (see particularly pg. 51, “B. Nucleic Acids” and pg. 62, “B. Heterologous Therapeutic Agents”). Regarding instant claim 34, Van Rooijen teaches that the PMP can be a lipid extracted PMP (LP MP ) which r efer s to a PMP that has been derived from a lipid structure (e.g., a lipid bilayer, unilamellar , multilamellar structure; e.g., a vesicular lipid structure) derived from (e.g., enriched, isolated or purified from) a plant source, wherein the lipid structure is disrupted (e.g., disrupted by lipid extraction) and reassembled or reconstituted in a liquid phase (e.g., a liquid phase containing a cargo) using standard methods, e.g., reconstituted by a method comprising lipid film hydration and/or solvent injection, to produce the LPMP (pg. 13, line 38-pg. 14, line 3). The instant specification defines lipid reconstructed PMP as a PMP that has been derived from a lipid structure (e.g., a lipid bilayer, unilamellar , multilamellar structure; e.g., a vesicular lipid structure) derived from (e.g., enriched, isolated or purified from) a plant source, wherein the lipid structure is disrupted (e.g., disrupted by lipid extraction) and reassembled or reconstituted in a liquid phase (e.g., a liquid phase containing a cargo) using standard methods, e.g., reconstituted by a method comprising lipid film hydration and/or solvent injection, to produce the LPMP (pg. 13, lines 15-21). Thus, the lipid extracted PMP of Van Rooijen meets the definition of the lipid reconstructed PMP of instant claim 34. Regarding instant claim 38, as noted above, Van Rooijen teaches that the PMPs are modified to have enhanced cell uptake (see entire document, particularly abstract). Regarding instant claims 94-95, as noted above, Van Rooijen teaches compositions including a plurality of plant messenger packs (PMPs) that are modified to have enhanced cell uptake (see entire document, particularly abstract, claims 12-13); the PMP is taught to comprise an exogenous cationic lipid (claim 1) which is synthetic (see Fig. 1; pg. 174 “b) Modification of PMPs with cationic lipids”). Exemplary exogenous lipids include ionizable lipids (pg. 14, lines 27-28). Van Rooijen teaches that the modified PMPs may include a cell-penetrating ionizing lipid agent such as DLin-MC3-DMA (MC3) (see pg. 24, lines 22-28; pg. 26, lines 9-14; Example 14), which is not one of those excluded by the instant claims. As evidenced by Tam, DLin-MC3-DMA has a pKa of 6.44 (pg. 501, paragraph 3) and comprises an ionizable amine and a heterorganic group separated by a chain of at least two atoms (Figure 1 at pg. 500). Van Rooijen teaches that the PMP can be a lipid extracted PMP (LPMP) which r efer s to a PMP that has been derived from a lipid structure (e.g., a lipid bilayer, unilamellar , multilamellar structure; e.g., a vesicular lipid structure) derived from (e.g., enriched, isolated or purified from) a plant source, wherein the lipid structure is disrupted (e.g., disrupted by lipid extraction) and reassembled or reconstituted in a liquid phase (e.g., a liquid phase containing a cargo) using standard methods, e.g., reconstituted by a method comprising lipid film hydration and/or solvent injection, to produce the LPMP (pg. 13, line 38- pg. 14, line 3), meeting the definition of lipid reconstructed PMPs of the instant specification (pg. 13, lines 15-21). Van Rooijen does not teach that the synthetic charged lipid is the elected species of instant claim 11 which meets the limitations of having at least 3 ionizable amine and/or at least 4 lipid tails (instant claim 122), wherein each lipid tail is independently 6-18 carbon atoms (instant claim 129), wherein the pKa is about 6.5 to 7.5 (instant claim 130), and wherein the heterorganic group comprises a hydrogen bond donor and/or hydrogen bond acceptor and/or is -OH, -SH, - ( CO)H, -CO 2 H, -NH 2 , -CONH 2 , optionally substituted C 1 -C 6 alkoxy, or fluorine (instant claim 136). Van Rooijen does not teach the limitation of instant claim 33 of a polynucleotide encapsulation efficiency of at least 5%. Mitchell teaches lipid nanoparticles for delivery of mRNA molecules encoding CAR, nucleic acid molecules, and/or therapeutic agents to selected targets such as cells ( see entire document, particularly abstract and claim s 1 and 18-21 ) including an ionizable lipid having the structure of Formula (I) (claim s 1 and 4) in a concentration range of about 1 mol% to about 100 mol%, or about 10 mol% to about 50 mol% (claims 6-7) . Mitchell