DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Application Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Support for the amendments are within the instant application specification.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/6/2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed on 1/6/2026 in response to the Final Rejection mailed on 10/9/2025 is acknowledged. This listing of claims replaces all prior listings of claims in the application.
Claims 9-17, 23, 27-33, 35-36 are pending.
Claims 1-8, 18-22, 24-26, 34 are canceled.
Applicant’s remarks filed on 1/6/2026 in response to the Final Rejection mailed on 10/9/2025 have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive to overcome at least one of the rejections and/or objections as previously applied.
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in the instant action can be found in the prior Office Action.
Withdrawn Objections
The objection to claim 9 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment of claim 9 to receipt the proper numbering within the claim.
Withdrawn Rejections
The rejection of claims 9-17, 23, 27-36 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement are withdrawn in view of said claims being drawn to a method of making variants and the claims specifically stating where those variations will be made (i.e., within an active/binding site in said template structure) (instant application claim 9 A(iv)).
The scope of enablement rejection of claims 9-17, 23, 27-36 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is withdrawn in view of said claims being drawn to a method of making variants and the claims specifically stating where those variations will be made (i.e., within an active/binding site in said template structure) (instant application claim 9 A(iv)).
The rejection of claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s cancellation of claim 34.
The rejection of claims 9-17, 23, 27-36 under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Fleishman et al. (US 2017/0032079 A1, Date Published: Feb. 2, 2017, cited on PTO-892 filed 5/7/2024) {herein Fleishman} is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s Remarks dated 1/6/2026 that Fleishman does not teach a ΔΔG of greater than 0 and cancellation of claim 34.
New 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 9-17, 23, 27-33, 35-36 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleishman et al. (US 2017/0032079 A1, Date Published: Feb. 2, 2017, cited on PTO-892 filed 5/7/2024) {herein Fleishman}.The new rejection is necessitated to provide clarity on the teachings of Fleishman in response to Applicant’s Remarks dated 1/6/2026 the Fleishman does not teach a ΔΔG greater than 0.
As amended, claims 9-17, 23, 27-33, 35-36 are drawn to a method for producing a plurality of non-naturally occurring polypeptide variants of an original polypeptide, comprising: (i) providing a template structure that is structurally homologous to the structure of the original polypeptide and optionally subjecting said template structure to energy minimization; (ii) providing a plurality of polypeptide sequences that are each homologous to the amino- acid sequence of the original polypeptide; (iii) within an active/binding site in said template structure identifying substitutable positions and optionally identifying unsubstitutable positions in the amino-acid sequence of the original polypeptide; (iv) for at least 2 of said substitutable residues identifying mutations comprising: a position-specific scoring matrix (PSSM) value above or equal to a threshold value, wherein said PSSM threshold value is below zero; and a ΔΔG value below or equal to threshold value, wherein said ΔΔG threshold value is above zero,(v) simultaneously permuting at least two combinations of at least two of said identified mutations, thereby obtaining a list of variants; (vi) enumerating and subjecting each of the variants to energy minimization, and ranking the variants of said list of variants by a stability score based on said energy minimization; and (vii) cloning and expressing the variants with the highest stability score in a protein expression system using a protein expression vector; thereby producing the polypeptide variants in said system.
With respect to claims 9, 27-28, 30, 33, 35, Fleishman teaches a method of producing a modified polypeptide chain starting from an original polypeptide chain and selecting a protein having improved specific activity (abstract and column 1, para 0012). The method requires assembling a database of qualifying homologous amino acid sequences related to the amino acid sequence of the original polypeptide chain (para 0123). Examiner is interpreting ‘a database of qualifying homologous amino acid sequences’ to be a plurality of polypeptide sequences that are each homologous to the amino acid sequence of the original polypeptide due to the teaching of ‘qualifying homologous amino acid sequences’ by Fleishman which is indicative of more than one amino acid sequence. The position-specific stability scoring is determined for each amino acid alternative, including the original amino acid at that position, by defining a weight fitting shell around the position within which all residues are subjected to a local energy minimization (weight fitting within the weight fitting shell) to determine the lowest energy arrangement for each amino acid within the shell (para 0204). Fleishman further teaches for enzymes catalyzing reactions of substrate molecules in an active site, key residues may be selected within a radius of about 5-8 A around the substrate binding site (para 0179), of which Examiner is interpreting as being within the functional area of the binding/active site. The method includes a step that determines which of the positions in the amino-acid sequence of the original polypeptide chain will be subjected to amino-acid substitution and which amino acid alternatives will be assessed (referred to herein as substitutable positions)(para 0188). Fleishman teaches at least three substitutable positions (figures 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D). At