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 .
Claims 1-34 and 36-42 are cancelled.
Claims 35 and 43-52 are pending and under examination on the merits.
Priority
This Application is a CON of 16/075,312 and claims benefit of priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Nos. 62/291,769, filed February 5, 2016; 62/335,880, filed May 13, 2016; 62/411,805, filed October 24, 2016; 62/291,772, filed February 5, 2016; 62/291,774, filed February 5, 2016; 62/335,965, filed May 13, 2016; 62/291,776, filed February 5, 2016; 62/335,968, filed May 13, 2016; 62/335,979, filed May 13, 2016; 62/336,030, filed May 13, 2016, 62/353,607, filed June 23, 2016; and 62/291,779, filed February 5, 2016.
New-Claim Interpretation
Applicant has amended the claims to recite a fusion protein rather than a chimeric protein. The instant disclosure never provides a clear and closed definition of a chimeric protein. The instant disclosure never provides a clear and closed definition of a fusion protein. The instant disclosure appears to use the terms ‘chimeric protein’ and ‘fusion protein’ interchangeably (see for example, page 143 of the specification). The prior art supports that the terms ‘chimeric protein’ and ‘fusion protein’ are synonymous (see for example, page 861 of Kobe et al (Acta Crystallogr F Struct Biol Commun. 2015 Jul;71(Pt 7):861-9. doi: 10.1107/S2053230X15011061. Epub 2015 Jun 27) and page 1 of GenScript (Chimeric Proteins, Biology Terms Dictionary, obtained from: https://www.genscript.com/biology-glossary/17457/chimeric-proteins; accessed: 02/20/2026)). No other interpretation appears to be sufficiently supported by the instant disclosure.
Maintained-Claim Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 35, 43-49, and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcin (Garcin; see 892 form dated 05/12/2023) in view of Rossi et al (Cancer Res (2010) 70 (19): 7600–7609), Lo (Lo; see 892 form dated 05/12/2023), and Chang (US 20150231241 A1 cited on the 892 dated 05/12/2023).
Regarding claim 35, Garcin teaches a chimeric protein (fusion protein; note the claim interpretation section above) comprising mutant IFNα2 having mutations Q124R, R149A, M148A, L153A (see paragraph 2 of column 1 of page 5 and page 7, column 1), wherein the mutant IFNα2 has reduced binding affinity relative to wildtype (WT) IFNα2 (see the last paragraph of the Introduction on page 2, see also the results section).
Garcin teaches that this decreased binding affinity may be restorable through the use of targeting moieties (see abstract and paragraph 2 of column 1 of page 2), wherein the targeting moieties may be a nanobody (note that the instant specification admits that VHHs are commercially available as nanobodies; see Figure 1a, abstract, and paragraph 1 of column 1 of page 2); In the last paragraph of column 1 of page 7, Garcin teaches that one of the targeting moieties may be a VHH or an ScFv (see paragraph 1, column 1, of page 2 and the last paragraph of column 1, page 6).
Garcin teaches that while antibody-meditated accumulation of drugs within specific tissues such as tumor tissues has emerged as an effective strategy, this strategy has shown lackluster results in reducing toxic or off-target effects for the delivery of cytokines because this has traditionally been carried out by fusing nanobodies to WT cytokines (such as wild-type, human IFNα2, see for example paragraph 1 of the Results section on pg. 2, right-hand column). Garcin teaches that augmenting the binding affinity of a cytokine does not maximize its potency and that WT cytokines have a saturation effect (see paragraph 2 of the discussion). To allow for targeted use of cytokines, Garcin teaches a generic approach, that is applicable to a range of cytokines and nanobodies (VHHs)/antibodies/scFvs (see paragraph 3 of the discussion; see also paragraph 4 of the discussion showing this approach also was effective for using IL-1 and TNFα (2 structurally unrelated cytokines) and for leptin). Given that this generic approach for therapeutically using cytokines reduced the systemic effects of IFNα2 and, therefore reduces off target effects of IFNα2 (such as leukopenia, see the last paragraph of the results section and Figures 5a-c), this generic approach is presumed to allow for safe and effective use of mutant IFNα2 for a number of applications as determined by the targeting moiety chosen, where moieties for enhancing an anti-proliferative/anti-tumor, antiviral, and for effecting immune cell/regulatory cell functions are known (see paragraph 4 of the discussion; also note that the antitumor effects of IFNs in mice have been clearly shown, see paragraph 3 of the introduction). This approach may also be used to enhance known combination therapies through enhanced targeting and reduction of systemic/off-target toxicities (see paragraph 4 of the discussion of Garcin).
Garcin does not explicitly teach the sequences of the IFNα2.
However, Lo teaches the sequence for human IFNα2 having 100% homology to instantly claimed SEQ ID NO: 336. Absent a showing to the contrary, because Garcin teaches use of a wildtype human IFNα2, it is presumed that the wild type human IFNα2 would have had the sequence taught by Lo. Because Garcin does not mention another base sequence, it is presumed that it is the wild type human IFNα2 that is modified to bear the 149 mutation (supported further by the comparative language employed throughout Garcin to describe attributes/function of fusions using the wild type human IFNα2 and fusions using the 149-mutation-bearing IFNα2). The MPEP provides guidance and case law supporting that, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Garcin, regarding the use of known mutations for a IFNα2, to incorporate the IFNα2 sequence taught by Lo because it is prima facie obvious to swap one known equivalent for another to achieve the same purpose, here, to create an therapeutic IFNα2 fusion protein with restorable binding affinity for targeting by activity (see MPEP sections 2143(I)(B) and 2144.06 (II)).
The combined references do not teach the inclusion of a first targeting moiety binding PD-L1 and a second targeting moiety binding CD8 or CD20 wherein the first and second targeting moieties are in the format of an scFv or VHH.
However, Chang teaches that use of antagonistic antibodies against immune checkpoint proteins such as PD-L1, are known to be effective in treating cancer (see paragraph 0018). Chang further teaches an embodiment for treating tumors/carcinomas (see abstract) wherein a bispecific antibody (which may comprise an scFv, see Chang’s claims 1 and 10) against a leukocyte expressed antigen (such as CD8 or CD20, see Chang’s claim 17) and/or against a target antigen on a tumor or pathogen (such as CD20 or IFNα, see paragraph 0176) is used (see paragraph 0021) wherein the method comprises administering to a subject: (i) an interferon such as IFNα (see Chang’s claims 1 and 2), (ii) a check point inhibitor antibody, such as an anti-PD-L1 antibody (see Chang’s claims 1, 2, and 5), and a second antibody that may bind CD20 or CD8 (see Chang’s claims 12, 17 and 18) and where the bispecific antibody may be conjugated to a therapeutic cytokine (see Chang’s claim 29).
Note further that Chang teaches that techniques for producing single domain antibodies (DABs or VHH) are also known in the art and the VHH may have potent antigen-binding capacity and can interact with novel epitopes that are inaccessible to conventional VH-VL pairs (see for example paragraphs 0021-0024, 0098, and 0164). Chang further teaches that the person of ordinary skill in the art will realize that other antibodies that bind to leukocyte antigens as well as other antibodies that bind to other disease-associated antigens are known in the art and any such antibody can be used to make F(ab)2, scFv or other antibody fragments using techniques well known in the art. Such alternative antibodies or fragments thereof may be utilized in the instant methods and compositions (see for example paragraph 0359).
Chang also teaches that the antibody fragments (VHH and/or scFv may be chimeric (see for example paragraph 0024).
Note that the combined references do not explicitly teach a construct comprising an IFNα attached to 2 targeting moieties.
However, Rossi et al teach the viability of a construct comprising one or more IFNα2b copies connected to an anti-HLA moiety and an anti-CD20 moiety (see for example the abstract and Figure 1 and its caption).
It would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention from the disclosures of Garcin, Lo, Rossi et al, and Chang. The artisan would have been motivated to make and use the invention as claimed because Chang teaches that an IFNα (where the particular IFNα may be IFNα2; see example 17 of Chang), anti-PDL1 scFv and an scFv targeting CD8 or CD20 are known and may be combined to treat cancer. The MPEP provides that it is obvious to combine known elements where there is motivation in the art (see MPEP section 2143(I)(G)) or where the combination according to known methods yields predictable results (see MPEP section 2143(I)(A)). Here, the combination of elements known to treat cancer would be predictably combined to achieve the same purpose of treating cancer. Further the art provides motivation to combine because Chang teaches that these components in combination and individually are useful in treating cancer, as discussed above. The artisan would have been further motivated to modify the IFNα2 (taught by Chang and Lo) according to the generic approach for therapeutically using cytokines taught by Garcin to reduce the systemic/off-target effects of IFNα2 through targeted delivery, as discussed above. Rossi et al teach guidance as to how to build a construct comprising an IFNα2 and 2 additional binding moieties, with motivation to build such a construct. The artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on the cumulative disclosures of these prior art references.
