DETAILED ACTION
Applicants’ arguments, filed 3 August 2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) – New Matter
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 32-42, 44, 46-47, and 49 are rejected 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. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 32 was newly added in the amendment on 16 February 2026, and recites that the composition is able to retain chemical stability of the antibody for at least 4 weeks at 5°C. There does not appear to be adequate support for this newly added claim limitation for at least the following reasons.
As an initial matter, the instant specification discloses the following on page 6, relevant text reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
188
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 3G appears to relate to 4 weeks at 5°C and is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image2.png
632
814
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examiner notes that only the right-most column appears to potentially relate to the claimed invention because only this column is drawn to histidine buffer, whereas the other formulations have a citrate buffer instead of a histidine buffer. Also, it is further unclear whether this composition comprises a monosaccharide or disaccharide and polysorbate at the required concentration. As such, there does not appear to be sufficient evidence that the data presented in the original disclosure adequately supports the claimed subject matter.
Furthermore, even if, purely en arguendo, the right-most formulation of the above-reproduced table is understood to have been chemically stable, this still appears to be insufficient to adequately support the full scope of the claims. The inclusion of a generic disclosure (e.g. an antibody formulation comprising polysorbate 20, sucrose, and histidine in the recited concentration ranges with a pH with the required range) as well as a species (e.g. the composition of the right-most column of the above-reproduced table) is not sufficient to provide support to a subgenus (e.g. the claimed invention, which is an antibody formulation comprising polysorbate 20, sucrose, and histidine in the recited concentration ranges with a pH with the required range and also comprising the required stability). See MPEP 2163.05(II), third paragraph in section.
Response to Arguments Regarding New Matter Rejection
Applicant has presented arguments regarding the previously applied new matter rejection, as of applicant’s response on 3 August 2026 (hereafter referred to as applicant’s response). These arguments are addressed below.
As an initial matter, the examiner notes that applicant argues the following on the top of page 6, wherein the relevant argument is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image3.png
66
790
media_image3.png
Greyscale
These formulations appear to have been tested in figure 6H, as of applicant’s response, page 6, last paragraph, wherein relevant text from applicant’s response has been reproduced below.
PNG
media_image4.png
278
808
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Relevant data from figure 6H is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image5.png
311
824
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As such, applicant has tested storage for 4 weeks at 5°C and found that formulation F4, which applicant argues to be within claim scope, fails to meet required stability parameters indicated in applicant’s arguments. This is because applicant’s arguments indicate that there must be less than 25 particles per mL of 10 μm or greater in size for a composition to be considered stable. However, example F4 appears to have 34 particles per mL of 10 μm or greater, which exceeds 25 particles per mL. This would appear to be sufficient to render formula F4 unstable as per the definition of stability set forth by applicant in applicant’s response.
Applicant’s data in figure 6H also appears to go against the idea that storage at a higher temperature is necessarily more stringent than storage at a lower temperature. In contrast, the data obtained in figure 6H would appear to indicate that storage at a lower temperature may in fact result in more aggregation than storage at a higher temperature. This determination was made in view of the fact that formulas F4 and F5 appear to have fewer 10 μm particles after storage at 40°C and 75% relative humidity for 4 weeks as compared with storage at 5°C for 4 weeks.
Applicant also makes the following argument regarding figure 3G, as of applicant’s response, page 6, relevant text reproduced below.
PNG
media_image6.png
200
802
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Looking to figure 3G, it is unclear to the examiner what exactly is being tested. While figure 3G discloses 10 mM buffer as well as the antibody and pH, it is unclear if the disclosed buffer is actually histidine. Also, it is unclear if the formulations in this figure have the required amount of sucrose and polysorbate 20. Therefore, for this reason, it is the examiner’s position that figure 3G does not provide adequate support for the claimed subject matter in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Furthermore, it appears to the examiner as if multiple formulations in figure 3G fail to meet the stability parameters discussed in the last paragraph of page 6 of applicant’s response. The examiner has reproduced below figure 3G with annotation by the examiner.
PNG
media_image7.png
753
812
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As such, figure 3G would appear to fail to disclose stable particles in four of the six formulations tested.
