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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 05/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/20/2026.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-23 are currently pending.
Claims 6, 7, 17, and 23 are amended.
Claims 17-23 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-16 have been considered on the merits.
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.
(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 1-3, 6-7, and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Langecker et al (Science Reports, 2012).
With regards to claim 1, Langecker teaches a DNA origami structure comprising a first hydrophilic section on a first end, a stopper section adjacent to the first hydrophilic section, a hydrophobic section adjacent to the stopper section, a second hydrophilic section adjacent to the hydrophobic section, and an open cavity running through the DNA origami structure from end to end (see Fig. 1A and Fig. 1). Langecker teaches that the stopper section is configured to lay against the membrane when the DNA origami structure is inserted through the membrane (See Fig. 1/ 1A).
Regarding claim 2, Langecker teaches multiple hydrophobic moieties attached to a bottom portion of the stopper section facing the second end (See hydrophobic moieties of cholesterol in orange in Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 3, Langecker teaches wherein each hydrophobic moiety is covalently attached to a first single stranded DNA that is hybridized with a first single stranded DNA overhang on the DNA origami structure (See Fig. 1/1A).
Regarding claim 6, Langecker teaches wherein one or more hydrophobic moieties is cholesterol (Fig. 1 and Fig. 1 description).
Regarding claim 7, Langecker teaches wherein the single stranded DNA overhang comprises about 22 nucleotides which falls within the claimed range of 15-30 (See pg. 7, para 1 of Supplemental information).
Regarding claim 10, Langecker teaches wherein the membrane is a lipid membrane (see Fig. 1C).
Regarding claim 11, Langecker teaches wherein the hydrophobic section is about 5 nm in length (See Fig. 1 and description).
Regarding claim 12, Langecker teaches wherein the stopper section is about 20-25 nm in width (See Fig. 1 and description).
Regarding claim 13, Langecker teaches the DNA origami structure of claim 1 and therefore teaches a structure “configured to retain a protein pore” as required by claim 13 (See Fig. 1A) .
Regarding claim 14, Langecker teaches that the open cavity have a width of about 6 nm (See Fig. 1/1A and description).
Regarding claim 15, Langecker teaches wherein the stopper section is about 2-5 nm in length (Fig 1/1A and description.
Regarding claim 16, Langecker teaches wherein the DNA structure is about 42-47 nm in length (See Fig. 1 and description; and pg. 933, col. 1, para 1).
Therefore, Langecker anticipates the claims.
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.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langecker et al (Science Reports, 2012), as applied to claims 1-3, 6-7, and 10-16 above, and in view of Mir (US20170227520A1).
With regards to claims 4 and 5, the limitations of the independent claim 1 are taught above.
Langecker teaches a DNA origami structure which is inspired by the natural a-hemolysin channel (see pg. 932, col. 3, para 1).
Regarding claim 5, Langecker does teach attaching desired moieties to the DNA origami structure using a covalent attachment method wherein the a first single stranded DNA is hybridized with a single stranded DNA overhang within the DNA origami structure as required by claim 5 (See Fig. 1/1A).
Langecker does not teaches that the open cavity further comprises hydrophobic moieties attached to a channel wall inside of the open cavity as required by claim 4.
However, Mir teaches about protein sequencing using nanopores, including DNA nanopores, which can be an a-hemolysin nanopore ([0068] and [0104]). Mir teaches that the nanopore can be engineered to present specific physiochemical properties such as the inclusion of cyclodextrin within the interior of the nanopore to render the cavity hydrophobic ([0115]). Further, Mir teaches that the treatments applied to proteins to allow the sequencing renders a polypeptide which can be treated similarly to a polynucleotide which allows the application of nanopore methods developed for DNA to be applied to the polypeptides ([0094]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious at the effective filling date of the instant invention to combine the DNA origami structure taught by Langecker with the hydrophobic interior channel modifications taught by Mir to arrive at the instant invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this combination because Langecker teaches a DNA origami structure which is inspired by a-hemolysin (see pg. 932, col. 3, para 1) and Mir teaches the use of an a-hemolysin nanopore for use in protein sequencing. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when combining Langecker with Mir because Mir teaches about DNA nanopores with functional internal cavity hydrophobic modifications for the purpose of protein sequencing and Langecker teaches a DNA structure with hydrophobic modifications.
Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing of the invention, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langecker et al (Science Reports, 2012), as applied to claims 1-3, 6-7, and 10-16 above.
With regards to claims 8 and 9, the limitations of the independent claim 1 are taught above.
Regarding claim 9, Langecker does teach attaching desired moieties to the DNA origami structure using a covalent attachment method wherein a first single stranded DNA is hybridized with a single stranded DNA overhang within the DNA origami structure as required by claim 9 (See Fig. 1/1A).
Langecker does not teaches that the structure further comprises one or more hydrophilic moieties attached to a top portion of the stopper section facing the first end as required by claim 8.
However, Langecker teaches the connection of the top hydrophilic section of a DNA origami structure to the stopper section through a first single stranded DNA is hybridized with a single stranded DNA overhang within the DNA origami structure (See Fig. 1/1A).
With regards to claim 8, the DNA origami structure of Langecker achieves an almost identical connection in physical practice between the hydrophilic top section and the stopper section as claimed, specifically meaning the hydrophilic section is attached to the stopper section through DNA hybridization. Further, Langecker demonstrates using hydrophobic moieties to attached the bottom portion of the stopper section to a lipid bilayer (Fig. 1).
The modification of the stopper section of Langecker et al to include attachment to the hydrophilic top section through the use of hydrophilic moieties represent combining prior methods to yield predictable results, substitution for one known element for another, and choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable results. The teachings of the cited prior art in the obviousness rejection above provide the requisite teachings and motivations with a clear, reasonable expectation. Specifically, Langecker already teaches attaching the same stopper section, but in this case the bottom of the stopper, to the hydrophobic lipid membrane through hydrophobic moieties. The application of the same concept to hydrophilic moieties and attachment to hydrophobic structures from the top side of the stopper section is well within the ordinary artisan’s routine modification capabilities. The cited prior art meets the criteria set forth in both Graham and KSR.
Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing of the invention, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONSTANTINA E STAVROU whose telephone number is (571)272-9899. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Peter Paras can be reached at 571-272-4517. 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.
CONSTANTINA E. STAVROU
Examiner
Art Unit 1632
/TITILAYO MOLOYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1632
Prosecution Insights