Regarding claims 43 and 51, as discussed above, Garcin in view of Rossi et al, Lo, and Chang teaches the fusion protein of instant claim 35. Chang further teaches that:
“[i]t is now clear that tumors can escape immune surveillance by co-opting certain immune-checkpoint pathways, particularly in T cells that are specific for tumor antigens (Pardoll, 2012, Nature Reviews Cancer 12:252-264). Because many such immune checkpoints are initiated by ligand-receptor interactions, they can be readily blocked by antibodies against the ligands and/or their receptors (Pardoll, 2012, Nature Reviews Cancer 12:252-264). Although checkpoint inhibitor antibodies against CTLA4, PD1 and PD-L1 are the most clinically advanced…Programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1, also known as CD274 and B7-H1) is a ligand for PD1, found on activated T cells, B cells, myeloid cells and macrophages. Although there are two endogenous ligands for PD1—PD-L1 and PD-L2, anti-tumor therapies have focused on anti-PD-L1 antibodies. The complex of PD1 and PD-L1 inhibits proliferation of CD8+ T cells and reduces the immune response (Topalian et al., 2012, N Engl J Med 366:2443-54; Brahmer et al., 2012, N Eng J Med 366:2455-65),”
(see paragraphs 0130 and 0134 of Chang). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the teachings of Chang that an activity of PD-L1 is binding PD-1, resulting in inhibition of CD8+ T cell proliferation, and would thus understand that the anti-PD-L1 antibodies of Chang would block PD-1/PD-L1 complex formation (binding) which would then block inhibition of T cell proliferation, thereby functionally modulating an activity of PD-L1.
However, ‘the activity’ is never sufficiently defined. For example, it is unclear whether a single activity being modulated/unmodulated is sufficient to meet the claim or whether all activity must be modulated/unmodulated. Therefore, it is possible that the anti-PD-L1 antibodies of Chang, while inhibiting binding of PD-L1 to PD-1 may not functionally modulate all other activities of PD-L1 and would therefore meet the limitations of both claims 43 and 51. Chang is silent as to the whether the antibodies functionally modulate all PD-L1 activities.
Regarding claims 44 and 45, Garcin further teaches that the targeting moieties may be a nanobody (note that the instant specification admits that VHHs are commercially available as nanobodies (see Figure 1a, abstract, and paragraph 1 of column 1 of page 2)). In the last paragraph of column 1 of page 7, Garcin teaches that one of the targeting moieties may be a VHH or an scFv (see paragraph 1, column 1, of page 2 and the last paragraph of column 1, page 6). Chang additionally teaches that the use of a VHH or scFv format for an antigen, such as PD-L1, CD8, or CD20, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for use in the method of Chang, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 46, Chang teaches that the combinations (including a combination of a bispecific antibody and an immunomodulator which can be an IFNα) are for pharmaceutically useful compositions with a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient (see for example paragraph 0282).
Regarding claim 47, Garcin mentions that many cytokines have anti-cancer properties, but that the use of those cytokines had been limited by systemic toxicity which can be solved by the generic approach to immunocytokine targeting taught in Garcin (see paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Introduction).
It would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention from the disclosures of Garcin, Lo, Rossi et al, and Chang. The artisan would have been motivated to make and use the invention as claimed because Chang teaches that an IFNα (where the particular IFNα is not specified any IFNα, such as IFNα2 is presumed to function as taught), anti-PDL1 scFv and an scFv targeting CD8 or CD20 are known and may be combined to treat cancer. The MPEP provides that it is obvious to combine known elements where there is motivation in the art (see MPEP section 2143(I)(G)) or where the combination according to known methods yields predictable results (see MPEP section 2143(I)(A)). Here, the combination of elements known to treat cancer would be predictably combined to achieve the same purpose of treating cancer. Further the art provides motivation to combine because Chang teaches that these components in combination and individually are useful in treating cancer, as discussed above. The artisan would have been further motivated to modify the IFNα2 (taught by Chang and Lo) according to the generic approach for therapeutically using cytokines taught by Garcin to reduce the systemic/off-target effects of IFNα2 through targeted delivery, as discussed above. The artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on the cumulative disclosures of these prior art references.
Regarding claims 48-49, as discussed above the combination of Garcin, Lo, Rossi et al, and Chang teach the fusion protein of claim 35. Garcin additionally teaches that HEK293T cells (a host cell) were transiently transfected with a plasmid (recombinant nucleic acid) encoding the Nb-IFNα2 fusion (see p.7 right-hand column).
Thee Examiner believes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the chimeric fusion construct described above could be encoded in a similar recombinant nucleic acid composition in a host cell since this is a known, predictable manner of generating such constructs.
It would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention from the disclosures of Garcin, Lo, Rossi et al, and Chang. The artisan would have been motivated to make and use the invention as claimed because Chang teaches that nucleic acids may be put into host cells to produce the protein (see also Garcin’s teaching of the use of HEK293T host cells, transiently transfected with a plasmid (recombinant nucleic acid) encoding the Nb-IFNα2 fusion) as discussed above. The artisan would have been further motivated to produce the protein construct meeting the limitations of instant claim 35 for treatment of cancer as discussed in the rejections above. The artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on the cumulative disclosures of these prior art references
Claims 50 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcin in view of Rossi et al, Lo, and Chang, as applied to claims 35, 43-49, and 51 above, in further view of Clement et al (Anti-CD8 antibodies can trigger CD8+ T cell effector function in the absence of TCR engagement and improve peptide-MHCI tetramer staining. J Immunol. 2011 Jul 15;187(2):654-63).
Regarding claims 50 and 52, as discussed above, Garcin, Lo, Rossi et al, and Chang teach the chimeric protein of instant claim 35, but do not explicitly teach the function of the second targeting moiety with respect to all functions of CD8/CD20.
However, Clement et al teach findings from evaluation of a panel of anti-human CD8 antibodies that comprised six anti-CD8α antibodies (OKT8, SK1, MCD8, 32/M4, C8/144B and DK25) and one anti-CD8β antibody (2ST8.5H7). Six out of seven anti-human CD8 antibodies from the panel (SK1, MCD8, 32/M4, C8/144B, DK25 and 2ST8.5H7) did not elicit any chemokine production when incubated with four different HLA A*0201-restricted CD8+ T-cell clones (ILA1, ALF3, MEL5 and MEL187.c5) with a total of three different specificities in the absence of specific pMHCI antigen. The panel of seven anti-human CD8 antibodies was further tested in cytotoxicity assays with 4 different CD8+ T-cell clones (MEL187.c5, ALF3, LC13 and SB10). Anti-human CD8 antibodies that were incapable of inducing chemokine release failed to elicit cytotoxic activity in any of these four CD8+ T-cell clones (see Figure 3). In contrast, SB10 CD8+ T-cells exhibited substantial cytotoxicity in response to stimulation with OKT8; lower levels of specific lysis were also induced in the CD8+ T-cell clones LC13 (3.18%), ALF3 (5.1%) and MEL187.c5 (3.8%) (see Figure 3 and data not shown). These results are consistent with a previous study that described a mouse anti-CD8 antibody, KT112, capable of inducing cytotoxicity. Collectively, these data indicate that considerable heterogeneity exists in the ability of anti-CD8 antibodies to activate CD8+ T-cells (see the Results section).
Therefore, Clement et al clearly teach anti-CD8 antibodies that functionally modulate CD8 on CD8+ T cells, by way of inducing chemokine production leading to cytotoxic activity, and anti-CD8 antibodies that do not functionally modulate, by way of inducing chemokine production leading to cytotoxic activity or any other indicated way, CD8 on CD8+ T cells.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Clement et al to teach anti-CD8 antibodies that functionally modulate CD8 on CD8+ T cells and anti-CD8 antibodies that do not functionally modulateCD8 on CD8+ T cells.
It would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention from the disclosures of Garcin, Lo, Rossi et al, Chang, and Clement et al. The artisan would have been motivated to make and use the invention as claimed because Chang teaches that an IFNα2, anti-PDL1 scFv and an scFv targeting CD8 or CD20 are known and may be combined to treat cancer. The MPEP provides that it is obvious to combine known elements where there is motivation in the art (see MPEP section 2143(I)(G)) or where the combination according to known methods yields predictable results (see MPEP section 2143(I)(A)). Here, the combination of elements known to treat cancer would be predictably combined to achieve the same purpose of treating cancer. Further the art provides motivation to combine because Chang teaches that these components in combination and individually are useful in treating cancer, as discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the antibodies of Clement as art recognized equivalents because these antibodies are known in the art to bind CD8 (See MPEP section 2143(I)(B) regarding simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results). The artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on the cumulative disclosures of these prior art references.