In applicant’s response, page 7, applicant argues that there is extensive experimental data demonstrating the claimed stability, as of the end of the first full paragraph. The examiner disputes this notion. The teachings of figure 3G are unclear, and appear to show unstable formulations, and the teachings of figure 6H appear to show at least one of the three formulations that is within the claim scope not being stable under the recited storage conditions. As such, in view of the fact pattern not clearly showing stability under the recited conditions, the examiner takes the position that the legal argument presented as of the last two paragraphs of page 7 of applicant’s response is not persuasive.
The examiner notes that a decision was made to withdraw a previously presented prior art rejection in this office action – see below. The examiner notes that a claim amendment made to overcome the applied new matter rejection may potentially result in the reconsideration of the examiner’s decision to withdraw certain prior art rejections.
Claim Interpretation – Lyophilized vs. Liquid Formulation
Claim 32 requires that the stable liquid formulation is able to retain chemical stability of the antibody for a particular period of time. Claims 46-49 recite a lyophilized formulation which is made from freeze-drying the composition of claim 32. The skilled artisan would have understood the term “lyophilized” to have referred to a solid composition that has been prepared by freeze-drying. The skilled artisan would have understood that the limitation regarding stability would have applied only to the liquid formulation, and not to the solid, lyophilized formulation of claim 46. As such, claim 46 is understood to be a separate independent claim as compared with claim 32.
The examiner notes that this text was copied verbatim from the prior office action set forth on 12 March 2026, and does not represent a position that is newly taken by the examiner in this office action. Furthermore, applicant does not appear to have disputed this position in applicant’s response on 3 August 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) – Indefiniteness
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 32-42, 44, 46-47, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 32 recites “wherein the formulation is able to retain chemical stability.” It is unclear how the phrase “chemical stability” further limits the claim. The examiner presents the following rationale in support of this position.
The instant specification appears to define the term “stable” in the paragraph bridging pages 9-10 of the instant specification. The portion of that paragraph from page 9 has been reproduced below.
PNG
media_image8.png
474
866
media_image8.png
Greyscale
As such, the specification indicates that there are multiple methods of measuring stability. Therefore, it is unclear if an antibody formulation that is found to be stable using one of the above-indicated techniques but is not found to be stable using a different technique would meet the claimed requirements.
For the purposes of examination under prior art, the examiner understands that stability sufficient for use in an in vivo process that can be administered to a patient (e.g. as of page 3 lines 20-25 of the instant specification).
Response to Arguments Regarding Indefiniteness Issues
In applicant’s response on 3 August 2026 (hereafter referred to as applicant’s response), applicant has provided arguments regarding the previously applied indefiniteness rejections on page 8. Relevant arguments have been reproduced below.
PNG
media_image9.png
338
808
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments pointing out that the recited stability is chemical stability are insufficient to overcome the applied rejection. This is because remains unclear as to which of the techniques disclosed in the paragraph bridging pages 9-10 constitute chemical stability, and which constitute other forms of stability. For example, the issue of aggregation may at first appear to be drawn to physical stability. However, as best understood by the examiner, aggregation would appear to occur under conditions wherein the strength of intermolecular forces between one antibody and another exceeds the strength of intermolecular forces between the antibody and water molecules in the solvent as well as intermolecular forces between the antibody and small solute molecules such as the polysorbate 20 surfactant, the histidine, and the sucrose.
As such, it is unclear as to which modes of stability discussed in the instant specification are chemical stability and which are forms of stability that are other than chemical stability. Additionally, the indicated paragraph of the specification appears to disclose multiple forms of chemical stability. For example, the above-reproduced text from the specification discloses both cation exchange chromatography and capillary zone electrophoresis. It is unclear whether a formulation that is stable as determined by cation exchange chromatography but is not stable as determined by capillary zone electrophoresis would meet the claimed requirements.
For the purposes of examination under prior art, the examiner notes that the instant specification indicates that the composition of the instant invention is intended for administration to a patient as of page 3 lines 20-25 of the instant specification. As such, for the purposes of examination under prior art, the examiner will examine the claims with the understanding that a formulation sufficiently stable for administration to a patient to have a therapeutic effect after the recited four-week storage period meets the stability requirement. In contrast, a formulation insufficiently stable for administration to a patient to have a therapeutic effect after the recited four-week storage period does not meet the stability requirement.
The examiner notes that a decision was made to withdraw a previously presented prior art rejection in this office action. The examiner notes that a claim amendment made to overcome the applied indefiniteness rejection may potentially result in the reconsideration of the examiner’s decision to withdraw certain prior art rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 – Obviousness
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.
