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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on June 2, 2026. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) 1 and 7 have been amended, claim(s) 2, and 4-5 have been cancelled, and no claim(s) have been added. Thus, claims 1, 3, and 6-13 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 4, filed March 17, 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-13 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed March 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, the applicant had questions about the objection to the IDS filed on September 12, 2024. The examiner would like to point out that there were multiple spaces on this IDS that were blank but also numbered and it was unclear if there should be a reference in these spots or not.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, and 6-13 have been considered but the arguments do not apply to the combination of the references being used in the new grounds of rejection set forth above. The applicant asserts that the prior art rejections do not teach or suggest the features as now amended into the amended claims; therefore, the examiner has applied a new combination of prior art to reject the claims and address the arguments necessitated by such amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 details “…wherein the sensitized target is heated to a temperature between 38 and 42 degrees, that reduces the size of the target.” The claim needs to denote whether this is Fahrenheit or Celsius. The examiner has understood this to be Celsius.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El-Sayed (US 2019/0008964 A1) in view of Turner (US 2009/0306646 A1)
Regarding claim 1, El-Sayed discloses a method of treating cancer (e.g. abstract) comprising: (i) contacting a cancer to be treated with a plasmonic photothermal agent forming a sensitized target (e.g. [0062]-[0065]); (ii) exposing the sensitized target to light having a resonance wavelength of the plasmonic photothermal agent for a predetermined amount of time (e.g. [0069]; [0080]-[0082]).
El-Sayed is silent regarding the cancer being pancreatic cancer and wherein the sensitized target is heated to a temperature between 38 and 42 degrees Celsius that reduces the size of the target. El-Sayed does disclose that the sensitized target is heated (e.g. [0005] The NIR light which has the ability to deeply penetrate the tissue, is transiently applied to the tumor producing localized heat which could lead to tumor apoptosis.).
However, Turner discloses an apparatus and method for selective heating of a deposit in tissues in a body wherein cancer is pancreatic cancer (i.e. tumors in the pancreas) (e.g. [0002]-[0003]; [0070]) the sensitized target is heated to a temperature between 38 and 42 degrees Celsius that reduces the size of the target (e.g. [0084]; [0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of El-Sayed to incorporate the teachings of Turner wherein the cancer being treated is pancreatic cancer and wherein the sensitized target is heated to a temperature between 38 and 42 degrees Celsius that reduces the size of the target for the purpose of selective targeting of tumors (e.g. El-Sayed [0005] Turner [0009]).
Regarding claim 3, modified El-Sayed discloses wherein the wavelength of light is 808 nm or 1064 nm (e.g. El-Sayed [0076]).
Regarding claim 6, modified El-Sayed discloses wherein the sensitized target is exposed to light for 1 to 30 minutes, one or more times (e.g. El-Sayed [0080]).
Regarding claim 8, modified El-Sayed discloses wherein the plasmonic photothermal agent is a metallic nanoparticle (e.g. El-Sayed [0063]-[0071] gold nanorods).
Regarding claim 9, modified El-Sayed discloses where the metallic nanoparticles are gold nanorods (e.g. El-Sayed [0063]-[0071] gold nanorods).
Regarding claim 7, modified El-Sayed is silent regarding wherein the temperature is 40 C. However, modified El-Sayed does detail in Turner [0084] “Non destructive heating is generally considered to be a temperature that is less than 42 degrees Celsius. Normal body temperature is about 37 degrees Celsius. Therefore, to minimize destructive heating of the breast tissue, it should not be heated more than 5 degrees Celsius.” Furthermore, the applicant has not detailed any criticality to the temperature being exactly 40 degrees Celsius rather (about) ~40 degrees Celsius. The modified El-Sayed does disclose the sensitized target is heated to a temperature ~40 degrees Celsius (e.g. [0084]; [0089])
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El-Sayed in view of Turner as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Ghandehari (US 2013/0177523 A1).
Regarding claim 10, modified El-Sayed is silent regarding wherein the metallic particles are coupled to an antibody having an affinity for the target.
However, Ghandehari discloses the use of gold particles in cancer treatment to reduce tumor proliferation wherein the metallic particles are coupled to an antibody having an affinity for the target (e.g. [0047]; [0085]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified method of El-Sayed to incorporate the teachings of Ghandehari wherein the metallic particles are coupled to an antibody having an affinity for the target for the purpose of utilizing a known targeting group to help facilitate tumor localization (e.g. Ghandehari [0047]).
Claim(s) 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El-Sayed in view of Turner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Di Matteo (“EUS-guided ND:YAG laser Ablation of normal pancreatic tissue: a pilot study in a pig model”) (as listed on the IDS submitted on 9/12/24).
Regarding claim 11, modified El-Sayed is silent regarding wherein contacting further comprises guiding delivery of the plasmonic photothermal agent using an imaging system.
However, Di Matteo discloses EUS-guided (endoscopic ultrasound) while utilizing a Nd-YAG laser wherein contacting further comprises guiding delivery of a microneedle using an imaging system (e.g.pg. 359-360 Materials and Methods and Results “the puncture was performed with a 19-gauge fine needle under EUS-guidance”…”once the 19-guge needle was pushed into the target and withdrawn for a few millimeters, the needle stylet was removed to provide direct contact with the tissue with a quartz optical fiber. An Nd:YAG laser with a wavelength of 1064 nm was used…”
The combination of modified El-Sayed (El-Sayed in view of ) further in view of Di Matteo is silent regarding the it being the delivery of the plasmonic photothermal agent; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would see that the combination has proven that it has the capability to show guided delivery utilizing a microneedle and what that microneedle “disperses” is irrelevant. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the microneedle to disperse the desired agent for the procedure.
Regarding claim 12, newly modified El-Sayed discloses wherein the imaging system is an endoscopic ultrasound imaging system (e.g. Di Matteo pgs. 359-360 Materials and Methods and Results).
Regarding claim 13, newly modified El-Sayed discloses wherein contacting further comprises guiding delivery of the plasmonic photothermal agent and exposure of the plasmonic photothermal agent to light having a resonance wavelength of the plasmonic photothermal agent using a fiberoptic microneedle device (FMD) (e.g. Di Matteo pgs. 359-360 Materials and Methods and Results).
Conclusion
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 JESSANDRA F HOUGH whose telephone number is (571)270-7902. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 am - 4 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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)270-5625. 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.
Jessandra Hough June 2, 2026
/J.F.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3796 /William J Levicky/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights