DETAILED ACTION
Applicants’ arguments, filed 16 December 2025, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Note Regarding Signature of 12/16/2025 Amendment
The examiner notes that the front page of the amendment submitted on 16 December 2025 contains the following text.
PNG
media_image1.png
208
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This appears to be the only signature on the submitted amendment. As best understood by the examiner, this signature is sufficient to meet the requirement that the amendment be signed, as per MPEP 714.01. As such, the examiner has considered the claim amendment substantively.
Office Action is NON-FINAL
In the prior office action mailed on 16 September 2025, the examiner rejected the instant claims on the grounds of provisional non-statutory double patenting over the claims of US application serial numbers 18/841,200, 18/841,271, and 18/841,247. Upon further review, the examiner takes the position that these rejections were made in error, as there are no common inventors, common assignee, or common subject matter between the above-listed applications and the instant application.
In contrast, it is the examiner’s position that the instant claims should have been rejected over the claims of US application serial numbers 18/814,200, 18/814,271, and 18/814,247.
As such, the examiner has written new provisional non-statutory double patenting rejections over US application serial numbers 18/814,200, 18/814,271, and 18/814,247. The examiner considers these to be newly applied rejections that are not necessitated by amendment.
Additionally, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been written by the examiner that is not necessitated by amendment.
Therefore, this office action has been made NON-FINAL because it includes the above-indicated newly applied rejections that are not necessitated by amendment.
Claim Interpretation
For the purposes of examination under prior art, the examiner understands a platelet membrane and a bacterial cell membrane to be within the scope of the required cellular membrane of part (b) of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) – New Matter
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite the following, wherein claim 1 is reproduced in part below with annotation by the examiner.
PNG
media_image2.png
188
634
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The newly added limitation requiring a charge or polar moiety does not appear to be adequately supported by the original application as filed.
The examiner notes that the instant specification does disclose carboxyl-terminated PLGA polymer as the core, as of the instant specification on page 56, paragraph 00151. Although a carboxyl-terminal of PLGA is charged at neutral pH and polar, this does not provide support for the full scope of charge or polar moieties. Applicant would not appear to be entitled to priority when the claim is directed to a subgenus (e.g. inner cores with non-cellular material having a charged and polar moiety) and wherein the original application discloses a genus (e.g. inner cores) and a species (e.g. inner cores having carboxyl termini). See MPEP 2163.05(II), especially the third and last paragraph in that section of the MPEP.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) – Indefiniteness
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 13 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.
Claim 13 recites the method of claim 1, which further comprises administered another active agent. The term “another” would appear to indicate that a first active agent is being administered in claim 1, and claim 13 further limits this to require a second active agent. However, the particle administered by claim 1 does not appear itself to be or require an active agent, as the core and the outer surface both appear to be excipients or delivery vehicles rather than active agents. Therefore, it is unclear how the term “another” further limits claim 1 because claim 1 does not appear to recite a first active agent. As such, it is unclear whether claim 13 requires a single active agent (other than the particle recited by claim 1), or two active agents (other than the particle recited by claim 1).
For the purposes of examination, the examiner will examine claim 13 as if it requires administering the composition of claim 1 as well as a single active agent other than that required by claim 1.
This rejection is understood by the examiner to be a newly-applied rejection not necessitated by amendment. As such, in view of this rejection, the examiner has made this office action NON-FINAL.
Relevant Prior Art and Withdrawn Prior Art Rejection
The examiner notes the following prior art, which is relevant to the claimed subject matter. The examiner has not rejected the instant claims as anticipated by or obvious over the below-indicated references, and has presented reasons for making this decision. Relevant prior art references over which the claims were previously rejected and wherein the rejection has been withdrawn are also discussed here.
Albrecht Reference – Rejection Withdrawn: The instant claims were previously rejected over Albrecht et al. (US 2009/0214663 A1). Albrecht et al. (hereafter referred to as Albrecht) is drawn to nanoparticles coated with a viral envelope, as of Albrecht, title, abstract, and figure 1. Nevertheless, the previously applied rejection over Albrecht has been withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim 1 cancelling the limitation “or a membrane derived from a virus.”