exemplifies lipids consistent with those of claim 11 where R is C12 and C14, and particularly teaches that the invention described is C14-4 (see Figure 2 and pg. 14, line 28-pg. 15 , line 5). Mitchell exemplifies that purified C14-4 LNP has a pKa of 6.505 (Figure 4) . Mitchell further teaches that the LNP can comprise helper lipids including cholesterol and PEG derivatives (claims 8-11 and 14-17), and that pegylated lipids can act as a stabilizing lipid (pg. 50, line 14-pg. 51, line 5). Mitchell teaches C14-4 LNP encapsulation efficiencies of 92.5% and 86.3% for mRNA (pg. 105, lines 17-19). The LNPs of Mitchell are taught to be administered in order to deliver mRNA molecules encoding CAR to a subject in need thereof in order to deliver the mRNA to a target cell and treat various conditions including viral , bacterial, and fungal infections (claims 28-29 and 39). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the plant messenger packs of Van Rooijen with the ionizable C14-4 lipid taught by Mitchell known to achieve an mRNA encapsulation efficiency g reater than 5%. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate an ionizable lipid and encapsulation efficiency which achieves improved delivery of mRNA across the cell membrane , particularly to T cells which are challenging to transfect, for the treatment of various diseases such as bacterial and fu n gal infections , as suggested by Mitchell ( see pg. 1, line 16-pg. 2, line 2 ; pg. 5, lines 11-28 ; and claim 39 ). There is a reasonable expectation of success as the modified PMPs of Van Rooijen are taught to comprise ionizable lipids including cell-penetrating agents , increase cell uptake to a target cell including a mammalian cell, encapsulate therapeutic agents such as mRNA, and are similarly taught to be used in the treatment of conditions such as fungal and bacterial infections (pg. 128-130, “H. Therapeutic Methods”) . Further r egarding the claimed encapsulation efficiency, p er MPEP 2144.05 I., “ In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ”. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 11-13, 18, 23-24, 27-28, 33-34, 38, 94-95, 122, 129-130, and 136 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-4, 8, and 38 of copending Application No. 18/703,109 in view of Van Rooijen et al. (WO 2020/041783 A1, published February 27, 2020; included on IDS submitted 03/28/2024), hereafter “Van Rooijen ” and Mitchell et al. (WO 2021/077067 A1, published April 22, 2021; included on IDS submitted 08/05/2025), hereafter “Mitchell” . Both the instant claims and those of copending Application No. 18/703,109 recite a composition (vaccine) comprising lipid modified plant messenger packs comprising an ionizable lipid with the same properties ( i ) to (v). Both sets of claims recite a polynucleotide of m RNA encapsulated by the modified PMPs. Both sets of claims recite the inclusion of a sterol and PEGylated lipid with consistent amounts and ratios of ionizable lipid, purified plant lipids, sterol, and PEGylated lipid. The claims of copending Application No. 18/703,109 do not recite that the sterol is cholesterol or sitosterol nor the claimed zeta potentials. The claims of copending Application No. 18/703,109 do not recite the elected ionizable lipid of instant claim 11 nor a polynucleotide encapsulation efficiency of at least 5%. Van Rooijen teaches compositions including a plurality of plant messenger packs (PMPs) that are modified to have enhanced cell uptake for use in a variety of therapeutic methods (see entire document, particularly abstract, claims 12-13); the PMP is taught to comprise an exogenous cationic lipid (claim 1) which is synthetic (see Fig. 1; pg. 174 “b) Modification of PMPs with cationic lipids”). Regarding instant claims 3 and 6, Van Rooijen teaches that PMPs can include the exogenous lipids of sterols, e.g., cholesterol (pg. 18, lines 3-5) to further alter the functional and structural characteristics of the PMP (pg. 26, lines 32-35). Van Rooijen further teaches that the composition may have a zeta potential greater than -30 mV when in the absence of cargo, greater than -20 mV, greater than -5 mV, greater than 0 mV, or about 30 mV (pg. 31, “E. Zeta Potential”), overlapping the claimed range; Van Rooijen teaches measurements of zeta potential at pH 4 (pg. 16, lines 32-34, Fig. 8) . Van Rooijen teaches that the PMPs can include a heterologous functional agent, and that the PMP may encapsulate the heterologous