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.
Current Status of 18/572,447
This Office Action is responsive to the amended claims received 6 July 2026.
Claims 1, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 14-16, 18-19, 21-22, 24, and 26 are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, being claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-12, and 14-16 in the reply filed on 9 February 2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant has also elected the following species:
A species of formula (II) of Fig. 37, shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
221
380
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A species of “cargo”, being dinaciclib.
Applicant’s election reads on claims 1, 5, 7, 10, and 14-16. Claims 8, 11, 18-19, 21-22, 24, and 26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of the prior-filed patent applications PCT/US2022/034302 (filed 21 June 2022) and 63/213,053 (filed 21 June 2021) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Response to Amendments
The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections to the claims, present in the previous office action, are partially withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments.
The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejections to the claims, present in the previous office action, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments. New rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 are presented herein, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
New rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are presented herein, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The definition of R8 within claim 14 does not fall within the definition of R8 in claim 1. Applicant amended the structure within claim 14, but it appears that they forgot to amend the definition of R8 within the text of the claim. Also, for claim 14 to be a proper dependent claim, depending upon claim 1, the W-A-CH2-X group of claim 14 would need to fall within the definition of R8 in claim 1, but it doesn’t. The scope of the W-A-CH2-X portion of claim 14 does not fall within the definition of R8 in claim 1 at least because claim 14 allows for X to be a sulfur atom, but claim R8 of claim 1 does not allow for this. Claim 15 does not correct the errors found within claim 14.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by:
SANG (Sang, M.; Luo, R.; Bai, Y.; et al. “BHQ-Cyanine-Based “Off−On” Long-Circulating Assembly as a Ferroptosis Amplifier for Cancer Treatment: A Lipid-Peroxidation Burst Device” ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2019, 11, 42873−42884).
SANG generally teaches “nanodevices” made up of a photosensitizer-black hole quencher-chitosan polymer compound on the exterior of the nanodevice, along with iron oxide nanoparticles and sorafenib present inside the nanodevice (introduction section). Irradiation with near-infrared light caused these nanodevices to fall apart, releasing their anti-cancer contents (abstract and introduction section). The structure of the photosensitizer-black hole quencher-chitosan compound is shown in Scheme 1 of SANG and copied below.
PNG
media_image2.png
440
463
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The photosensitizer-black hole quencher-chitosan compound of SANG can be shown to fall within the scope of a compound of formula (II), of instant claim 1, by defining the variables of the compound of formula (II) as follows: q and r are each equal to 0, R6 and R7 are each C16 straight-chain alkyl groups, R8 is a -O-phenyl group, there is a linker covalently attached to the R8 phenyl ring, and the cargo is a hydrophilic polymer, being chitosan.
SANG teaches that mice were administered with the nanodevices therein intravenously, wherein the mice served as a breast tumor mouse model (Pg. 42882, 1st paragraph; abstract). SANG teaches that the nanodevices therein were able to induce ferroptosis in breast cancer cells, which kills those cells (Pg. 42881, 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 10: Claim 10 narrows the definition of the chemotherapeutic agent of claim 1 or the antibody of claim 1, but claim 10 does not require the presence of either of these cargo moieties. Therefore, because SANG teaches an embodiment of claim 1 that does not violate the requirements of claim 10, claim 10 is also anticipated.
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, 5, 7, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
SANG (Sang, M.; Luo, R.; Bai, Y.; et al. “BHQ-Cyanine-Based “Off−On” Long-Circulating Assembly as a Ferroptosis Amplifier for Cancer Treatment: A Lipid-Peroxidation Burst Device” ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2019, 11, 42873−42884)
in view of:
ZHANG (Zhang, Y.; Fu, X.; Jia, J.; et al. “Glioblastoma Therapy Using Codelivery of Cisplatin and Glutathione Peroxidase Targeting siRNA from Iron Oxide Nanoparticles” ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 12, 43408−43421).
Teachings of SANG are described above. SANG does not clearly teach applying the anti-cancer therapy therein to glioblastoma or any other type of brain cancer.
Regarding claim 7: ZHANG teaches the use of iron oxide nanoparticles carrying siRNA for the treatment of glioblastoma (also known in the art as GBM and glioblastoma multiforme) (abstract). These nanoparticles are taught to increase the intracellular iron concentration and initiate ferroptosis (abstract). ZHANG teaches that their ferroptosis-inducing therapy provides a foundation for the development of glioblastoma therapies (conclusion section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the instant effective filing date, to apply the anti-cancer, ferroptosis-inducing nanoparticle therapy taught by SANG to the condition of glioblastoma, which is taught to be effectively treated through nanoparticle-induced ferroptosis (as taught by ZHANG), for the purpose of effectively treating glioblastoma. The artisan would expect success in this application, because SANG teaches a nanoparticle-based anti-cancer therapy mediated by ferroptosis, and ZHANG provides a type of cancer that is able to be treated through nanoparticle-induced ferroptosis.
Conclusion
No claims are currently allowable.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D MCANANY whose telephone number is (571)270-0850. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, ANDREW D KOSAR can be reached at (571)272-0913. 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.
/JDMc/Examiner, Art Unit 1625 /Andrew D Kosar/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1625
Prosecution Insights