DeSimone Reference: As relevant prior art, the examiner cites DeSimone et al. (US 2013/0336884 A1), which was effectively filed earlier than the date of the invention. DeSimone et al. (hereafter referred to as DeSimone) is drawn to nanoparticle fabrication methods for fabricating artificial red blood cells, as of DeSimone, title.
DeSimone differs from the claimed invention because DeSimone does not teach an outer surface comprising a plasma membrane derived from red blood cells. While DeSimone describes a membrane as of paragraph 0206, this appears to be a summary of natural red blood cells, not a description of the invention of DeSimone. DeSimone teaches a membrane as of paragraphs 0218-0219 and 0278; however, these paragraphs do not appear to describe a membrane of a red blood cell coating a non-cellular material. Also, DeSimone’s only teaching of a lipid bilayer (which would have been the structure of a red blood cell membrane) is at the end of Example 8, in which Desimone suggests a lipid bilayer made of thiolipids on a gold surface. This appears differ from the claimed invention, which does not recite a gold surface and does not recite thiolated lipids. As such, nothing in DeSimone would have motivated the skilled artisan to have formed the product used in the claimed method.
Soler Reference: The examiner performed a search of erythrocytes and nanoparticles and limited the search to publications prior to the effective filing date of the instant application. The publications found during such a search appeared to relate to the use of nanoparticles which become internalized in erythrocytes rather than the use of an erythrocyte membrane to coat a nanoparticle. As representative of this, the examiner cites Soler et al. (Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, Vol. 7, 2007, pages 1069-1071). The title of Soler relates to erythrocytes and nanoparticles, as of page 1069 of Soler. However, the nanoparticles of Soler are actually magnetic nanoparticles. Also, the coatings investigated by Soler were the following, as of Soler, page 1069, right column, last paragraph, relevant text reproduced below.
PNG
media_image3.png
147
758
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As such, Soler does not appear to use a cellular membrane as the coating of the nanoparticle because Soler uses a different material as the coating of the nanoparticle.
Ataman-Onal Reference: As relevant prior art, the examiner cites Ataman-Onal et al. (Journal of Controlled Release, Vol. 112, 2006, pages 175-185). Ataman-Onal et al. (hereafter referred to as Ataman-Onal) is drawn to a polylactide (PLA) polymer coated with virus material, as of Ataman-Onal, page 175, title and abstract. Ataman-Onal also teaches an encapsulated antigen, as of page 175, abstract. As best understood by the examiner, the virus material of Ataman-Onal is used to generate an immune response, as of Ataman-Onal, page 179, right column, section 3.3, drawn to immunogenicity of the composition. This reference was previously cited as of the restriction requirement mailed on
However, upon reviewing Ataman-Onal in greater detail, it appears that the virus material used by Ataman-Onal to coat the PLA particle is a recombinant p24 protein found in the HIV-1 virus, as of Ataman-Onal, page 177, left column, especially section 2.2. This is not the same as a membrane derived from a virus because the recombinant protein would not have included lipids that would have been found in a membrane. As such, Ataman-Onal does not provide motivation for the skilled artisan to have coated a PLA particle with virus membrane, and there would have been no reasonable expectation that this could have successfully occurred for the reasons set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) – Scope of Enablement
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for administering to a subject a nanoparticle comprising an inner core of a non-cellular material and an outer surface comprising cellular material derived from a cell, does not reasonably provide enablement for treating or preventing the full scope of diseases and conditions by administering this. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
To be enabling, the specification of the patent must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. See MPEP 2164.01(a). The factors that may be considered in determining whether a disclosure would require undue experimentation are set forth by MPEP 2164.01(a) and are set forth below.
