DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Summary
This is the initial Office Action based on the GUO, et al. application filed with the Office on 13 May 2024.
Claims 1-25 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
The instant application is a continuation application of a US Patent Application, 16/967,560, filed on 5 August 2020, which is the US National Stage Application of an International Patent Application, PCT/US2019/017329, filed on 8 February 2019, which claims priority to a US Provisional Patent Application, 62/628,562, filed on 9 February 2018. Therefore, 9 February 2018, is the effective filing date of the instant application.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim (as it contains the dependency of claim 3) cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim (claim 3 is a multiple dependent claim). See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 4 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 5 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim (i.e., dependence upon “any one of claims 1 to 4”) cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim (at least claim 3 is a multiple dependent claim). See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 5 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 6 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim (i.e., dependence upon “any one of claims 1 to 4”) cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim (at least claim 3 is a multiple dependent claim). See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 6 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 7 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim (i.e., dependence upon “any one of the preceding claims”) cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim (at least claim 3 is a multiple dependent claim). See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 7 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 8 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim (as it contains the dependency of claim 7) cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim (at least claim 7 is a multiple dependent claim). See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 8 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 9 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim (i.e., dependence upon “claim 7 or 8”) cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim (at least claim 7 is a multiple dependent claim). See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 9 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 10 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim (as it contains dependence of claim 9, which is multiple dependent claim) cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim (at least claim 9 is a multiple dependent claim). See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 10 is not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 11 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim (i.e., dependence upon “claims 9 or 10”) cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim (at least claim 9 is a multiple dependent claim). See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 11 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 12 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim (i.e., dependence to “any one of claims 7 to 11”) cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim (at least claim 7 is a multiple dependent claim). See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 12 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 13 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim (dependence upon “any one of the preceding claims”) cannot depend from another multiple dependent claim (at least claim 3 is a multiple dependent claim). See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 13 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 14 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim (dependence upon “any one of the preceding claims”) cannot depend from another multiple dependent claim (at least claim 3 is a multiple dependent claim). See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 14 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 15 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim (dependence upon “any one of the preceding claims”) cannot depend from another multiple dependent claim (at least claim 3 is a multiple dependent claim). See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 15 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 16 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim (dependence to “any one of claims 1 to 15”) cannot depend from another multiple dependent claim (at least claim 3 is a multiple dependent claim). See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 16 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 17 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim (containing the dependence of claim 16, which is a multiple dependent claim) cannot depend from another multiple dependent claim (claim 16 is a multiple dependent claim). See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 17 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 18 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim (dependence upon “any one of the claims 1 to 17”) cannot depend from another multiple dependent claim (at least claim 3 is a multiple dependent claim). See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 18 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 19 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim (containing the dependence of claim 19, a multiple dependent claim) cannot depend from another multiple dependent claim (claim 19 is a multiple dependent claim). See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 19 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 21 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 21 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 22 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim (dependence to “claim 20 or 21”) cannot depend from another multiple dependent claim (claim 21 is a multiple dependent claim). See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 22 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 23 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim (dependence to “any one of claims 1 to 15”) cannot depend from another multiple dependent claim (at least claim 3 is a multiple dependent claim). See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 23 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 24 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim (containing the dependence of claim 23, a multiple dependent claim) cannot depend from another multiple dependent claim (claim 23 is a multiple dependent claim). See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 24 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 25 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim (dependence upon “claim 23 or 24”) cannot depend from another multiple dependent claim (claim 23 is a multiple dependent claim). See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 25 has not been further treated on the merits.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a US Patent Application Publication to Guo (US 2015/0267253 A1; hereinafter, “Guo”) in view of a published International Patent Application to Jayasinghe, et al. (WO 2016/055778 A1; hereinafter, “Jayasinghe”).
Regarding claim 1, Guo discloses a membrane comprising a nanopore (claim 1 ), wherein the nanopore is derived from a connector protein of a bacteriophage DNA packaging motor (claim 1- "conductive channel-containing membrane, comprising ... membrane layer; and ... isolated viral DNA-packaging motor connector protein that is incorporated into the membrane layer to form an aperture")
Guo does not teach that the membrane is a copolymeric membrane.