Claim(s) 46 and 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endell et al. (US 2015/0238603 A1) in view of Andya et al. (US 2006/0088523 A1) and Bowen et al. (US 2012/0034212 A1).
Endell et al. (hereafter referred to as Endell) is drawn to an anti-CD38 antibody, as of Endell, title and abstract. Endell teaches the following sequence, as of page 8 of the reference, which is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image10.png
366
490
media_image10.png
Greyscale
This sequence appears to read on sequence ID #7. Endell also teaches the following, as of pages 8-9, relevant text reproduced below.
PNG
media_image11.png
208
494
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
232
496
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Endell does not teach the required excipients and is silent as to a lyophilized formulation and is silent as to the required stability.
Andya et al. (hereafter referred to as Andya) is drawn to antibody formulations stabilized in histidine buffer, as of Andya, title and abstract. Andya teaches the following formulation, as of paragraph 0045, reproduced below.
PNG
media_image13.png
168
402
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Andya teaches that this formulation results in physical and chemical stability, as of Andya, paragraph 0092.
Andya does not teach the required antibody.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the buffer of Andya to have stored the antibody of Endell. Endell is drawn to the protein structure of a particular antibody, but is silent as to the conditions under which the antibody is stored. Andya teaches a buffer which may be used for storage of antibodies. As such, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have used the buffer of Andya to have predictably stored the antibody of Endell to have predictably stabilized the antibody of Endell with a reasonable expectation of success.
Andya differs from the claimed invention because Andya does not teach the histidine concentration.
Bowen et al. (hereafter referred to as Bowen) is drawn to an antibody, as of Bowen, title and abstract. Bowen teaches information regarding the storage conditions of the antibodies, as of paragraph 0037. This paragraph appears to teach sucrose at concentrations of up to 40%, polysorbates (including polysorbate 20) at concentrations of 0.001% to 2%, and buffers such as histidine at concentrations between about 10 mM and about 400 mM. Bowen teaches that this results in stability, as of at least paragraph 0407 of Bowen.
Bowen does not teach the required antibody.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the concentrations of polysorbate 20, sucrose, and histidine, as taught by Andya, in the manner taught by Bowen. Andya is drawn to a formulation for storing an antibody comprising polysorbate 20, sucrose, and histidine. Bowen also teaches these ingredients for storing an antibody, and teaches a wide range of concentrations at which these ingredients can be present and result in a stable antibody. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to have lyophilized this formulation in view of at least paragraph 0377 of Bowen in order to have predictably preserved the formulation with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 46, the claim requires Seq ID No. 7. This is taught by Endell.
As to claim 46, the claim requires Seq ID. No. 8. This is taught by Endell.
As to claim 46, the claim requires polysorbate. Andya teaches polysorbate 20 at a concentration of about 0.01% to 0.1%, as of paragraph 0045 of Andya. The examiner notes that the concentration of polysorbate required by instant claim 32 is not understood to be applicable to claim 46 because the concentration would have changed upon removal of the liquid water solvent during the lyophilization process.
As to claim 46, the claim sucrose. Andya teaches 60 mM to 250 mM sucrose, as of paragraph 0045 of Andya. The examiner notes that the concentration of polysorbate required by instant claim 32 is not understood to be applicable to claim 46 because the concentration would have changed upon removal of the liquid water solvent during the lyophilization process.
As to claim 46, the claim requires 5 mM to 15 mM histidine buffer. Andya teaches histidine buffer in paragraph 0045. The examiner notes that the concentration of histidine required by instant claim 32 is not understood to be applicable to claim 46 because the concentration would have changed upon removal of the liquid water solvent during the lyophilization process.
As to claim 32, the claim requires a pH of between 5.5 and 6.5. Andya teaches this in paragraph 0045.
As to claim 46, the examiner notes that claim 32, upon which claim 46 depends, requires that the composition retain chemical stability of the antibody upon storage for at least 4 weeks at 5°C. This limitation is not understood to be applicable to claim 46. This is because claim 46 is drawn to a solid, lyophilized composition. In contrast, the above-indicated limitation is drawn only to stability of a liquid composition. As such, the stability requirement of claim 32 is not understood to further limit claim 46, and the combination of references is understood to motivate the skilled artisan to have formed a lyophilized composition with sufficient stability to meet the claimed requirements.