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
These factors are always applied against the background understanding that scope of enablement varies inversely with the degree of unpredictability involved; see MPEP 2164.03. Keeping that in mind, the factors set forth in MPEP 2164.01 are relevant to the instant fact situation for the following reasons:
1. The nature of the invention, state and predictability of the art, and relative skill level (B)-(E)
The invention relates to a method of administering a composition comprising a non-cellular inner core coated with a cellular material to treat a disease. The relative skill of those in the art is high, that of an MD or PhD. That factor is outweighed, however, by the unpredictable nature of the art. As illustrative of the state of the art, the examiner cites Hu et al. (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 108 No. 27, July 5, 2011, pages 10980-10985). Hu et al. (hereafter referred to as Hu) appears to have been published slightly after the effective filing date of the instant application of 2 June 2011. Hu is drawn to a polymeric nanoparticle camouflaged by red blood cell membrane, as of Hu, page 10980, title and abstract and page 10981, figure 1, reproduced below.
PNG
media_image4.png
426
778
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Hu teaches this for drug delivery generically, as of Hu, paragraph bridging pages 10983-10984. With that being said, the embodiments of Hu do not include therapeutic drugs but do include fluorescent dyes useful for fluorescent microscopy, as of Hu, page 10982, figure 2. Hu does not teach the treatment of the full scope of diseases in the absence of undue experimentation, let alone the treatment of the full scope of diseases in the absence of a therapeutic agent as cargo.
The breadth of the claims (A)
2A) Lack of Therapeutic Agent in Claim 1: Claim 1 is sufficiently broad in that it recites the treatment or prevention of a disease in the absence of a therapeutic agent. There would have been no reasonable expectation that the full scope of diseases could have been treated or prevented in the absence of a therapeutic agent without undue experimentation.
2B) “Treating:” The term “treating” has been defined in the instant specification on page 23, paragraph 0096, relevant text reproduced below.
PNG
media_image5.png
298
638
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As such, the scope of the term “treating” would appear to include curing a condition. At the time of the invention, certain diseases such as cancer, AIDS, and diabetes could not have been reliably cured in all patients. As such, the term of treating is particularly road in that it includes curing the full scope of all conditions, and the skilled artisan would not have been able to have done this at the time of the invention in the absence of undue experimentation.
3. The amount of direction or guidance provided and the presence or absence of working examples (F)-(G)
Example 1, which begins on page 49 of the specification, appears to be drawn to a method of synthesis of a nanoparticle used in the method of claim 1. This may be loaded with DiD, as of page 53, paragraph 00144; the term “DiD” refers to a lipophilic indocarbocyanine fluorescent dye that is likely miscible with or soluble in the lipophilic PLGA core described in the instant application. The specification discloses an example of using the erythrocyte membrane coated particles to deliver doxorubicin, which is a known anti-cancer agent, to a cancer cell line, as of page 63, Example 2 of the instant specification. However, this does not enable the curing of cancer, and provides no enablement for treatment of a disease in the absence of administration of a therapeutic agent.
Example 3 is drawn to using erythrocyte membrane coated nanoparticles for delivery of personalized immunotherapy for cancer, as of page 78 of the instant application. However, at the time of filing, personalized immunotherapy was not able to cure cancer reproducibly. Example 4 appears to be drawn to administration of particles in the absence of a therapeutic agent to absorb and neutralize a toxin, as of the instant application as of page 82, Example 4, paragraph 00202; Example 5 appears to be drawn to similar subject matter. However, there is no evidence that this would have been able to have treated the full scope of diseases. For example, this method would not have been useful against a disease whose etiology does not include production of large amounts of toxic material. For example, the etiology of a solid cancerous tumor does not operate by accumulation of toxic material; as such, this method would not have been useful to have treated cancer, let alone cured cancer.
As such, the specification provides no direction or guidance for practicing the claimed invention in its “full scope”. No reasonably specific guidance is provided concerning useful therapeutic protocols for curing or preventing cancer, other than protocols for administration of doxorubicin which may have had some therapeutic effects of cancer but would not have cured or prevented cancer. The latter is corroborated by the working examples.