Maintained-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 35, 43, 44-49, and 51 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 47-66 of copending Application No. 19/226,780 (reference A) in view of Chang and Rossie et al (both as cited in the rejections under 35 USC §103, above). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim a chimeric protein comprising the same components.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 35, reference A’s claim 40 recites a chimeric protein comprising a PD-L1 binding agent (which may be a VHH/nanobody; see claims 47-51 of reference A) and a modified human IFNα2 (defined in the specification of reference A (see for example, pages 33 and 110-112) as having SEQ ID NO: 317 or 318, where SEQ ID NO: 317 of reference A is identical to instant SEQ ID NO: 336; see MPEP §2111) having one or more mutations conferring improved safety relative to wild-type IFNα2 wherein the one of more mutations to the modified human IFNα2 may include R149A (see 47-49 of reference A).
Reference A does not teach the further inclusion of a targeting moiety (VHH or scFv) against CD8 or CD20.
However, Chang teaches that use of antagonistic antibodies against immune checkpoint proteins such as PD-L1, are known to be effective in treating cancer (see paragraph 0018). Chang further teaches an embodiment for treating tumors/carcinomas (see abstract) wherein a bispecific antibody (which may comprise an scFv, see Chang’s claims 1 and 10) against a leukocyte expressed antigen (such as CD8 or CD20, see Chang’s claim 17) and/or against a target antigen on a tumor or pathogen (such as CD20 or IFNα, see paragraph 0176) is used (see paragraph 0021) wherein the method comprises administering to a subject: (i) an interferon such as IFNα (see Chang’s claims 1 and 2), (ii) a check point inhibitor antibody, such as an anti-PD-L1 antibody (see Chang’s claims 1, 2, and 5), and a second antibody that may bind CD20 or CD8 (see Chang’s claims 12, 17 and 18) and where the bispecific antibody may be conjugated to a therapeutic cytokine (see Chang’s claim 29).
Note that the combined references do not explicitly teach a construct comprising an IFNα attached to 2 targeting moieties.
However, Rossi et al teach the viability of a construct comprising one or more IFNα2b copies connected to an anti-HLA moiety and an anti-CD20 moiety (see for example the abstract and Figure 1 and its caption).
It would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention from the disclosures of reference A in view of Chang and Rossi et al. The artisan would have been motivated to make and use the invention as claimed because Chang teaches that an IFNα2, anti-PDL1 scFv and an scFv targeting CD8 or CD20 are known and may be combined to treat cancer. The MPEP provides that it is obvious to combine known elements where there is motivation in the art (see MPEP section 2143(I)(G)) or where the combination according to known methods yields predictable results (see MPEP section 2143(I)(A)). Note that the use of the modified IFNα2-anti-PD-L1 VHH construct of reference A (where the artisan would have read the generically claimed IFNα2 in light of the specification and therefore would understood the recited IFNα2 to encompass one of either of SEQ ID NO: 317 or 318 of reference A (see above)) where the use of either disclosed IFNα2 sequence amounts to the mere use of an equivalent) whereupon adding in a further binding moiety targeting CD8 or CD20 would have been obvious combination for a shared purpose. Here, the combination of elements known to treat cancer would be predictably combined to achieve the same purpose of treating cancer. Further the art provides motivation to combine because Chang teaches that these components in combination and individually are useful in treating cancer, as discussed above. The artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on the cumulative disclosures of these prior art references.
Regarding claims 43 and 51, Chang further teaches that:
“[i]t is now clear that tumors can escape immune surveillance by co-opting certain immune-checkpoint pathways, particularly in T cells that are specific for tumor antigens (Pardoll, 2012, Nature Reviews Cancer 12:252-264). Because many such immune checkpoints are initiated by ligand-receptor interactions, they can be readily blocked by antibodies against the ligands and/or their receptors (Pardoll, 2012, Nature Reviews Cancer 12:252-264). Although checkpoint inhibitor antibodies against CTLA4, PD1 and PD-L1 are the most clinically advanced…Programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1, also known as CD274 and B7-H1) is a ligand for PD1, found on activated T cells, B cells, myeloid cells and macrophages. Although there are two endogenous ligands for PD1—PD-L1 and PD-L2, anti-tumor therapies have focused on anti-PD-L1 antibodies. The complex of PD1 and PD-L1 inhibits proliferation of CD8+ T cells and reduces the immune response (Topalian et al., 2012, N Engl J Med 366:2443-54; Brahmer et al., 2012, N Eng J Med 366:2455-65),”
(see paragraphs 0130 and 0134 of Chang). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the teachings of Chang that an activity of PD-L1 is binding PD-1, resulting in inhibition of CD8+ T cell proliferation, and would thus understand that the anti-PD-L1 antibodies of Chang would block PD-1/PD-L1 complex formation (binding) which would then block inhibition of T cell proliferation, thereby functionally modulating an activity of PD-L1.
However, ‘the activity’ is never sufficiently defined. For example, it is unclear whether a single activity being modulated/unmodulated is sufficient to meet the claim or whether all activity must be modulated/unmodulated. Therefore, it is possible that the anti-PD-L1 antibodies of Chang, while inhibiting binding of PD-L1 to PD-1 may not functionally modulate all other activities of PD-L1 and would thereby meet the limitations of both claims 43 and 51. Chang is silent as to the whether the antibodies functionally modulate all PD-L1 activities.
Regarding claims 44 and 45, Chang additionally teaches that the use of a VHH or scFv format for an antigen, such as PD-L1, CD8, or CD20, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for use in the method of Chang, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 46, Chang teaches that the combinations (including a combination of a bispecific antibody and an immunomodulator which can be an IFNα) are for pharmaceutically useful compositions with a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient (see for example paragraph 0282).
Regarding claim 47, reference A recites that the anti-PD-L1 antibody may be used to treat cancer (see for example claims 27 and 66 of reference A; noting that the specification of reference A defines cancer cells or tumor cells as including melanoma at page 64 where the artisan, reading the generic recitation of cancer in the claims would look to the specification to determine how cancer was defined (see MPEP §2111)). Therefore, the use of the antibody (as adapted to the format of an scFv or VHH as made obvious by Chang) in combination with other known anti-cancer components as a single construct would have been prima facie obvious combination of components to achieve a shared goal of treating cancer wherein reference A guides towards treatment of melanoma.
Regarding claims 48-49, as discussed above the combination of reference A, Chang, and Rossie et al teach the fusion protein of claim 35.
It would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention from the disclosures of reference A and Chang because Chang teaches that nucleic acids may be put into host cells to produce the protein. The artisan would have been further motivated to produce the protein construct meeting the limitations of instant claim 35 for treatment of cancer as discussed in the rejections above. The artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on the cumulative disclosures of these prior art references.
Claims 50 and 52 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 47-66 of copending Application No. 19/226,780 (reference A), Chang, Rossi et al, as applied to claims 35, 43-49, and 51 above, in further view of Clement et al (as cited in the rejections under 35 USC §103, above). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim a chimeric protein comprising the same components.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 50 and 52, as discussed above, Reference A, Chang, and Rossi et al make obvious the chimeric protein of instant claim 35, but do not explicitly recite/teach the function of the second targeting moiety with respect to all functions of CD8/CD20.
However, Clement et al teach findings from evaluation of a panel of anti-human CD8 antibodies that comprised six anti-CD8α antibodies (OKT8, SK1, MCD8, 32/M4, C8/144B and DK25) and one anti-CD8β antibody (2ST8.5H7). Six out of seven anti-human CD8 antibodies from the panel (SK1, MCD8, 32/M4, C8/144B, DK25 and 2ST8.5H7) did not elicit any chemokine production when incubated with four different HLA A*0201-restricted CD8+ T-cell clones (ILA1, ALF3, MEL5 and MEL187.c5) with a total of three different specificities in the absence of specific pMHCI antigen. The panel of seven anti-human CD8 antibodies was further tested in cytotoxicity assays with 4 different CD8+ T-cell clones (MEL187.c5, ALF3, LC13 and SB10). Anti-human CD8 antibodies that were incapable of inducing chemokine release failed to elicit cytotoxic activity in any of these four CD8+ T-cell clones (see Figure 3). In contrast, SB10 CD8+ T-cells exhibited substantial cytotoxicity in response to stimulation with OKT8; lower levels of specific lysis were also induced in the CD8+ T-cell clones LC13 (3.18%), ALF3 (5.1%) and MEL187.c5 (3.8%) (see Figure 3 and data not shown). These results are consistent with a previous study that described a mouse anti-CD8 antibody, KT112, capable of inducing cytotoxicity. Collectively, these data indicate that considerable heterogeneity exists in the ability of anti-CD8 antibodies to activate CD8+ T-cells (see the Results section).
