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/Restriction
Inventor’s election, without traverse, of the claims of Group I as the group elected to begin prosecution is acknowledged. The election/restriction is hereby made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 77 is 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.
In the penultimate diagramed structure of the claim, the moiety L2B is unclear because it is undefined. Furthermore, the text which accompanies the diagramed structure inexplicably defines a variable L2A which is not present in the structure.
Clarification is in order.
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 1, 4, 6, 62, 81 and 86 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by US 2018/0221277 A1.
The reference teaches a composition comprising amphiphilic dendron-coil micelles for the transdermal delivery of encapsulated drugs (abstract; page 2, [0011]; page 5, [0061]). A wide variety of drugs may be encapsulated such as anticancer drugs and anti-inflammatory drugs (page 5, [0062]ff).
The reference further teaches (page 2, [0016]) that each amphiphilic dendron-coil comprises a hydrophobic core-forming block, a polyester dendron and a PEG moiety. A non-peptidyl hydrophobic core-forming block is, for instance, PCL, PLA, PGA or PLGA. The polyester dendron is, for example, a 3-5 generation polyester dendron with either an acetylene or carboxylate core. The PEG is moiety is, for example, a methoxy PEG, an amine-terminated PEG, an acetylated PEG, a carboxylated PEG, thiol-terminated PEG, an N-hydroxysuccinimide-activated PEG, a NH2-PEG-NH2, or NH2-PEG-COOH moiety. (This basic prior art structure corresponds to a S-H structure of the instant claim set.)
With respect to claim 6, the examiner notes that during patent examination the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. (See MPEP 2111.) That being the case, given the broad definitions of FG1 (“…a first functional group…”) and FG2 (“…a second functional group…”), the limitations of claim 6 may be defined as, essentially, almost anything.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13, 15, 18, 25, 28, 29, 32, 47 and 80 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2014/0037747 A1 is an earlier PGPub in which Seungpyo Hong is also an inventor and the trustees of the University of Illinois are also the applicant, and whose teachings are similar to those of US 2018/0221277 A1 above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN J DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-0638. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM EDT.
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, Ali Soroush, can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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.
/BRIAN J DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614 8/29/2026
Prosecution Insights