each substitutable position only amino acids having a non-negative PSSM score (i.e. equal to or greater than 0), are subjected to the single position scanning step (para 0201). In claim 9 of the instant Application, Applicant has limited the PSSM threshold value as being below zero with a position-specific scoring matrix (PS SM) value above or equal to a threshold value, of which Fleishman teaches. Examiner is interpreting said recitation as identifying all mutations comprising a PSSM value above or equal to the claims PSSM threshold, including those within the first shell and active/binding site as Fleishman teaches at each substitutable position, thereby indicating the all substitutable positions were identified. The method was implemented using a minimal acceptance threshold of -0.45 r.e.u (∆ ∆G); however, if an overly-permissive acceptance threshold of zero were used, the method would have correctly predicted four additional stabilizing mutations (overall 47% true positives), and would have also predicted eight additional false-positives (i.e., overall 96% true negatives) (para 0385). Fleishman further teaches 1-10 alternatives (para 0201). Examiner is interpreting 1-10 alternatives as at least two substitutable residues. Additionally, Fleishman teaches a method for designing a stabilized protein typically results in a modified polypeptide chain having more than 6 amino-acid substitutions with respect to the original (wildtype) polypeptide chain which have diverse physiochemical properties in various combinations (para 0094). Fleishman further teaches a combinatorial design of the entire amino acid sequence of the modified polypeptide chain, wherein numerous amino acid substitutions are simultaneously introduced to the sequence of the original polypeptide chain (para 0214). Examiner is interpreting said recitation to be synonymous to ‘simultaneously permuting combinations of said identified mutations’ as the amino acids are being simultaneously ‘permuted/substituted’ or subjected to a process of alteration in combinations. At least two of the amino acids of the substituted amino acids in the designed protein interact with one another such that the interaction stabilizes the modified protein (para 0278). The combinatorial step yields a final variant with a combination of mutations that are all compatible with one another (para 0215). A position-specific stability score is given to each of the allowed amino acid alternatives at each substitutable position (para 0189). The position-specific stability scoring is determined for each amino acid alternative, including the original amino acid at that position, by defining a weight fitting shell around the position within which all residues are subjected to a local energy minimization (weight fitting within the weight fitting shell) to determine the lowest energy arrangement for each amino acid within the shell (para 0204). Examiner is interpreting the recitations of ‘determine the lowest energy arrangement for each amino acid within the shell’ to be ranking the variants by a stability score and providing a list of variants. Three exemplary variants (stabilized PTE variants) were cloned into an expression vector and cell (para 0409). Examiner is interpreting ‘exemplary variants’ to be synonymous to those variants with the highest stability score. The polypeptide variants were purified (para 0409). The PTE variants displayed increased levels of soluble, functional enzyme compared to the reference protein (para 0412). Additionally, said variants exhibited increased metal affinity (para 0412). Examiner is interpreting an increase in metal affinity to be an increase in specific activity because metal binding can facilitate enzymatic activity.
With respect to claim 10, Fleishman teaches a method wherein a variant polypeptide exhibited a marked increase in metal affinity compared to other variants (para 0412). Examiner is interpreting the binding affinity of the metal to the protein variants to be synonymous to a ligand-binding score since the metal was shown by Fleishman to bind the protein variants differently, based on their designs. Said protein variants were selected based on their metal binding affinity (table 5).
With respect to claim 11, Fleishman teaches a position-specific stability score is given to each
of the allowed amino acid alternatives at each substitutable position (para 0189). A comprehensive list of amino acid alternatives that have a position-specific stability score below -0.45 r.e.u. (i.e., are predicted to be stabilizing) is referred to herein as the "sequence space" (para 0189). In addition, the rate at which free energy is changed is correlated to a stability score, which is referred to herein as "a position-specific stability scoring (para 0197). Polypeptide variants with the highest stability scores were selected (table 4).
With respect to claim 12, Fleishman teaches redundant sequences are clustered into a single
representative sequence (para 0127). The clustering is carried out with a threshold of 0.97, meaning that all sequences that share at least 97% identity among themselves are clustered into a single representative sequence that is the average of all the sequences contributing to the cluster (para 0127).
With respect to claim 13, Fleishman teaches at each substitutable position only amino acids having a non-negative PSSM score (i.e. equal to or greater than 0), are subjected to the single position scanning step (para 0201). Examiner is interpreting said recitation as identifying all mutation comprising a PSSM value above -2, which is the claimed PSSM threshold. Furthermore, the method was implemented using a minimal acceptance threshold of -0.45 r.e.u; however, if an overly-permissive acceptance threshold of zero were used, the method would have correctly predicted four additional stabilizing mutations (overall 47% true positives), and would have also predicted eight additional
false-positives (i.e., overall 96% true negatives). Examiner is interpreting a threshold of -0.45 r.e.u and an overly-permissive acceptance threshold to be a threshold below +6 r.e.u.