Therefore, Clement et al clearly teach anti-CD8 antibodies that functionally modulate CD8 on CD8+ T cells, by way of inducing chemokine production leading to cytotoxic activity, and anti-CD8 antibodies that do not functionally modulate, by way of inducing chemokine production leading to cytotoxic activity or any other indicated way, CD8 on CD8+ T cells.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Clement et al to teach anti-CD8 antibodies that functionally modulate CD8 on CD8+ T cells and anti-CD8 antibodies that do not functionally modulate CD8 on CD8+ T cells.
It would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention from the disclosures of Reference A, Chang, Rossi et al, and Clement et al. The artisan would have been motivated to make and use the invention as claimed because Chang teaches that an IFNα2, anti-PDL1 scFv and an scFv targeting CD8 or CD20 are known and may be combined to treat cancer. The MPEP provides that it is obvious to combine known elements where there is motivation in the art (see MPEP section 2143(I)(G)) or where the combination according to known methods yields predictable results (see MPEP section 2143(I)(A)). Here, the combination of elements known to treat cancer would be predictably combined to achieve the same purpose of treating cancer. Further the art provides motivation to combine because Chang teaches that these components in combination and individually are useful in treating cancer, as discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the antibodies of Clement as art recognized equivalents because these antibodies are known in the art to bind CD8 (See MPEP section 2143(I)(B) regarding simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results). The artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on the cumulative disclosures of these prior art references.
Claims 35, 44-45, and 48-49 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 198, 200, 210-237 of copending Application No. 17/042,512 (reference B). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim a chimeric protein comprising the same components.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 35, 44-45, and 48-49, claim 198 of reference B recites an Fc-based chimeric protein comprising a modified human IFNα2 with reduced affinity for IFNαR, wherein the mutation modifying the IFNα2 may be R149A (see claims 198 and 200 of reference B; noting that SEQ ID NO: 1 of reference B is identical to instant SEQ ID NO: 336), wherein the targeting moiety may be a VHH or scFv (see claim 210 of reference B) wherein there may be 2 targeting moieties which bind a combination of PD-L1 and CD8 or CD20 (see claims 213-214 of reference B, for example).
Reference B further recites nucleic acids encoding the chimeric protein of claim 218 and a host cell comprising said nucleic acids (see for example claims 218 and 236-237 of reference B).
It would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention from the disclosure of reference B. Note that the use of the modified IFNα2 of reference B would have been the mere use of an equivalent (wherein the IFNα2 of the instant application and reference B are at least functional equivalents) Here, the combination of elements known to treat cancer would be predictably combined to achieve the same purpose of treating cancer (see claim 235 of reference B). The use of nucleic acids encoding the protein product and a host cell comprising said nucleic acids would have been obvious and desirable so as to produce the protein products recited in the claims of reference B, as discussed above. The artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on the cumulative disclosures of these prior art references.
Claims 43, 44-47, and 51 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 198, 200, 210, and 235-237 of copending Application No. 17/042,512 (reference B) as applied to claims 35, 44-45, and 48-49 above, in view of Chang (as applied to the claims in the rejections under 35 USC §103 above). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim a chimeric protein comprising the same components.
Reference B is held to make obvious the protein of instant claim 35, as discussed above.
Regarding claims 43 and 51, Chang, teaching the combined use of a binding agent against PD-L1, CD8, and CD20 (as discussed in the rejections under 35 USC §103 above), further teaches that:
“[i]t is now clear that tumors can escape immune surveillance by co-opting certain immune-checkpoint pathways, particularly in T cells that are specific for tumor antigens (Pardoll, 2012, Nature Reviews Cancer 12:252-264). Because many such immune checkpoints are initiated by ligand-receptor interactions, they can be readily blocked by antibodies against the ligands and/or their receptors (Pardoll, 2012, Nature Reviews Cancer 12:252-264). Although checkpoint inhibitor antibodies against CTLA4, PD1 and PD-L1 are the most clinically advanced…Programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1, also known as CD274 and B7-H1) is a ligand for PD1, found on activated T cells, B cells, myeloid cells and macrophages. Although there are two endogenous ligands for PD1—PD-L1 and PD-L2, anti-tumor therapies have focused on anti-PD-L1 antibodies. The complex of PD1 and PD-L1 inhibits proliferation of CD8+ T cells and reduces the immune response (Topalian et al., 2012, N Engl J Med 366:2443-54; Brahmer et al., 2012, N Eng J Med 366:2455-65),”
(see paragraphs 0130 and 0134 of Chang). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the teachings of Chang that an activity of PD-L1 is binding PD-1, resulting in inhibition of CD8+ T cell proliferation, and would thus understand that the anti-PD-L1 antibodies of Chang would block PD-1/PD-L1 complex formation (binding) which would then block inhibition of T cell proliferation, thereby functionally modulating an activity of PD-L1.
However, ‘the activity’ is never sufficiently defined. For example, it is unclear whether a single activity being modulated/unmodulated is sufficient to meet the claim or whether all activity must be modulated/unmodulated. Therefore, it is possible that the anti-PD-L1 antibodies of Chang, while inhibiting binding of PD-L1 to PD-1 may not functionally modulate all other activities of PD-L1 and would therefore meet the limitations of both claims 43 and 51. Chang is silent as to the whether the antibodies functionally modulate all PD-L1 activities.
It would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention from the disclosures of reference B and Chang. Note that the use of the modified IFNα2 of reference B would have been the mere use of an equivalent (wherein the IFNα2 of the instant application and reference B are at least functional equivalents). Note further that because the components of reference B and Chang are functional equivalents, combined to treat cancer, combination of the teachings contained in both references would have been obvious and desirable to optimize and use the resulting construct. Here, the combination of elements known to treat cancer would be predictably combined to achieve the same purpose of treating cancer (see claim 235 of reference B). The artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on the cumulative disclosures of these prior art references.
Regarding claims 44 and 45, Chang additionally teaches that the use of a VHH or scFv format for an antigen, such as PD-L1, CD8, or CD20, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for use in the method of Chang, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 46, Chang teaches that the combinations (including a combination of a bispecific antibody and an immunomodulator which can be an IFNα) are for pharmaceutically useful compositions with a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient (see for example paragraph 0282). The combination of the prior art references of record renders obvious the components (and resulting construct) of these claims, the resulting effects are presumed to be the same. Therefore this chimeric protein would presumably possess/be capable of performing the claimed properties/functions.
Regarding claim 47, reference B recites that the antyi-PD-L1 antibody may be used to treat melanoma (see for example claim 235 of reference B). Therefore, the use of the antibody (as adapted to the format of an scFv or VHH as made obvious by Chang) in combination with other known anti-cancer components as a single construct would have been prima facie obvious combination of components to achieve a shared goal of treating cancer wherein reference B guides towards treatment of melanoma.
Claims 50 and 52 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 198, 200, 210, and 235-237 of copending Application No. 17/042,512 (reference B) as applied to claims 35, 44-45, and 48-49 above, in view of Clement et al (as cited in the rejections under 35 USC §103, above). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim a chimeric protein comprising the same components.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 50 and 52, as discussed above, Reference B and makes obvious the chimeric protein of instant claim 35, but do not explicitly recite/teach the function of the second targeting moiety with respect to all functions of CD8/CD20.
However, Clement et al teach findings from evaluation of a panel of anti-human CD8 antibodies that comprised six anti-CD8α antibodies (OKT8, SK1, MCD8, 32/M4, C8/144B and DK25) and one anti-CD8β antibody (2ST8.5H7). Six out of seven anti-human CD8 antibodies from the panel (SK1, MCD8, 32/M4, C8/144B, DK25 and 2ST8.5H7) did not elicit any chemokine production when incubated with four different HLA A*0201-restricted CD8+ T-cell clones (ILA1, ALF3, MEL5 and MEL187.c5) with a total of three different specificities in the absence of specific pMHCI antigen. The panel of seven anti-human CD8 antibodies was further tested in cytotoxicity assays with 4 different CD8+ T-cell clones (MEL187.c5, ALF3, LC13 and SB10). Anti-human CD8 antibodies that were incapable of inducing chemokine release failed to elicit cytotoxic activity in any of these four CD8+ T-cell clones (see Figure 3). In contrast, SB10 CD8+ T-cells exhibited substantial cytotoxicity in response to stimulation with OKT8; lower levels of specific lysis were also induced in the CD8+ T-cell clones LC13 (3.18%), ALF3 (5.1%) and MEL187.c5 (3.8%) (see Figure 3 and data not shown). These results are consistent with a previous study that described a mouse anti-CD8 antibody, KT112, capable of inducing cytotoxicity. Collectively, these data indicate that considerable heterogeneity exists in the ability of anti-CD8 antibodies to activate CD8+ T-cells (see the Results section).