functional agent (pg. 37, “II. Heterologous Functional Agents”) and examples of heterologous functional agents that can be loaded into the PMPs (pg. 37-70), including various types of heterologous RNA molecules and therapeutic RNA (see particularly pg. 51, “B. Nucleic Acids” and pg. 62, “B. Heterologous Therapeutic Agents”). Mitchell teaches lipid nanoparticles for delivery of mRNA molecules encoding CAR, nucleic acid molecules, and/or therapeutic agents to selected targets such as cells (see entire document, particularly abstract and claims 1 and 18-21) including an ionizable lipid having the structure of Formula (I) (claims 1 and 4) in a concentration range of about 1 mol% to about 100 mol%, or about 10 mol% to about 50 mol% (claims 6-7). Mitchell exemplifies lipids consistent with those of claim 11 where R is C12 and C14, and particularly teaches that the invention described is C14-4 (see Figure 2 and pg. 14, line 28-pg. 15-5). Mitchell exemplifies that purified C14-4 LNP has a pKa of 6.505. Mitchell further teaches that the LNP can comprise helper lipids including cholesterol and PEG derivatives (claims 8-11 and 14-17), and that pegylated lipids can act as a stabilizing lipid (pg. 50, line 14-pg. 51, line 5). Mitchell teaches C14-4 LNP encapsulation efficiencies of 92.5% and 86.3% for mRNA (pg. 105, lines 17-19). The LNPs of Mitchell are taught to be administered in order to deliver mRNA molecules encoding CAR to a subject in need thereof in order to deliver the mRNA to a target cell and treat various conditions (claims 28-29 and 39) ; in an embodiment, the composition is a vaccine (pg. 12, lines 28-30) . It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition recited in copending Application No. 18/703,109 with the cholesterol and zeta potential taught by Van Rooijen . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to modify the functional and structural characteristics of a plant messenger pack encapsulating RNA in order to achieve enhanced cell uptake for therapeutic methods, as suggested by Van Rooijen . It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition recited in copending Application No. 18/703,109 with the ionizable C14-4 lipid taught by Mitchell known to achieve an m RNA encapsulation efficiency greater than 5%. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to incorporate an ionizable lipid and encapsulation efficiency which achieves improved delivery of mRNA across the cell membrane, particularly to T cells which are challenging to transfect, for the treatment of various diseases , as suggested by Mitchell ( see pg. 1, line 16-pg. 2, line 2; pg. 5, lines 11-28; and claim 39 ). Further regarding the claimed encapsulation efficiency, per MPEP 2144.05 I., “ In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ”. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 11-13, 18, 23-24, 27-28, 33-34, 38, 94-95, 122, 129-130, and 136 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-21, 2 7-28, 31-32, and 35 of copending Application No. 19/298,474 in view of Van Rooijen et al. (WO 2020/041783 A1, published February 27, 2020; included on IDS submitted 03/28/2024), hereafter “Van Rooijen ” and Mitchell et al. (WO 2021/077067 A1, published April 22, 2021; included on IDS submitted 08/05/2025), hereafter “Mitchell” . Both the instant claims and those of copending Application No. 19/298,474 recite a composition comprising lipid modified plant messenger packs (plant-derived lipid particles) comprising an ionizable lipi d . Both sets of claims recite the encapsulation of a heterologous functional agent of RNA polynucleotides. Both sets of claims further recite the inclusion of the same sterols and PEGylated lipids, and overlapping encapsulation efficiencies and zeta potentials. The claims of copending Application No. 19/298,474 do not recite the amounts and ratios of charged lipid, purified PMP lipid, sterol, and PEGylated lipid of instant claim 8 . The claims of copending Application No. 19/298,474 do not recite the elected ionizable lipid of instant claim 11 , consistent with the properties of the instant claims. Van Rooijen teaches compositions including a plurality of plant messenger packs (PMPs) that are modified to have enhanced cell uptake for use in a variety of therapeutic methods (see entire document, particularly abstract, claims 12-13); the PMP is taught to comprise an exogenous cationic lipid (claim 1) which is synthetic (see Fig. 1; pg. 174 “b) Modification of PMPs with cationic lipids”). Exemplary exogenous lipids include ionizable lipids (pg. 14, lines 27-28). Van Rooijen teaches that PMPs can include the exogenous lipids of sterols, e.g., cholesterol (pg. 18, lines 3-5) to further alter the functional and structural characteristics of the PMP (pg. 26, lines 32-35). Van Rooijen further exemplifies modified PMPs prepared with DSPE-PEG2000-DBCO, a pegylated lipid (pg. 138, “b) Modification of PMPs with cellulase”). Van Rooijen teaches that exogenous lipids (inclusive of synthetic charged lipids, cholesterol, and PEGylated lipids, as detailed above) may be included in the lipid composition in at least 1 %, 2%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, 95%, or more than 95% (pg. 14, lines 25-28), overlapping the claimed ranges. Van Rooijen further teaches that the PMP is a lipid extracted PMP (LPMP) derived from a lipid structure purified from a plant source and may comprise between 10% and 100% lipids derived from the lipid structure from the plant source, e.g., may contain at least 10%, at least 20%, at least 30%, at least 40%, at least 50%, at least 60%, at least 70%, at least 80%, at least 90%, at least 95%, or 100% lipids derived from the lipid structure from the plant source (pg. 13, line 38-pg. 14, line 11), overlapping the claimed range of purified PMP lipids. Van Rooijen teaches that the PMPs can include a heterologous functional agent, and that the PMP may encapsulate the heterologous functional agent (pg. 37, “II. Heterologous Functional Agents”) and examples of heterologous functional agents that can be loaded into the PMPs (pg. 37-70), including various types of heterologous RNA molecules and therapeutic RNA (see particularly pg. 51, “B. Nucleic Acids” and pg. 62, “B. Heterologous Therapeutic Agents”). Mitchell teaches lipid nanoparticles for delivery of mRNA molecules encoding CAR, nucleic acid molecules, and/or therapeutic agents to selected targets such as cells (see entire document, particularly abstract and claims 1 and 18-21) including an ionizable lipid having the structure of Formula (I) (claims 1 and 4) in a concentration range of about 1 mol% to about 100 mol%, or about 10 mol% to about 50 mol% (claims 6-7). Mitchell exemplifies lipids consistent with those of claim 11 where R is C12 and C14, and particularly teaches that the invention described is C14-4 (see Figure 2 and pg. 14, line 28-pg. 15-5). Mitchell exemplifies that purified C14-4 LNP has a pKa of 6.505. Mitchell further teaches that the LNP can comprise helper lipids including cholesterol and PEG derivatives (claims 8-11 and 14-17), and that pegylated lipids can act as a stabilizing lipid (pg. 50, line 14-pg. 51, line 5). Mitchell teaches C14-4 LNP encapsulation efficiencies of 92.5% and 86.3% for mRNA (pg. 105, lines 17-19). The LNPs of Mitchell are taught to be administered in order to deliver mRNA molecules encoding CAR to a subject in need thereof in order to deliver the mRNA to a target cell and treat various conditions (claims 28-29 and 39) . It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify amounts of lipids recited in copending Application No. 19/298,474 with those suggested by Van Rooijen . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve a modified plant messenger pack with enhanced cell uptake for therapeutic methods, as suggested by Van Rooijen . Further, per MPEP 2144.05 I., “ In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ”. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition recited in copending Application No. 19/298,474 with the ionizable C14-4 lipid taught by Mitchell . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate an ionizable lipid which achieves improved delivery of mRNA across the cell membrane, particularly to T cells which are challenging to transfect, for the treatment of various diseases , as suggested by Mitchell ( see pg. 1, line 16-pg. 2, line 2; pg. 5, lines 11-28; and claim 39 ). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JUDITH M KAMM whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-4575 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST . 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 Bethany Barham can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6175 . 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. /BETHANY P BARHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1611 /J.M.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 1611