DETAILED ACTION
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 without traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 5/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s species election without traverse of an in vitro method and the poly(glycidyl) ether compound as set forth on page 3 of reply filed on 5/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/11/2026.
Claims 1-8 are under consideration on the merits.
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.
Claims 2 and 4 are 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.
Claims 2 and 4 recite “a range” and claim 4 recites “a ratio,” which blurs the metes and bounds of these claims because “a” (as an indefinite article) does not limit the noun (in this case, the ranges) that follow it. Similarly, claim 2 a) recites “in range” and so lacks a definite article that would limit the following noun/range. Correction is required. Applicant might overcome these rejections by replacing “in range” and “a range” with “the range”.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotcharat (Chulalongkorn University Theses and Dissertations (Chula ETD). 286; Reference U) in view of Stöbener et al. (Soft Matter (2018), 14, 8333-8343; Reference V, and hereafter referred to as “Stöbener 2018”) and as evidenced by Stöbener et al. (ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. (2017), 3, 2155-2165; Reference W, and hereafter referred to as (Stöbener 2017”).
Other species were found during the search. This rejection addresses both the elected species of poly(glycidyl ether) compound of claim 1 and PGE as a non-elected species of poly(glycidyl ether) compound of claim 1.
Kotcharat teaches methods of activating dendritic cells, the method comprising culturing dendritic cells in vitro on a substrate comprising hyaluronic acid and poly(N-isopropyl acrylamide copolymer (i.e. HA-g-pNI) formulated as a gel, wherein the dendritic cells are activated by poly(I:C) (subheading 2 on pages 18-19 and subheading III on pages27-28), reading in-part on claims 1 and 7.
Regarding claim 1 and 3-6, Kotcharat does not teach the elected species of poly(glycidyl) ether compound. Regarding claim 2, Kotcharat does not teach the elected species of poly(glycidyl) ether compound having at least one the claimed ranges of dry thickness, static water contact angle, and roughness.
Stöbener 2018 teaches copolymer poly(GME-ran-EGE)-block-poly(EEBP) polymer (Figure 1a on page 89, and reproduced below; also referred to as “PGE”):
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
reading in-part on the elected species of poly(glycidyl) ether compound of claim 1 (i.e. R1 = -CH3/Me, R2 = -CH2CH3/Et, R3 = -Br, R4 =
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(i.e. formula II of claim 1) with an epoxy linker, R5 = -H, x = n, y = 3n, and z = m). Stöbener 2018 cites Stöbener 2017 for methods of preparing PGE, wherein Stöbener 2017 teaches that PGE comprises a 25.8 kDa thermoresponsive block with a GME/EGE ratio of about 1.28 and a 1 kDa EEBP anchor (Stöbener 2017 at the paragraph spanning pages 2158-2159), reading on claims 1 and 3-6. Stöbener 2018 teaches PGE as an alternative to poly(N-isopropyl acrylamide) (PNIPAm) as a thermoresponsive responsive polymer for the construction of artificial cellular structures (page 8334, the paragraph in the right column starting “In comparison…”) and teaches methods of culturing cells on a PGE substrate (paragraph starting “HDFs were isolated…” page 8335 through the next paragraph spanning pages 8335-8336), reading on claim 1.Stöbener 2018 teaches PGE has a dry layer thickness of about 2-3.5 nm (Fig. 3a) and a static water contact angle of about 65-90° (Fig. 3b), reading on claim 2. Stöbener 2018 teaches PGE formulated as self-assembled brushes (page 8337, left column, paragraph starting “In order to self-assemble…” and Fig. 3), alternatively reading on the embodiment of a brush for claim 7.
The PGE of Stöbener 2018 as evidenced by Stöbener 2017 reads on x, y, and z of claim 1 as follows from the following and approximate calculations:
1 kDa (kilodalton) = 1000 g/mol
x = n of Stöbener in scheme 1 = 80.04 g/mol [SMILES = “COCC(C)(O)”)
y = 2.8n of Stöbener in scheme 1 = 92.05 g/mol [SMILES = “CCOCC(C)O)”]
2.8n + n = 25.8 kDa and m = 1 kDa as taught above.
m of Stöbener in scheme 1, which equates to 268.18 g/mol [SMILES = “CC(O)COCOc2ccc(C(=O)c1ccccc1)cc2”].
x as claimed is calculated as follows: i) 2.8(n * 92.05 g/mol) + (n * 80.04 g/mol) = 25800 g/mol, ii) n * (2.8*92.05) + (1 * 80.04) = 25800, iii) 337.8n = 25800, iv) n = about 76.4, so x = about 76.4
y as claimed is calculated as follows: i) y = 2.8n, ii) 76.4 * 2.8, so y = about 213.9.
z as claimed is calculated as follows: i) 268.18 g/mol * m = 1000 g/mol, ii) m = 1000/(268.18), so m = about 3.7.