4. The quantity of experimentation necessary (H)
Because of the known unpredictability of the art, and in the absence of experimental evidence, no one skilled in the art would accept the assertion that the instantly claimed agents could be predictably used to have treated, cured, or prevented the full scope of diseases, especially in the absence of administration of a therapeutic agent, as inferred by the claim and contemplated by the specification. Accordingly, the instant claims do not comply with the enablement requirement of §112, since to practice the claimed invention in its “full scope” a person of ordinary skill in the art would have to engage in undue experimentation, with no reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments Regarding Rejection for Lack of Enablement
Applicant has presented arguments in applicant’s response on 16 December 2025 (hereafter referred to as applicant’s response). These arguments will be addressed below to the extent that the apply to the currently pending rejections.
As an initial matter, the previously presented arguments regarding the obviousness rejections, which were set forth on pages 5-6 of applicant’s response, are moot in view of the withdrawal of the previously applied obviousness rejection and have not been addressed substantively.
Additionally, with regard to the previously applied rejection on the grounds of lack of enablement, the examiner takes the position that the claim amendments on 16 December 2025 obviate some, but not all of the issues which were raised by the examiner in the prior office action mailed on 16 September 2025. For example, the issues regarding “Prevention” (as of item 2C on page 13 of the office action mailed on 16 September 2025) appear to have been obviated in view of the cancelling of the term “prevention” in the amendments to claim 1 on 16 December 2025. Additionally, the issue addressed as of the prior office action, item 2D on the last line of page 13 and the first three lines of page 14, as well as on pages 16-18 of the prior office action related to the issue of a critical feature not claimed, appears to have been obviated in view of the amendment to part (a) of claim 1 require a charge or polar moiety as part of the core. This is because the charge or polar moiety would engage in ion-ion, ion-dipole or dipole-dipole interactions with the hydrophilic end of the inner layer of the bilayer of the cellular membrane, allowing a stable particle to form with the core on the inside and the bilayer surrounding the core. (With that being said, this amendment does appear to introduce a new matter issue; see the above-applied new matter rejection).
Nevertheless, the issues relating to items 2A and 2B on pages 12-13 of the office action mailed on 16 September 2025 are still relevant.
Applicant made the following argument on page 7, relevant text reproduced below.
PNG
media_image6.png
466
636
media_image6.png
Greyscale
This is not persuasive. Even if, purely en arguendo, the above-reproduced text is factually correct in that it describes particles coated with a red blood cell membrane as successfully neutralizing a bacterial toxin in the absence of therapeutic agent, this is not sufficient to overcome the applied rejection for lack of enablement. This is because successful neutralization of a bacterial toxin does not provide enablement for the treatment of the full scope of diseases or conditions. For example, there is no evidence that a subject suffering from cancer would have shown observable and/or measurable reduction in or absence of one of more signs of cancer had a subject suffering from cancer been administered particles comprising the recited structure of items a) and b) of claim 1 in the absence of therapeutic agent. This position is also applicable to the position taken as of applicant’s response, page 7, last two lines and page 8, first eleven lines.
With regard to applicant’s arguments on page 8 of applicant’s response, starting at the 12th line and onto the top of page 9, these arguments are moot in view of applicant’s claim amendments as well as the examiner having altered the grounds for rejection as set forth above. As such, these arguments will not be addressed substantively by the examiner.
Non-Statutory 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 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of copending Application No. 18/814,200 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons:
The instant claims are drawn to a method for treating a disease. This method entails administration of a nanoparticle. Said nanoparticle comprises an inner core comprising a non-cellular material, and a surface derived from a cell membrane.
Copending claim 1 is drawn to a nanoparticle with an inner core comprising a non-cellular material and an outer surface derived from a cell. The inner core may be a non-polar polymer such as PLGA, as of copending claim 2. The outer surface may be a plasma membrane derived from a red blood cell, as of copending claim 4. Copending claim 10 is drawn to a method of treating or preventing a disease.