With respect to claim 14, Fleishman teaches a stabilized variant (SEQ ID NO: 7), which is a template of the original polypeptide (table 5, para 0409).
With respect to claim 15, Fleishman teaches a method wherein the amino acid sequence of the original polypeptide chain has been threaded thereon and subjected to weighted fitting to afford energy minimization (para 0109). Examiner is interpreting the original polypeptide to be the template.
With respect to claims 16 and 23, Fleishman teaches a method wherein the template structure is of a homologous protein and the query sequence is first threaded on the protein's template structure using well established computational procedures (para 0120). The structural information is a set of atomic coordinates of the original polypeptide chain (para 0109). This set of atomic coordinates is referred to herein as the "template structure" (para 0109). The template structure is a computationally generated structure based on a crystal structure of a close homolog (more than 40-60% identity) of the original polypeptide chain, wherein the amino acid sequence of the original polypeptide chain has been threaded thereon and subjected to weighted fitting to afford energy minimization thereof (para 0109).
With respect to claim 17, Fleishman teaches a method wherein the energy minimization may include iterations of rotamer sampling (repacking) followed by side chain and backbone minimization. (para 0118).
With respect to claim 29, Fleishman teaches a method wherein the position-specific stability scoring is determined for each amino acid alternative, including the original amino acid at that position, by defining a weight fitting shell around the position within which all residues are subjected to a local energy minimization (weight fitting within the weight fitting shell) to determine the lowest energy arrangement for each amino acid within the shell (para 0204). Examiner is interpreting the recitations of ‘determine the lowest energy arrangement for each amino acid within the shell’ to be ranking the variants by a stability score and providing a list of variants. Three exemplary variants (stabilized PTE variants) were cloned into an expression vector and cell (para 0396). Examiner is interpreting ‘exemplary variants’ to be synonymous to those variants with the highest stability score.
With respect to claims 31-32, Fleishman teaches a method wherein combinatorial design of the entire amino acid sequence of the modified polypeptide chain, wherein numerous amino acid substitutions are simultaneously introduced to the sequence of the original polypeptide chain (para 0214). Examiner is interpreting said recitation to be synonymous to ‘simultaneously permuting combinations of said identified mutations’ as the amino acids are being simultaneously ‘permuted/substituted’ in combinations. At least two of the amino acids of the substituted amino acids in the designed protein interact with one another such that the interaction stabilizes the modified protein (para 0278). The combinatorial step yields a final variant with a combination of mutations that are all compatible with one another (para 0215). A position-specific stability score is given to each of the allowed amino acid alternatives at each substitutable position (para 0189). The position-specific stability scoring is determined for each amino acid alternative, including the original amino acid at that position, by defining a weight fitting shell around the position within which all residues are subjected to a local energy minimization (weight fitting within the weight fitting shell) to determine the lowest energy arrangement for each amino acid within the shell (para 0204). Examiner is interpreting the recitations of ‘determine the lowest energy arrangement for each amino acid within the shell’ to be ranking the variants by a stability score and providing a list of variants. Three exemplary variants (stabilized PTE variants) were cloned into an expression vector and cell (para 0409). Examiner is interpreting ‘exemplary variants’ to be synonymous to those variants with the highest stability score. All stability scores of the variants (ΔΔG) are below -0.45 (para 0189). However, if an overly-permissive acceptance threshold
of zero were used, the method would have correctly predicted four additional stabilizing mutations (overall 47% true positives), and would have also predicted eight additional false-positives (i.e., overall 96% true negatives) (para 0385). PSSM values are at least 0 (para 0024), which is above the recited PSSM threshold value of below 0. Fleishman teaches for enzymes catalyzing reactions of substrate molecules in an active site, key residues may be selected within a radius of about 5-8 A around the substrate binding site (para 0179), of which Examiner is interpreting as being within the functional area of the binding/active site. The method includes a step that determines which of the positions in the amino-acid sequence of the original polypeptide chain will be subjected to amino-acid substitution and which amino acid alternatives will be assessed (referred to herein as substitutable positions), and in which positions in the amino acid sequence of the original polypeptide chain the amino-acid will not be subjected to amino-acid substitution (referred to herein as unsubstitutable positions) (para 0188). At each substitutable position only amino acids having a non-negative PSSM score (i.e. equal to or greater than 0), are subjected to the single position scanning step (para 0201). Examiner is interpreting said recitation as identifying all mutation comprising a PSSM value above or equal to the claims PSSM threshold, including those within the first shell and active/binding site. In addition, only amino acid alternatives that have ΔΔG values lower than this acceptance threshold will be permitted into the next step of the method (para 0209). Fleishman teaches a minimal acceptance threshold of -0.45 r.e.u ∆ ∆G (para 0211) of which Examiner is interpreting as being a ΔΔG value below a threshold value that is above 0 as recited in the instant application claims 9 and 28. Since said minimal threshold value is below the claimed threshold of above 0, Examiner is interpreting said teaching to read on claims 9 and 28, ‘a ΔΔG value below or equal to said ΔΔG threshold.’ Fleishman further teaches 1-10 alternatives (para 0201). Examiner is interpreting ‘1-10 alternatives’ as at least two substitutable residues.