However, Jayasinghe teaches mutant forms of Msp (a nanopore), wherein is taught copolymer membranes (p. 45, lines 10-15 - “Suitable membranes are well-known in the art. The membrane is preferably an amphiphilic layer. An amphiphilic layer is a layer formed from amphiphilic molecules, such as phospholipids, which have both hydrophilic and lipophilic properties. The amphiphilic molecules may be synthetic or naturally occurring. Non-naturally occurring amphiphiles and amphiphiles which form a monolayer are known in the art and include, for example, block copolymers…”).
At the time of the filing of the present application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the copolymer membrane taught by Jayasinghe as the membrane disclosed by Guo because triblock copolymer are synthesized, and the exact construction can be carefully controlled to provide the correct chain lengths and properties required to form membranes and to interact with pores and other proteins (Jayasinghe, p. 46, lines 2-4).
Regarding claim 2, Guo further teaches wherein the connector protein of a bacteriophage DNA packaging motor is modified compared to the wild-type connector protein ([0045]- "viral DNA-packaging motor protein connectors with C-terminal modification").
Regarding claim 3, Guo further discloses wherein the nanopore comprises the aperture forming region of a connector protein of a bacteriophage DNA packaging motor (claim 8- "all or a transmembrane aperture-forming portion of bacteriophage phi29 DNA-packaging motor connector protein polypeptide").
Regarding claim 20, Guo discloses a method of inserting a nanopore derived from a connector protein of a bacteriophage DNA packaging motor into a membrane, the method comprising contacting the membrane with a liposome comprising the nanopore, and applying a voltage across the membrane to induce liposome-membrane fusion ([0220]- "reconstituting the connector into liposomes was developed by co-incubation of the connector with the lipid"; [0222]- "showed that direct incubation of the connector protein with liposomes or with a planar lipid bilayer did not lead to channel formation in the bilayer membrane (FIG. 6A). Connector insertion into the bilayer only occurred when the connector protein-reconstituted proteoliposomes were fused into the bilayer (FIG. 6B-C). The channel insertion was observed through a discrete step-wise increase in conductance as shown in a continuous current trace (FIG. 6), under either positive or negative transmembrane voltage").
Guo does not teach that the membrane is a copolymer membrane.
However, Jayasinghe teaches mutant forms of Msp (a nanopore), wherein is taught copolymer membranes (p. 45, lines 10-15 - “Suitable membranes are well-known in the art. The membrane is preferably an amphiphilic layer. An amphiphilic layer is a layer formed from amphiphilic molecules, such as phospholipids, which have both hydrophilic and lipophilic properties. The amphiphilic molecules may be synthetic or naturally occurring. Non-naturally occurring amphiphiles and amphiphiles which form a monolayer are known in the art and include, for example, block copolymers…”).
At the time of the filing of the present application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the copolymer membrane taught by Jayasinghe as the membrane disclosed by Guo because triblock copolymer are synthesized, and the exact construction can be carefully controlled to provide the correct chain lengths and properties required to form membranes and to interact with pores and other proteins (Jayasinghe, p. 46, lines 2-4).
Interview with the Examiner
If at any point during the prosecution it is believe an interview with the Examiner would further the prosecution of an application, please consider this option.
The Automated Interview Request form (AIR) is available to request an interview to be scheduled with the Examiner. First, an authorization for internet communications regarding the case should be filed prior or with an AIR online request.
The internet communication authorization form (SB/0439), which authorizes or withdraws authorization for internet-based communication (e.g., video conferencing, email, etc.) for the application must be signed by the applicant or the attorney/agent for applicant. The form can be found at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf
The AIR form can be filled out online, and is automatically forwarded to the Examiner, who will call to confirm a requested time and date, or set up a mutually convenient time for the interview. The form can be found at:
https://www.uspto.gov/patent/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html
The Examiner encourages, but does not require, interviews by the USPTO Microsoft Teams video conferencing. This system allows for file-sharing along audio conferencing. Microsoft Teams can be used as an internet browser add-on in Microsoft IE, Google Chrome, or Mozilla Foxfire, or as a temporary Java-based application on these browsers. Steps for joining an Examiner setup Microsoft Teams can be found at the USPTO website:
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice#step3
Additionally, a blank email to the Examiner at the time of a telephonic interview can be used for a reply to easily allow for Microsoft Teams communication. Please note, policy guidelines regarding Internet communications are detailed at MPEP §500-502.3, and office policy regarding interviews are detailed at MPEP §713.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C BALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5119. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 9 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, Luan Van can be reached at (571)272-8521. 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.
/J. Christopher Ball/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795