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 .
Applicant’s amendment and argument of 9/24/26 is entered.
Claim 26 is amended.
Claims 46-47 are canceled.
Claims 26, 33-37, and 41-45 remain pending, and are considered herein.
Claim Status, Canceled Claims
In light of the cancelation of Claims 46-47, all rejections/objections thereto, are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
As was noted previously, all non-elected invention groups have been canceled, and none have been introduced herein.
Claims 26, 33-37, and 41-47 are considered herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
In light of the amendment and arguments, the rejections of Claims 26, 33-37, and 41-45 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for (i) skin fibroblasts infected with oncolytic NDV, reovirus, or measles, or (ii) skin fibroblasts infected with NDV, herpes, reovirus, or measles wherein the infected cells are cultured under hypoxic conditions, does not reasonably provide enablement for (i) herpes cultured with skin fibroblasts in normal oxygen levels, nor for (ii) the breadth of fibroblast types, are withdrawn.
To wit, as pointed out by Applicant’s argument (p. 4, last paragraph-p. 5, second paragraph), the claims now comply with what is determined enabled.
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.
In light of the amendment limiting the fibroblasts of measles virus to skin fibroblasts, the rejection of Claim(s) 26 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yuqi Jing, Julia Zaias, Jaime Merchan; Abstract 3745: Tumor fibroblast targeting via uPAR retargeted measles virus: In vitro and in vivo effects. Cancer Res 15 July 2016; 76 (14_Supplement): 3745, 3 pages as printed, is withdrawn.
To wit, the fibroblasts are not skin fibroblasts, but instead are cancer-associated fibroblasts.
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.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Narendran, et al. (2013) “In Vitro Stromal Co-Culture Model For The Evaluation Of Reovirus Oncolytic Therapy For Refractory Pediatric Leukemia”, Bood, 122(21): 5407, 3 pages as printed.
Claim 26: Narandran teaches the co-culture of 1Br3 human skin fibroblasts with leukemia cells, and treating the co-culture with oncolytic reovirus (p. 2, paragraph 1). Should it be argued that the leukemia cells alone were treated with reovirus (it is argued that this is not the reasonable interpretation) it should also be noted that the co-culture resulted in reoviral cytololysis, meaning the reovirus was available and necessarily would also infect the skin fibroblasts in the co-culture (p. 2, paragraph 2).
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.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ginting, et al. (2017) “Proinflammatory response induced by Newcastle disease virus in tumor and normal cells”, Oncolytic Virotherapy, 6: 21-30.
Claim 26: skin fibroblasts were infected with NDV (e.g., ABSTRACT, “Materials and Methods” section).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 33-37 and 41-45 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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 ROBERT M KELLY whose telephone number is (571)272-0729. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8a-5p.
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, Tracy Vivlemore can be reached on 571-272-2914. 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.
ROBERT M. KELLY
Examiner
Art Unit 1638
/ROBERT M KELLY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1638