With respect to claim 36, Fleishman teaches specific activity of the designed protein being higher than a specific activity of the original peptide (claim 1). Fleishman further teaches a method for designing and selecting a protein having a stabilized structure compared to a corresponding wild type
protein, and proteins having at least six amino acid substitutions with respect to a corresponding wild type protein, designed for improved thermal stability, improved specific activity (abstract).
However, Fleishman does not teach wherein said ΔΔG threshold value is above zero (claim 9).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try a ΔΔG threshold value above 0 as Fleishman teaches if an overly-permissive acceptance threshold of zero were used, the method would have correctly predicted four additional stabilizing mutations (overall 47% true positives) (para 0385).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, a reasonable level of predictability, and would be motivated to try a ΔΔG threshold value above 0 as Fleishman teaches 4 additional stabilizing mutations would have been identified if the ΔΔG threshold value were changed from -0.45 r.e.u to 0 r.e.u. As such, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try a threshold value above 0 as doing so may result in additional stabilizing mutations being identified. Especially since Fleishman teaches the invention, is not limited to any particular minimal acceptance threshold, and other values are contemplated within the scope of the invention (para 0211). It is the Examiner position that a threshold value above 0 would be within the scope of the invention taught by Fleishman since Fleishman teaches the unexpected result of 4 additional stabilizing mutations at a threshold value above -0.45 r.e.u. Additionally, MPEP 2144.05 states"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05 IIA)." One of ordinary skill would desire to optimize the acceptance threshold of the protein depending on the particular application. It would be routine for one to arrive at a ΔΔG threshold value of above 0 for the application they intend on using the polypeptides. Therefore, the above invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS: Beginning on p. 12 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant contends that the rejection has been addressed by amendment. In summary, Applicant contends that after careful reading of Fleishman will show that it does not in fact mean that the threshold can be anything above -0.45, but rather that it can be anything below -0.45. Applicant contends that Fleishman is clearly only considering "negative ΔΔG values." Applicant contends that Fleishman states that "minimal" is the "least negative". Meaning the threshold must be at most -0.45, and can in fact be lower than -0.45, but it cannot be higher. Applicant contends that Fleishman's ΔΔG threshold is not above zero. Applicant contends that no art has been cited that teaches a positive ΔΔG threshold. Applicant contends all claims that require permuting all mutations beyond the thresholds are certainly novel over Fleishman. Applicant contends the no art has been cited that teaches a positive ΔΔG threshold.
These arguments are found to be not persuasive in view of the modified rejection. Examiner contends that the teaching by Fleishman of the method was implemented using a minimal acceptance threshold of -0.45 r.e.u; however, if an overly-permissive acceptance threshold of zero were used, the method would have correctly predicted four additional stabilizing mutations (overall 47% true positives), and would have also predicted eight additional false-positives (i.e., overall 96% true negatives) (para 0385) provides motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to try a threshold value above 0 since Fleishman teaches 4 additional stabilized mutations were identified at a threshold value of 0. Examiner contends that the teaching of the invention, is not limited to any particular minimal acceptance threshold, and other values are contemplated within the scope of the invention (para 0211) provides even more motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to try a threshold value above 0.
Conclusion
Status of the claims:
Claims 9-17, 23, 27-33, 35-36 are pending.
Claims 1-8, 18-22, 24-26, 34 are canceled.
Claims 9-17, 23, 27-33, 35-36 are rejected.
No claims are in condition for allowance.
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 ERICA NICOLE JONES-FOSTER whose telephone number is (571)270-0360. The examiner can normally be reached mf 7:30a - 4:30p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Manjunath Rao can be reached at 571-272-0939. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERICA NICOLE JONES-FOSTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1656
/MANJUNATH N RAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1656