As to claim 46, Bowen teaches a lyophilized formulation at least as of paragraph 0377. Regarding the teachings of Andya, the examiner notes that Andya teaches the following, as of paragraph 0374, reproduced below.
PNG
media_image14.png
150
406
media_image14.png
Greyscale
This is not teaching away from lyophilization. A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use. See MPEP 2123(II).
As to claim 49, the teachings of Bowen on paragraph 0045 are understood to be sufficient to meet the claimed requirements.
Claim(s) 46-47 and 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endell et al. (US 2015/0238603 A1) in view of Andya et al. (US 2006/0088523 A1) and Bowen et al. (US 2012/0034212 A1), the combination further in view of Chang (Chang, Byeong S., Michael Reilly, and Hana Chang. "Lyophilized biologics." Lyophilized biologics and vaccines: modality-based approaches (2015): 1-401).
Endell is drawn to a particular antibody. Andya and Bowen are drawn to solutions for storing antibodies in liquid form. See the above rejection over Endell in view of Andya and Bowen.
For the purposes of this rejection, the examiner understands, purely en arguendo and in regard to this ground of rejection only, that Andya fails to teach that the composition is lyophilized.
Chang is drawn to lyophilized biologics including antibodies and teaches the advantages of lyophilized antibodies have superior stability during transportation and storage [Pg. 102, Paragraph 5, Ln. 1-5] and the lyophilization of a therapeutic antibody [Pg. 26, Table 1, Ln. 1].
Chang does not teach anti-CD38 antibodies.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the composition of Endell in view of Andya and Bowen to have been lyophilized. Endell is drawn to an antibody composition, and Andya and Bowen are drawn to solutions for storing antibodies. Chang teaches that lyophilization results in superior stability during transportation and storage. As such, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have lyophilized the antibody composition of Endell in view of Andya and Bowen to have predictably increased storage stability with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 46, Chang teaches lyophilization.
As to claim 47, Chang teaches less than 1% moisture as of page 68, bottom paragraph. This overlaps with the claimed requirements. While the prior art does not disclose the exact claimed values, but does overlap: in such instances even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
As to claim 49, the teachings of Bowen on paragraph 0045 are understood to be sufficient to meet the claimed requirements.
Withdrawn Prior Art Rejection and Response to 1.132 Declaration
In the prior office action mailed on 12 March 2026, the examiner rejected all pending claims as obvious over the combination of Endell et al. (US 2015/0238603 A1) in view of Andya et al. (US 2006/0088523 A1) and Bowen et al. (US 2012/0034212 A1). The examiner has withdrawn this rejection with respect to claims 32-42 and 44, but not with respect to claims 46-47 and 48. The examiner presents a rationale for taking this position below.
As an initial matter, the examiner notes that there is a pending indefiniteness rejection regarding the appropriate claim interpretation of the phase “chemical stability.” Nevertheless, looking to the instant specification, the examiner notes that the claimed invention is drawn to antibody storage, with the apparent intention that the stored antibody would be suitable for administration to a patient. That the claimed invention is drawn to antibodies for administration to a patient (as opposed to use for in vitro laboratory procedures) is evident at least as of page 3 lines 20-25, which indicates that the antibodies of the instant invention are intended for administration to a patient.
As such, the examiner takes the position that it is appropriate to examine the indefinite instant claims with the understanding that the claims require that the composition remains sufficiently stable that, after storage for 4 weeks at 5°C it can be administered to a patient and achieve a therapeutic effect that is not significantly reduced compared with the therapeutic effect that would have occurred prior to storage. In contrast, a composition that has been damaged to the extent that its therapeutic function is significantly reduced or that is unsafe to administer is not understood to be stable in the manner required by the instant claims.
Using this definition of the phrase “chemical stability”, the examiner has decided to withdraw the previously applied rejection, as it relates to claim 32, in view of data provided as per the declaration under 37 C.F.R. 1.132 on 3 August 2026 (hereafter referred to as the declaration). In support of this decision, the examiner notes that in this declaration, declarant takes the following position, as of paragraph #7, reproduced below.
PNG
media_image15.png
68
738
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
100
728
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Declarant then cites various references in support of this position. As an example of a reference cited in support of this position, the examiner notes paragraph #10 of the declaration, which the examiner has reproduced in-part below.
PNG
media_image17.png
278
730
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Paragraphs 9 and 11-13 of the declaration further detail more evidence attesting to the unpredictability regarding stabilizing an antibody.
