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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1 March 2024 and 1 September 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I drawn to a polymer conjugated lipid in the reply filed on 24 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-14, 18, 20-22, 24, 42, and 48 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 24 June 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of poly(2-methyl-2-oxazoline) (PMOZ) as the species of polyoxazoline moiety, ditetradecylamine as the species of lipid moiety, and an amide moiety having the structure (-NHC(O)CH2CH2C(O)-) as the species of linker group in the reply filed on 24 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Upon further search and consideration, art was found that reads on poly(2-ethyl-2-oxazoline) as the species of polyoxazoline moiety, DSPE as the species of lipid and an amide moiety having the structure (-NHC(O)CH2CH2CH2C(O)O-) as the species of linker. As such, these species alone are rejoined and examined together. The election of species requirement is maintained to the extent that the remaining species do not make a contribution over the prior art.
Claim 8 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 24 June 2026.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are examined on the merits herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Woodle et al. (Bioconjugate Chem, 1994, Vol. 5, 493-496).
The instant claims are drawn to a polymer conjugated lipid according to formula (I): [P]-{linker]-[L], wherein [P] is a poly(2-methyl-2-oxazoline) or poly(2-ethyl-2-oxazoline) homopolymer comprising between 45 and 55 monomer units, [linker] is an amide linker group, and [L] is a phospholipid comprising at least one straight saturated alkyl chain containing from 10 to 20 carbon atoms.
As thus summarized, the invention reads on instant claims 1-5 and 7.
Woodle et al. teach polymer-lipid conjugates with PMOZ or PEOZ based polymers conjugated to distearoylphosphatidylethanolamine (Abstract). Woodle et al. further teach in Scheme 1 (Pg. 494) a polymer-lipid conjugate comprising approximately 50 PMOZ or PEOZ monomers conjugated to DSPE through an amide containing linker group with the structure
PNG
image1.png
100
100
image1.png
Greyscale
.
As such, claims 1-5 and 7 are anticipated.
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.
Claims 4-5 are ADDITIONALLY rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodle et al. as applied to claims 1-5 and 7 above, and further in view of Kierstead et al. (J Control Release, 2015, Vol. 213, 1-9).
The teachings of Woodle et al. have been set forth above.
Claims 4-5 are drawn to the polymer conjugated lipid of claim 1, wherein the lipid moiety comprises at least one straight saturated alkyl chain comprising in the range of 10 to 20 carbon atoms, more specifically ditetradecylamine (Applicant’s elected species).
Woodle et al. do not teach Applicant’s elected species of lipid of ditetradecylamine.
Woodle et al. further teach forming liposomes containing the polyoxazoline conjugated lipid for prolonged circulation effects (Pg 493 right column).
Kierstead et al. also teach liposomes containing PMOZ conjugated lipids to increase the circulation time of liposomes (Abstract). Kierstead et al. further teach PMOZ conjugated dioctyldecylamine as a suitable polymer conjugated lipid for forming the liposomes (Scheme 1D, Sec. 3.1 second paragraph, PMOX+ in Table 2).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polymer conjugated lipid of Woodle et al. to include dioctyldecylamine as the lipid conjugated to PMOX as taught by Kierstead et al. It would have been obvious to substitute one lipid suitable for conjugation to PMOX for use in liposomes for another to obtain the predictable result of a liposome with prolonged circulation effects, with a reasonable expectation of success.
And as discussed in 2144.09(II), Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977).
In the instant case, as dioctyldecylamine and ditetradecylamine only differ regularly by the successive addition of -CH2- groups, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably presume that PMOX conjugated dioctyldecylamine and PMOX conjugated ditetradecylamine to possess similar properties.
Based on all of the foregoing, claims 4-5 are rejected as prima facie obvious.
Claim 7 is ADDITIONALLY rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodle et al. as applied to claims 1-5 and 7 above, and further in view of Qu et al. (Drug Delivery, 2018, Vol. 25, 210-225).
The teachings of Woodle et al. have been set forth above.
Claim 7 is drawn to the polymer conjugated lipid of claim 1, wherein the linker group comprises an amide linker moiety, more specifically the amide having the structure (-NHC(O)CH2CH2C(O)-) (Applicant’s elected species).
Woodle et al. do not teach Applicant’s elected species of linker.
Woodle et al. further teach forming liposomes containing the polyoxazoline conjugated lipid for prolonged circulation effects (Pg 493 right column).
Qu et al. teach PEOZ conjugated vitamin E for forming micelles for the delivery of paclitaxel (Abstract). Qu et al. further teach conjugation of PEOZ to vitamin E through the linker (-NHC(O)CH2CH2C(O)-) (PEOz-VES in Fig. 1B).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polymer conjugated lipid of Woodle et al. to include the linker (-NHC(O)CH2CH2C(O)-) as taught by Wu et al. It would have been obvious to substitute one amide linker suitable for conjugating polyoxazoline to a lipid to obtain the predictable result of a polyoxazoline conjugated lipid suitable for forming liposomes, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Based on all of the foregoing, claim 7 is rejected as prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Hoerner whose telephone number is (571)270-0259. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm eastern.
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, Bethany Barham can be reached at (571)272-6175. 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.
/PAUL HOERNER/Examiner, Art Unit 1611
/CRAIG D RICCI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611
Prosecution Insights