Therefore, Clement et al clearly teach anti-CD8 antibodies that functionally modulate CD8 on CD8+ T cells, by way of inducing chemokine production leading to cytotoxic activity, and anti-CD8 antibodies that do not functionally modulate, by way of inducing chemokine production leading to cytotoxic activity or any other indicated way, CD8 on CD8+ T cells.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Clement et al to teach anti-CD8 antibodies that functionally modulate CD8 on CD8+ T cells and anti-CD8 antibodies that do not functionally modulateCD8 on CD8+ T cells.
It would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention from the disclosures of Reference B and Clement et al. The artisan would have been motivated to make and use the invention as claimed because reference B teaches that an IFNα2, anti-PDL1 scFv and an scFv targeting CD8 or CD20 are known and may be combined to treat cancer (see for example claim 235 of reference B). The MPEP provides that it is obvious to combine known elements where there is motivation in the art (see MPEP section 2143(I)(G)) or where the combination according to known methods yields predictable results (see MPEP section 2143(I)(A)). Here, the combination of elements known to treat cancer would be predictably combined to achieve the same purpose of treating cancer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the antibodies of Clement as art recognized equivalents because these antibodies are known in the art to bind CD8 (See MPEP section 2143(I)(B) regarding simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results). The artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on the cumulative disclosures of these prior art references.
Claims 35, 43-49, and 51 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of US Patent No. 11753463B2 (reference C) and Chang (as cited in the rejections under 35 USC §103, above). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim a chimeric protein comprising the same components.
Regarding claims 35, 44-46, reference C recites a pharmaceutical composition comprising a chimeric protein comprising one or more modified signaling agents with reduced affinity/activity to IFNα2 that is restorable by targeting moieties (which may be human IFNα2 (presumed to be at least a functional equivalent of the IFNα2 instantly claimed; noting that SEQ ID NO: 1 of reference C is identical to instant SEQ ID NO: 336) and having one or more mutations which may be R149A) and one or more targeting moieties which may by a VHH or scFv and may target one or more of PD-L1, CD8, and/or CD20 (see claims 1-8 of reference C), which may be administered to treat melanoma (see for example claims 11-13 of reference C).
Regarding claims 48-49, reference C teaches nucleic acids and a host cell comprising said nucleic acids (see claims 9-10 of reference C).
It would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention from the disclosures of reference C and Chang. The artisan would have been motivated to make and use the invention as claimed because Chang teaches that an IFNα2, anti-PDL1 scFv and an scFv targeting CD8 or CD20 are known and may be combined to treat cancer. The MPEP provides that it is obvious to combine known elements where there is motivation in the art (see MPEP section 2143(I)(G)) or where the combination according to known methods yields predictable results (see MPEP section 2143(I)(A)). Note that the use of the modified IFNα2-anti-PD-L1 VHH construct of reference A would have been the mere use of an equivalent whereupon adding in a further binding moiety targeting CD8 or CD20 would have been obvious combination for a shared purpose. Here, the combination of elements known to treat cancer would be predictably combined to achieve the same purpose of treating cancer. Further the art provides motivation to combine because Chang teaches that these components in combination and individually are useful in treating cancer, as discussed above. The artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on the cumulative disclosures of these prior art references.
Regarding claims 43 and 51, Chang further teaches that:
“[i]t is now clear that tumors can escape immune surveillance by co-opting certain immune-checkpoint pathways, particularly in T cells that are specific for tumor antigens (Pardoll, 2012, Nature Reviews Cancer 12:252-264). Because many such immune checkpoints are initiated by ligand-receptor interactions, they can be readily blocked by antibodies against the ligands and/or their receptors (Pardoll, 2012, Nature Reviews Cancer 12:252-264). Although checkpoint inhibitor antibodies against CTLA4, PD1 and PD-L1 are the most clinically advanced…Programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1, also known as CD274 and B7-H1) is a ligand for PD1, found on activated T cells, B cells, myeloid cells and macrophages. Although there are two endogenous ligands for PD1—PD-L1 and PD-L2, anti-tumor therapies have focused on anti-PD-L1 antibodies. The complex of PD1 and PD-L1 inhibits proliferation of CD8+ T cells and reduces the immune response (Topalian et al., 2012, N Engl J Med 366:2443-54; Brahmer et al., 2012, N Eng J Med 366:2455-65),”
(see paragraphs 0130 and 0134 of Chang). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the teachings of Chang that an activity of PD-L1 is binding PD-1, resulting in inhibition of CD8+ T cell proliferation, and would thus understand that the anti-PD-L1 antibodies of Chang would block PD-1/PD-L1 complex formation (binding) which would then block inhibition of T cell proliferation, thereby functionally modulating an activity of PD-L1.
However, ‘the activity’ is never sufficiently defined. For example, it is unclear whether a single activity being modulated/unmodulated is sufficient to meet the claim or whether all activity must be modulated/unmodulated. Therefore, it is possible that the anti-PD-L1 antibodies of Chang, while inhibiting binding of PD-L1 to PD-1 may not functionally modulate all other activities of PD-L1 and would thereby meet the limitations of both claims 43 and 51. Chang is silent as to the whether the antibodies functionally modulate all PD-L1 activities.
Regarding claims 44 and 45, Chang additionally teaches that the use of a VHH or scFv format for an antigen, such as PD-L1, CD8, or CD20, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for use in the method of Chang, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 46, Chang teaches that the combinations (including a combination of a bispecific antibody and an immunomodulator which can be an IFNα) are for pharmaceutically useful compositions with a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient (see for example paragraph 0282).
Regarding claim 47, reference C recites that the chimeric protein may be used to treat melanoma (see for example claims 1-13 of reference C). Therefore, the use of the antibody (as adapted to the format of an scFv or VHH as made obvious by Chang and reference C) in combination with other known anti-cancer components as a single construct would have been prima facie obvious combination of components to achieve a shared goal of treating cancer wherein reference C guides towards treatment of melanoma.
Claims 50 and 52 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of US Patent No. 11753463B2 (reference C) and Chang as applied to claims 35, 43, 44-47, and 51, in further view of Clement et al (as cited in the rejections under 35 USC §103, above). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim a chimeric protein comprising the same components.
Regarding claims 50 and 52, as discussed above, Reference C and Chang make obvious the chimeric protein of instant claim 35, but do not explicitly recite/teach the function of the second targeting moiety with respect to all functions of CD8/CD20.
However, Clement et al teach findings from evaluation of a panel of anti-human CD8 antibodies that comprised six anti-CD8α antibodies (OKT8, SK1, MCD8, 32/M4, C8/144B and DK25) and one anti-CD8β antibody (2ST8.5H7). Six out of seven anti-human CD8 antibodies from the panel (SK1, MCD8, 32/M4, C8/144B, DK25 and 2ST8.5H7) did not elicit any chemokine production when incubated with four different HLA A*0201-restricted CD8+ T-cell clones (ILA1, ALF3, MEL5 and MEL187.c5) with a total of three different specificities in the absence of specific pMHCI antigen. The panel of seven anti-human CD8 antibodies was further tested in cytotoxicity assays with 4 different CD8+ T-cell clones (MEL187.c5, ALF3, LC13 and SB10). Anti-human CD8 antibodies that were incapable of inducing chemokine release failed to elicit cytotoxic activity in any of these four CD8+ T-cell clones (see Figure 3). In contrast, SB10 CD8+ T-cells exhibited substantial cytotoxicity in response to stimulation with OKT8; lower levels of specific lysis were also induced in the CD8+ T-cell clones LC13 (3.18%), ALF3 (5.1%) and MEL187.c5 (3.8%) (see Figure 3 and data not shown). These results are consistent with a previous study that described a mouse anti-CD8 antibody, KT112, capable of inducing cytotoxicity. Collectively, these data indicate that considerable heterogeneity exists in the ability of anti-CD8 antibodies to activate CD8+ T-cells (see the Results section).
Therefore, Clement et al clearly teach anti-CD8 antibodies that functionally modulate CD8 on CD8+ T cells, by way of inducing chemokine production leading to cytotoxic activity, and anti-CD8 antibodies that do not functionally modulate, by way of inducing chemokine production leading to cytotoxic activity or any other indicated way, CD8 on CD8+ T cells.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Clement et al to teach anti-CD8 antibodies that functionally modulate CD8 on CD8+ T cells and anti-CD8 antibodies that do not functionally modulateCD8 on CD8+ T cells.
It would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention from the disclosures of Reference C, Chang, and Clement et al. The artisan would have been motivated to make and use the invention as claimed because Chang teaches that an IFNα2, anti-PDL1 scFv and an scFv targeting CD8 or CD20 are known and may be combined to treat cancer. The MPEP provides that it is obvious to combine known elements where there is motivation in the art (see MPEP section 2143(I)(G)) or where the combination according to known methods yields predictable results (see MPEP section 2143(I)(A)). Here, the combination of elements known to treat cancer would be predictably combined to achieve the same purpose of treating cancer. Further the art provides motivation to combine because Chang teaches that these components in combination and individually are useful in treating cancer, as discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the antibodies of Clement as art recognized equivalents because these antibodies are known in the art to bind CD8 (See MPEP section 2143(I)(B) regarding simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results). The artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on the cumulative disclosures of these prior art references.
Claims 35, 43, 44-46, and 51 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of US Patent No. 11661455B2 (reference D) and Chang (as cited in the rejections under 35 USC §103, above). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim a chimeric protein comprising the same components.
Regarding claims 35, 43-46, reference D recites a chimeric protein comprising one or more modified signaling agents with reduced affinity/activity to IFNα2 that is restorable by targeting moieties (which may be human IFNα2 (presumed to be at least a functional equivalent of the IFNα2 instantly claimed; noting that SEQ ID NO: 179 of reference D is identical to instant SEQ ID NO: 336) and having one or more mutations which may be R149A) and a targeting moiety that comprises a recognition domain that recognizes and binds to programmed cell death protein 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1), wherein the targeting moiety comprises a recombinant heavy-chain-only antibody (VHH), a single-chain antibody (scFv), or a shark heavy-chain-only antibody (VNAR) (see claims 1-6 of reference D).
Reference D does not teach the further inclusion of a targeting moiety (VHH or scFv) against CD8 or CD20.
However, Chang teaches that use of antagonistic antibodies against immune checkpoint proteins such as PD-L1, are known to be effective in treating cancer (see paragraph 0018). Chang further teaches an embodiment for treating tumors/carcinomas (see abstract) wherein a bispecific antibody (which may comprise an scFv, see Chang’s claims 1 and 10) against a leukocyte expressed antigen (such as CD8 or CD20, see Chang’s claim 17) and/or against a target antigen on a tumor or pathogen (such as CD20 or IFNα, see paragraph 0176) is used (see paragraph 0021) wherein the method comprises administering to a subject: (i) an interferon such as IFNα (see Chang’s claims 1 and 2), (ii) a check point inhibitor antibody, such as an anti-PD-L1 antibody (see Chang’s claims 1, 2, and 5), and a second antibody that may bind CD20 or CD8 (see Chang’s claims 12, 17 and 18) and where the bispecific antibody may be conjugated to a therapeutic cytokine (see Chang’s claim 29).
It would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention from the disclosures of reference D and Chang. The artisan would have been motivated to make and use the invention as claimed because Chang teaches that an IFNα2, anti-PDL1 scFv and an scFv targeting CD8 or CD20 are known and may be combined to treat cancer. The MPEP provides that it is obvious to combine known elements where there is motivation in the art (see MPEP section 2143(I)(G)) or where the combination according to known methods yields predictable results (see MPEP section 2143(I)(A)). Note that the use of the modified IFNα2-anti-PD-L1 VHH construct of reference A would have been the mere use of an equivalent whereupon adding in a further binding moiety targeting CD8 or CD20 would have been obvious combination for a shared purpose. Here, the combination of elements known to treat cancer would be predictably combined to achieve the same purpose of treating cancer. Further the art provides motivation to combine because Chang teaches that these components in combination and individually are useful in treating cancer, as discussed above. The artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on the cumulative disclosures of these prior art references.
Regarding claims 43 and 51, Chang further teaches that:
“[i]t is now clear that tumors can escape immune surveillance by co-opting certain immune-checkpoint pathways, particularly in T cells that are specific for tumor antigens (Pardoll, 2012, Nature Reviews Cancer 12:252-264). Because many such immune checkpoints are initiated by ligand-receptor interactions, they can be readily blocked by antibodies against the ligands and/or their receptors (Pardoll, 2012, Nature Reviews Cancer 12:252-264). Although checkpoint inhibitor antibodies against CTLA4, PD1 and PD-L1 are the most clinically advanced…Programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1, also known as CD274 and B7-H1) is a ligand for PD1, found on activated T cells, B cells, myeloid cells and macrophages. Although there are two endogenous ligands for PD1—PD-L1 and PD-L2, anti-tumor therapies have focused on anti-PD-L1 antibodies. The complex of PD1 and PD-L1 inhibits proliferation of CD8+ T cells and reduces the immune response (Topalian et al., 2012, N Engl J Med 366:2443-54; Brahmer et al., 2012, N Eng J Med 366:2455-65),”
(see paragraphs 0130 and 0134 of Chang). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the teachings of Chang that an activity of PD-L1 is binding PD-1, resulting in inhibition of CD8+ T cell proliferation, and would thus understand that the anti-PD-L1 antibodies of Chang would block PD-1/PD-L1 complex formation (binding) which would then block inhibition of T cell proliferation, thereby functionally modulating an activity of PD-L1.
However, ‘the activity’ is never sufficiently defined. For example, it is unclear whether a single activity being modulated/unmodulated is sufficient to meet the claim or whether all activity must be modulated/unmodulated. Therefore, it is possible that the anti-PD-L1 antibodies of Chang, while inhibiting binding of PD-L1 to PD-1 may not functionally modulate all other activities of PD-L1 and would thereby meet the limitations of both claims 43 and 51. Chang is silent as to the whether the antibodies functionally modulate all PD-L1 activities.
Regarding claims 44 and 45, Chang additionally teaches that the use of a VHH or scFv format for an antigen, such as PD-L1, CD8, or CD20, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for use in the method of Chang, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 46, Chang teaches that the combinations (including a combination of a bispecific antibody and an immunomodulator which can be an IFNα) are for pharmaceutically useful compositions with a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient (see for example paragraph 0282).
Regarding claims 48-49, as discussed above the combination of reference D and Chang teach the fusion protein of claim 35.
It would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention from the disclosures of reference D and Chang. The artisan would have been motivated to make and use the invention as claimed because Chang teaches that nucleic acids may be put into host cells to produce the protein, as discussed above. The artisan would have been further motivated to produce the protein construct meeting the limitations of instant claim 35 for treatment of cancer as discussed in the rejections above. The artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on the cumulative disclosures of these prior art references.
Claim 47 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of US Patent No. 11661455B2 (reference D) and Chang, as applied to claims 35, 43, 44-46, 48-49, and 51, in further view of Garcin (as cited in the rejections under 35 USC §103, above). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim a chimeric protein comprising the same components.
Regarding claim 47, reference D in view of Chang recites the chimeric protein of instant claim 35.
Reference D in view of Chang does not recite treatment of melanoma.
However, Garcin mentions that many cytokines have anti-cancer properties, but that the use of those cytokines had been limited by systemic toxicity which can be solved by the generic approach to immunocytokine targeting taught in Garcin (see paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Introduction).
It would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention from the disclosures of reference D, Garcin, and Chang. The artisan would have been motivated to make and use the invention as claimed because Chang teaches that an IFNα (where the particular IFNα is not specified any IFNα, such as IFNα2 is presumed to function as taught), anti-PDL1 scFv and an scFv targeting CD8 or CD20 are known and may be combined to treat cancer. The MPEP provides that it is obvious to combine known elements where there is motivation in the art (see MPEP section 2143(I)(G)) or where the combination according to known methods yields predictable results (see MPEP section 2143(I)(A)). Here, the combination of elements known to treat cancer would be predictably combined to achieve the same purpose of treating cancer. Further the art provides motivation to combine because Chang teaches that these components in combination and individually are useful in treating cancer, as discussed above. The artisan would have been further motivated to modify the IFNα2 (taught by Chang) according to the generic approach for therapeutically using cytokines taught by reference D and/or Garcin to reduce the systemic/off-target effects of IFNα2 through targeted delivery, as discussed above. The artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on the cumulative disclosures of these prior art references.
Claims 50 and 52 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of US Patent No. 11661455B2 (reference D) and Chang as applied to claims 35, 43, 44-46, 48-49, and 51, in further view of Clement et al (as cited in the rejections under 35 USC §103, above). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim a chimeric protein comprising the same components.
Regarding claims 50 and 52, as discussed above, Reference D and Chang make obvious the chimeric protein of instant claim 35, but do not explicitly recite/teach the function of the second targeting moiety with respect to all functions of CD8/CD20.