The instant and copending claims differ because the copending claim set includes multiple composition claims which are not part of the claim set of the instant claims. As such, there is no case of provisional statutory double patenting. Nevertheless, the subject matter of copending claim 10 appears to be essentially the same as the subject matter of instant claim 1, thereby effectively anticipating claim 1. This results in a prima facie case of anticipatory-type provisional non-statutory double patenting.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/814,271 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons:
The instant claims are drawn to a method for treating a disease. This method entails administration of a nanoparticle. Said nanoparticle comprises an inner core comprising a non-cellular material, and a surface derived from a cell membrane.
Copending claim 1 is drawn to a pharmaceutical composition comprising a nanoparticle with an inner core comprising a non-cellular material and an outer surface derived from a cell. The inner core may be a non-polar polymer such as PLGA, as of copending claim 4. The outer surface may be a plasma membrane derived from a red blood cell, as of copending claim 5.
The instant and copending claims differ because the copending claims are drawn to a pharmaceutical composition, whereas the instant claims are drawn to a method. Nevertheless, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have used the composition of copending claim 1 in a method of treating or preventing an infectious disease, as of the preamble of copending claim 1. Such a method would have been in the scope of the required method of treating or preventing a disease. This would have rendered the instantly claimed subject matter prima facie obvious, thereby resulting in a prima facie case of obviousness-type non-statutory double patenting.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of copending Application No. 18/814,247 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons:
The instant claims are drawn to a method for treating a disease. This method entails administration of a nanoparticle. Said nanoparticle comprises an inner core comprising a non-cellular material, and a surface derived from a cell membrane.
Copending claim 1 is drawn to a nanoparticle comprising an inner core made from non-cellular material and an outer surface comprising cellular material or material derived from a virus. Copending claim 2 recites that the inner core comprises PLGA, PLA, PGA, or PCL, and copending claim 3 recites particular cell types from which the cellular membrane is obtained.
The instant and copending claims differ because the copending claims are drawn to a nanoparticle, whereas the instant claims are drawn to a method. Nevertheless, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have used the composition of copending claim 1 in a method of treating or preventing a disease or condition in a subject. This is because copending claim 6 recites a therapeutic or prophylactic agent. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to have predictably used a composition comprising a therapeutic or prophylactic agent to have predictably treated or prevented a disease with a reasonable expectation of success.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments Regarding Double Patenting Rejections
In applicant’s response on page 10, applicant makes the following arguments regarding the previously presented rejections for provisional non-statutory double patenting, relevant text reproduced below.
PNG
media_image7.png
350
638
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The examiner agrees. The examiner takes the position that the previously applied rejections over US application serial number 18/841,200 was made in error, and the instant claims should have been rejected over US application 18/814,200. The examiner takes the position that the previously applied rejections over US application serial number 18/841,271 was made in error, and the instant claims should have been rejected over US application 18/814,271. The examiner takes the position that the previously applied rejections over US application serial number 18/841,247 was made in error, and the instant claims should have been rejected over US application 18/814,247.
As such, the examiner has set forth non-statutory double patenting rejections over US applications 18/814,200, 18/814,271 and 18/814,247 in this office action. These are considered newly applied rejections which are not necessitated by amendment. In view of the fact that this office action includes newly applied rejections not necessitated by amendment, this office action has been made NON-FINAL.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 16 December 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of
US Patent 10,632,070;
US Patent 12,285,472;
US Patent 11,000,593;
US Patent 10,285,952;
US Patent 10,383,830;
US Patent 10,588,867;
US Patent 10,610,493; and
US Patent 11,357,736
has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISAAC SHOMER whose telephone number is (571)270-7671. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM Monday Through Friday.
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, Sahana Kaup can be reached at (571)272-6897. 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.
ISAAC . SHOMER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1612
/ISAAC SHOMER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612