Therefore, Stöbener 2018 as evidenced by Stöbener 2017 reads on the embodiment of the poly(glycidyl ether) compound of claim 1 wherein R1-R5 are specified as above and x = 76.4, y = 212.9, and z = 3.7 for claim 1, an x:y ratio of about 2.8-3.0 for claim 4, and a z:(sum of x and y) ratio of ((74.6+213.9)/3.7= 1:78 thus reading on claim 4.
Regarding the embodiment of PGE for claims 1-7, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to substitute the PGE of Stöbener 2018 as evidenced by Stöbener 2017 for the poly(N-isopropyl acrylamide) (PNIPAm) of Kotcharat in Kotcharat’s dendritic cell activation methods. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to do so because both Kotcharat and Stöbener 2018 as evidenced by Stöbener 2017 are directed towards methods of culturing mammalian cells on thermoresponsive polymer substrates. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Stöbener 2018 teaches PGE as an alternative to poly(N-isopropyl acrylamide) (PNIPAm) as a thermoresponsive responsive polymer for the construction of artificial cellular structures, and thus would predictably improve upon the methods of Kotcharat.
Alternatively regarding the embodiment of PGE for claims 1-7, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in substituting PGE for PNIPAm because PGE and PNIPAm are both explicitly taught as being useful for THE SAME PURPOSE as thermoresponsive polymer substrates in methods of culturing mammalian cells. Therefore, these compositions are functional equivalents in the art, and substituting one for the other would have been obvious at the time of the invention. “When a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007) at 1395-1396, quoting Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976) and In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301 (CCPA 1982) (“Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious”).
Regarding the x = 100, y = 300, and z = 5 for the elected species of poly(glycidyl ether) compound of claim 1 and the z:(sum of x and y) ratio range of 1.25:100 (i.e. 1:80) of claim 4, a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979), and also see M.P.E.P. § 2144.09. In this case, the PGE polymer of Stöbener 2018 as evidenced by Stöbener 2017 must be held as structurally similar to the elected species of the poly(glycidyl ether) compound of claim 1 as the PGE polymer of Stöbener 2018 as evidenced by Stöbener 2017 is identical with respect to R1-R5 but only differs as being a slightly smaller polymer and having x = 76.4, y = 213.9, and z = 3.7 as calculated above for claim 1 and having a 1:78 z:(sum of x and y) ratio for claim 4 as compared to 1.25:100 (i.e. 1:80) as elected. The elected species of poly(glycidyl ether) compound of claim 1 would be expected to have a similar utility as the PGE of Stöbener 2018 as evidenced by Stöbener 2017 as a thermoresponsive polymer for culturing mammalian cells or as a replacement for PNIPAm as a thermoresponsive polymer substrate in the methods of activating dendritic cells of Kotcharat. Therefore and absent any showing to the contrary, the elected species of poly(glycidyl ether) compound of claim 1 must be held prima facie obvious over Kotcharat in view of Stöbener 2018 and as evidenced by Stöbener 2017.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the invention was filed.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotcharat and Stöbener 2018 and as evidenced by Stöbener 2017 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Elkord et al. (Immunology (2005), 114, 204-212; Reference X).
The teachings of Kotcharat, Stöbener 2018, and Stöbener 2017 are relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 8, Kotcharat, Stöbener 2018, and Stöbener 2017 do not teach the embodiment of monocyte-derived dendritic cells.
Elkord teaches methods of isolating peripheral blood monocytes and generating dendritic cells (Abstract; page 205, the 1st three paragraphs under “Materials and Methods”), reading on claim 8.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to substitute the dendritic cells obtained from unspecified sources of Kotcharat with the dendritic cells obtained from peripheral blood monocytes in Kotcharat’s methods. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to do so because both Kotcharat and Elkord are directed towards methods of activating dendritic cells. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Kotcharat doesn’t particularly specify a source of dendritic cells, thus necessitating a person of ordinary skill in the art to look in the prior art for detailed methods of obtaining dendritic cells such as the exemplary methods of Elkord; see M.P.E.P. § 2143(I)(B).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the invention was filed.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed. No claims are free of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN C BARRON whose telephone number is (571)270-5111. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-3:30pm EDT/EST (M-F).
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, Sharmila Landau can be reached at 571-272-0614. 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.
/Sean C. Barron/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1653
Prosecution Insights