However, Clement et al teach findings from evaluation of a panel of anti-human CD8 antibodies that comprised six anti-CD8α antibodies (OKT8, SK1, MCD8, 32/M4, C8/144B and DK25) and one anti-CD8β antibody (2ST8.5H7). Six out of seven anti-human CD8 antibodies from the panel (SK1, MCD8, 32/M4, C8/144B, DK25 and 2ST8.5H7) did not elicit any chemokine production when incubated with four different HLA A*0201-restricted CD8+ T-cell clones (ILA1, ALF3, MEL5 and MEL187.c5) with a total of three different specificities in the absence of specific pMHCI antigen. The panel of seven anti-human CD8 antibodies was further tested in cytotoxicity assays with 4 different CD8+ T-cell clones (MEL187.c5, ALF3, LC13 and SB10). Anti-human CD8 antibodies that were incapable of inducing chemokine release failed to elicit cytotoxic activity in any of these four CD8+ T-cell clones (see Figure 3). In contrast, SB10 CD8+ T-cells exhibited substantial cytotoxicity in response to stimulation with OKT8; lower levels of specific lysis were also induced in the CD8+ T-cell clones LC13 (3.18%), ALF3 (5.1%) and MEL187.c5 (3.8%) (see Figure 3 and data not shown). These results are consistent with a previous study that described a mouse anti-CD8 antibody, KT112, capable of inducing cytotoxicity. Collectively, these data indicate that considerable heterogeneity exists in the ability of anti-CD8 antibodies to activate CD8+ T-cells (see the Results section).
Therefore, Clement et al clearly teach anti-CD8 antibodies that functionally modulate CD8 on CD8+ T cells, by way of inducing chemokine production leading to cytotoxic activity, and anti-CD8 antibodies that do not functionally modulate, by way of inducing chemokine production leading to cytotoxic activity or any other indicated way, CD8 on CD8+ T cells.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Clement et al to teach anti-CD8 antibodies that functionally modulate CD8 on CD8+ T cells and anti-CD8 antibodies that do not functionally modulateCD8 on CD8+ T cells.
It would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention from the disclosures of Reference D, Chang, and Clement et al. The artisan would have been motivated to make and use the invention as claimed because Chang teaches that an IFNα2, anti-PDL1 scFv and an scFv targeting CD8 or CD20 are known and may be combined to treat cancer. The MPEP provides that it is obvious to combine known elements where there is motivation in the art (see MPEP section 2143(I)(G)) or where the combination according to known methods yields predictable results (see MPEP section 2143(I)(A)). Here, the combination of elements known to treat cancer would be predictably combined to achieve the same purpose of treating cancer. Further the art provides motivation to combine because Chang teaches that these components in combination and individually are useful in treating cancer, as discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the antibodies of Clement as art recognized equivalents because these antibodies are known in the art to bind CD8 (See MPEP section 2143(I)(B) regarding simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results). The artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on the cumulative disclosures of these prior art references.
Claims 35, 43, 44-46, 48-49, and 51 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of US Patent No. 10946070B2 (reference E) and Chang and Rossie et al (both as cited in the rejections under 35 USC §103, above). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim a chimeric protein comprising the same components.
Regarding claims 35, 43-46, reference E recites a pharmaceutical composition comprising a chimeric protein comprising a modified IFNα2 with reduced affinity/activity to IFNα2 that is restorable by targeting moieties (which may be human IFNα2 (presumed to be at least a functional equivalent of the IFNα2 instantly claimed) and having one or more mutations which may be R149A) and a targeting moiety comprising an antibody against PD-L2 or CD20 (which may be a VHH), which restored affinity/activity of the IFNα2 (see claims 1-12 of reference E).
Reference E does not explicitly recite the further inclusion of a targeting moiety (VHH or scFv) against CD8 or PD-L1.
However, Chang teaches that use of antagonistic antibodies against immune checkpoint proteins such as PD-L1, are known to be effective in treating cancer (see paragraph 0018). Chang further teaches an embodiment for treating tumors/carcinomas (see abstract) wherein a bispecific antibody (which may comprise an scFv, see Chang’s claims 1 and 10) against a leukocyte expressed antigen (such as CD8 or CD20, see Chang’s claim 17) and/or against a target antigen on a tumor or pathogen (such as CD20 or IFNα, see paragraph 0176) is used (see paragraph 0021) wherein the method comprises administering to a subject: (i) an interferon such as IFNα (see Chang’s claims 1 and 2), (ii) a check point inhibitor antibody, such as an anti-PD-L1 antibody (see Chang’s claims 1, 2, and 5), and a second antibody that may bind CD20 or CD8 (see Chang’s claims 12, 17 and 18) and where the bispecific antibody may be conjugated to a therapeutic cytokine (see Chang’s claim 29).
Note that the combined references do not explicitly teach a construct comprising an IFNα attached to 2 targeting moieties.
However, Rossi et al teach the viability of a construct comprising one or more IFNα2b copies connected to an anti-HLA moiety and an anti-CD20 moiety (see for example the abstract and Figure 1 and its caption).
It would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention from the disclosures of reference D and Chang. The artisan would have been motivated to make and use the invention as claimed because Chang teaches that an IFNα2, anti-PDL1 scFv and an scFv targeting CD8 or CD20 are known and may be combined to treat cancer. The MPEP provides that it is obvious to combine known elements where there is motivation in the art (see MPEP section 2143(I)(G)) or where the combination according to known methods yields predictable results (see MPEP section 2143(I)(A)). Note that the use of the modified IFNα2-anti-PD-L1 VHH construct of reference A would have been the mere use of an equivalent whereupon adding in a further binding moiety targeting CD8 or CD20 would have been obvious combination for a shared purpose. Here, the combination of elements known to treat cancer would be predictably combined to achieve the same purpose of treating cancer. Further the art provides motivation to combine because Chang teaches that these components in combination and individually are useful in treating cancer, as discussed above. The artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on the cumulative disclosures of these prior art references.
Regarding claims 43 and 51, Chang further teaches that:
“[i]t is now clear that tumors can escape immune surveillance by co-opting certain immune-checkpoint pathways, particularly in T cells that are specific for tumor antigens (Pardoll, 2012, Nature Reviews Cancer 12:252-264). Because many such immune checkpoints are initiated by ligand-receptor interactions, they can be readily blocked by antibodies against the ligands and/or their receptors (Pardoll, 2012, Nature Reviews Cancer 12:252-264). Although checkpoint inhibitor antibodies against CTLA4, PD1 and PD-L1 are the most clinically advanced…Programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1, also known as CD274 and B7-H1) is a ligand for PD1, found on activated T cells, B cells, myeloid cells and macrophages. Although there are two endogenous ligands for PD1—PD-L1 and PD-L2, anti-tumor therapies have focused on anti-PD-L1 antibodies. The complex of PD1 and PD-L1 inhibits proliferation of CD8+ T cells and reduces the immune response (Topalian et al., 2012, N Engl J Med 366:2443-54; Brahmer et al., 2012, N Eng J Med 366:2455-65),”
(see paragraphs 0130 and 0134 of Chang). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the teachings of Chang that an activity of PD-L1 is binding PD-1, resulting in inhibition of CD8+ T cell proliferation, and would thus understand that the anti-PD-L1 antibodies of Chang would block PD-1/PD-L1 complex formation (binding) which would then block inhibition of T cell proliferation, thereby functionally modulating an activity of PD-L1.
However, ‘the activity’ is never sufficiently defined. For example, it is unclear whether a single activity being modulated/unmodulated is sufficient to meet the claim or whether all activity must be modulated/unmodulated. Therefore, it is possible that the anti-PD-L1 antibodies of Chang, while inhibiting binding of PD-L1 to PD-1 may not functionally modulate all other activities of PD-L1 and would thereby meet the limitations of both claims 43 and 51. Chang is silent as to the whether the antibodies functionally modulate all PD-L1 activities.
Regarding claims 44 and 45, Chang additionally teaches that the use of a VHH or scFv format for an antigen, such as PD-L1, CD8, or CD20, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for use in the method of Chang, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 46, Chang teaches that the combinations (including a combination of a bispecific antibody and an immunomodulator which can be an IFNα) are for pharmaceutically useful compositions with a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient (see for example paragraph 0282).
Regarding claims 48-49, as discussed above the combination of reference E, Chang, and Rossi et al teach the fusion protein of claim 35.
It would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention from the disclosures of reference E, Chang, and Rossi et al. The artisan would have been motivated to make and use the invention as claimed because Chang teaches that nucleic acids may be put into host cells to produce the protein, as discussed above. The artisan would have been further motivated to produce the protein construct meeting the limitations of instant claim 35 for treatment of cancer as discussed in the rejections above. The artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on the cumulative disclosures of these prior art references.
Claim 47 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of US Patent No. 10946070B2 (reference E) and Chang, as applied to claims 35, 43, 44-46, and 51, in further view of Garcin (as cited in the rejections under 35 USC §103, above). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim a chimeric protein comprising the same components.
Regarding claim 47, reference E in view of Chang recites the chimeric protein of instant claim 35.
Reference E in view of Chang and Rossi et al does not recite treatment of melanoma.
However, Garcin mentions that many cytokines have anti-cancer properties, but that the use of those cytokines had been limited by systemic toxicity which can be solved by the generic approach to immunocytokine targeting taught in Garcin (see paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Introduction).
It would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention from the disclosures of reference E, Garcin, Rossi et al, and Chang. The artisan would have been motivated to make and use the invention as claimed because Chang teaches that an IFNα (where the particular IFNα is not specified any IFNα, such as IFNα2 is presumed to function as taught), anti-PDL1 scFv and an scFv targeting CD8 or CD20 are known and may be combined to treat cancer. The MPEP provides that it is obvious to combine known elements where there is motivation in the art (see MPEP section 2143(I)(G)) or where the combination according to known methods yields predictable results (see MPEP section 2143(I)(A)). Here, the combination of elements known to treat cancer would be predictably combined to achieve the same purpose of treating cancer. Further the art provides motivation to combine because Chang teaches that these components in combination and individually are useful in treating cancer, as discussed above. The artisan would have been further motivated to modify the IFNα2 (taught by Chang) according to the generic approach for therapeutically using cytokines taught by reference E and/or Garcin to reduce the systemic/off-target effects of IFNα2 through targeted delivery, as discussed above. The artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on the cumulative disclosures of these prior art references.
Claims 50 and 52 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of US Patent No. 10946070B2 (reference E), Chang, and Rossi et al, as applied to claims 35, 43, 44-46, and 51, in further view of Clement et al (as cited in the rejections under 35 USC §103, above). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim a chimeric protein comprising the same components.
Regarding claims 50 and 52, as discussed above, Reference E, Chang, and Rossi et al make obvious the chimeric protein of instant claim 35, but do not explicitly recite/teach the function of the second targeting moiety with respect to all functions of CD8/CD20.
However, Clement et al teach findings from evaluation of a panel of anti-human CD8 antibodies that comprised six anti-CD8α antibodies (OKT8, SK1, MCD8, 32/M4, C8/144B and DK25) and one anti-CD8β antibody (2ST8.5H7). Six out of seven anti-human CD8 antibodies from the panel (SK1, MCD8, 32/M4, C8/144B, DK25 and 2ST8.5H7) did not elicit any chemokine production when incubated with four different HLA A*0201-restricted CD8+ T-cell clones (ILA1, ALF3, MEL5 and MEL187.c5) with a total of three different specificities in the absence of specific pMHCI antigen. The panel of seven anti-human CD8 antibodies was further tested in cytotoxicity assays with 4 different CD8+ T-cell clones (MEL187.c5, ALF3, LC13 and SB10). Anti-human CD8 antibodies that were incapable of inducing chemokine release failed to elicit cytotoxic activity in any of these four CD8+ T-cell clones (see Figure 3). In contrast, SB10 CD8+ T-cells exhibited substantial cytotoxicity in response to stimulation with OKT8; lower levels of specific lysis were also induced in the CD8+ T-cell clones LC13 (3.18%), ALF3 (5.1%) and MEL187.c5 (3.8%) (see Figure 3 and data not shown). These results are consistent with a previous study that described a mouse anti-CD8 antibody, KT112, capable of inducing cytotoxicity. Collectively, these data indicate that considerable heterogeneity exists in the ability of anti-CD8 antibodies to activate CD8+ T-cells (see the Results section).
Therefore, Clement et al clearly teach anti-CD8 antibodies that functionally modulate CD8 on CD8+ T cells, by way of inducing chemokine production leading to cytotoxic activity, and anti-CD8 antibodies that do not functionally modulate, by way of inducing chemokine production leading to cytotoxic activity or any other indicated way, CD8 on CD8+ T cells.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Clement et al to teach anti-CD8 antibodies that functionally modulate CD8 on CD8+ T cells and anti-CD8 antibodies that do not functionally modulateCD8 on CD8+ T cells.
It would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention from the disclosures of Reference E, Chang, Rossi et al, and Clement et al. The artisan would have been motivated to make and use the invention as claimed because Chang teaches that an IFNα2, anti-PDL1 scFv and an scFv targeting CD8 or CD20 are known and may be combined to treat cancer. The MPEP provides that it is obvious to combine known elements where there is motivation in the art (see MPEP section 2143(I)(G)) or where the combination according to known methods yields predictable results (see MPEP section 2143(I)(A)). Here, the combination of elements known to treat cancer would be predictably combined to achieve the same purpose of treating cancer. Further the art provides motivation to combine because Chang teaches that these components in combination and individually are useful in treating cancer, as discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the antibodies of Clement as art recognized equivalents because these antibodies are known in the art to bind CD8 (See MPEP section 2143(I)(B) regarding simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results). The artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on the cumulative disclosures of these prior art references.
Applicant’s Arguments and Responses
Applicant argues the rejections should be withdrawn in light of allegedly surprising results (see for example pg. 4-5 of the 01/14/2026 remarks).
Response: This argument is unpersuasive. Applicant points to example 7 and Figure 15 (panels A-E) as showing that IFNα2 having the R149A mutation, when targeted to the cell with a VHH that targets a cell-surface expressed antigen, has significantly greater (restored) IFN signaling as measured by STAT1 phosphorylation (see panels 15 B and C showing that the mutated IFNα2-antiCD8VHH shows significantly increased STAT1 phosphorylation in CD8+ cells, but not CD8- cells, panels B and C respectively; see panels 15 E and F showing that the mutated IFNα2-antiCD8VHH-antiPD-L1VHH shows significantly increased STAT1 phosphorylation in CD8+ cells, but not CD8- cells, panels E and F respectively). However, the effect that Applicant alleges is surprising (increased IFN signaling as measured by increased STAT1 phosphorylation where the mutant IFNα2 is targeted) is not surprising/unexpected or even unpredictable in light of the prior art. Garcin (as cited in the rejections under 35 USC §103 above) teaches a generic approach to increase by several orders of magnitude the targeting efficiency of immunocytokines (see for example, column 1 of page 2 and column 2 of page 3). Garcin tested an anti-PD-L2VHH-IFNα2R124R fusion and found that the targeted fusion had increased (restored) IFN signaling (as measured by STAT1 phosphorylation) in PD-L2 expressing cells (see for example, pages 5-6). Garcin teaches that they demonstrated that mutated IFN immunocytokine is up to almost 1,000-fold more potent on cells expressing a selected target at their surface and show that their targeting strategy delivers activity only to the selected cells when injected intravenously in mice. Garcin teaches that such an exceptionally high in vivo targeting efficiency is due to an increased cell surface binding achieved by VHH-mediated interaction that compensates the reduced mutant IFN activity specifically on cells expressing the VHH target protein. As a result, the IFN is virtually inactive while ‘en route’ and is activated only upon binding to the desired target (see for example, page 7 at column 1). Therefore, the result which Applicant’s argument relies upon is not deemed surprising in view of the prior art at this time and the rejections are maintained.
B. Applicant argues the reference applications or reference patents cited in the double patenting rejections do not teach the totality of the claim limitations and further argues for withdrawal of the rejections for double patenting in light of allegedly surprising results (see pages 6-8 of the remarks dated 01/14/2026).
Response: It is noted that Applicant only argues that references A-E, individually, do not teach all of the elements of the claims of the claims. References A and C-E are never individually cited in a rejection, but are instead cited in combination with other prior art references. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where the reference applications, such as reference B, recites the use of an IFNα2, the artisan would have found it obvious to look to the disclosure as a whole, and would find it obvious to use, with a reasonable expectation of success, the IFNα2 having a SEQ ID NO as specified in the reference claims, or where the reference claims generically recite an IFNα2, the reference specification (see MPEP §2111). Note that, per the claim interpretation section above, a chimeric protein and fusion protein are being interpreted as synonymous. Absent a clear showing of what the rejections as a whole fail to teach/make obvious, the rejections are maintained at this time. The results Applicant points to (increased STAT1 phosphorylation) are not deemed surprising over the prior art at this time such that the rejections are maintained at this time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US9492562B2 teaches a construct comprising human IFNα2 with a R149A mutation having reduced affinity compared to wildtype and further comprising a targeting moiety binding PD-L2 wherein CD20 is taught to be another biomarker to target for treating cancer. Kermer et al (Mol Cancer Ther (2014) 13 (1): 112–121) teach a trifunctional fusion comprising a tumor-specific recombinant antibody (may be an scFv), IL-15 linked to a fragment of the IL-15Rα chain (RD; a cytokine like IFNα2) and the extracellular domain of 4-1BBL(may be an scFv).
Xuan et al (Blood (2010) 115 (14): 2864–2871) teach fusion proteins consisting of anti-CD20 and murine or human IFNα for use in treating B-cell malignancies.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ASHLEY GAO whose telephone number is (571) 272-5695. The
examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 am - 6:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
supervisor, Gregory Emch can be reached on (571) 272-8149. The fax phone number for the
organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent
Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications,
may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished
applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR
system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR
system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would
like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated
information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ashley Gao/
Examiner, Art Unit 1678
/GREGORY S EMCH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1678