In view of this, the examiner takes the position that there would have been no reasonable expectation that the claimed invention would have successfully remained stable for at least 4 weeks of storage at 5°C. Evidence showing there was no reasonable expectation of success may support a conclusion of nonobviousness. See MPEP 2143.02(II). In this case, the declaration provides evidence showing that there was no reasonable expectation of success.
The examiner also notes that the mere fact that references can be combined or modified does not render the resultant combination obvious unless the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143.01(III). Additionally, a mere statement that the claimed invention is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art is not sufficient in and of itself to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2143.01(IV). In this case, it is the examiner’s position that the recited antibodies, along with polysorbate 20, sucrose, and histidine appear to have been known at the time of filing. As such, the ability to make the recited composition may have been within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art by combining the known ingredients and optimizing their concentrations. Nevertheless, that the resultant composition would have had the required stability after at least 4 weeks of storage at the recited temperature would not have been predictable, as per the declaration. As such, the obviousness rejection of claim 32 has been withdrawn.
The examiner notes that the in the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on 17 December 2025 (hereafter referred to as the PTAB decision), the PTAB states the following on page 4, second to last paragraph.
PNG
media_image18.png
190
696
media_image18.png
Greyscale
This argument is not applicable to the currently amended instant claims. This is because, since the issuance of the PTAB decision, the claims have been amended to recite limitations related to the stability after 4 weeks of storage at 5°C.
The PTAB also takes the following position, as of the paragraph bridging pages 4-5, wherein the portion of the text from page 4 has been reproduced below.
PNG
media_image19.png
188
720
media_image19.png
Greyscale
The statements in the PTAB decision regarding the issue of reasonable expectation of success appear be moot in view of newly provided evidence as of the declaration under 37 C.F.R. 1.132, which was not yet part of the file record at the time the PTAB issued this decision.
Prior Art Rejection of Claims 46-47 and 49 is Maintained
The position taken by the examiner in the above section entitled “Withdrawn Prior Art Rejection and Response to 1.132 Declaration” does not appear to be applicable to claims 46-47 and 49. This is because claims 46-47 and 49 are drawn to a solid composition formed by lyophilization of the composition of claim 32. As such, the composition recited by claims 46-47 is solid, whereas the composition recited claim 32 is liquid. The limitation of claim 32 regarding stability during storage for at least 4 weeks at 5°C would appear to apply only to liquid compositions, and not to the solid composition that would have formed following lyophilization.
Additionally, the subject matter of the declaration submitted on 3 August 2026 appears to be concerned with stability of antibodies in liquid formulations rather than stability of antibodies in solid, lyophilized form. The skilled artisan would have expected that lyophilized formulations would have been expected by the skilled artisan to have been more stable than liquid formulations, as lyophilization of biologics is often done to increase their storage stability. See e.g. Chang (Chang, Byeong S., Michael Reilly, and Hana Chang. "Lyophilized biologics." Lyophilized biologics and vaccines: modality-based approaches (2015): 1-401), page 6, relevant text reproduced below with annotation by the examiner.
PNG
media_image20.png
194
770
media_image20.png
Greyscale
The examiner also notes that the concentrations of excipients recited in claim 32 do not appear to be applicable to claim 46. This is because the lyophilization that is needed to be conducted to achieve the composition of claim 46 from that of claim 32 would necessitate removing the liquid water to result in a solid composition. The concentrations of sucrose and histidine is recited in claim 32 in the units of mM, which is millimoles per liter. This unit, while applicable to liquid compositions that can be measured via volume, is not applicable to solid compositions. In contrast, the units drawn to the concentrations of excipients in claim 32 actually appear to be product-by-process limitations because they limit an intermediate product (the liquid solution used to form the lyophilized composition) rather than the final lyophilized composition. See MPEP 2113 regarding examination of product-by-process claim limitations.
Response to Arguments Regarding Prior Art Rejections
Applicant has presented arguments regarding the previously applied prior art rejections, as of applicant’s response on 3 August 2026. These arguments appear to relate to rejections that have been withdrawn. As such, applicant’s arguments are moot and will not be addressed substantively.
The examiner notes that the rejection of claims 46-47 and 49 has been maintained. However, applicant does not appear to have presented arguments specifically relating to those claims. As such, the examiner has not substantively addressed arguments relating to claims 46-47 and 49 in this office action.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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 ISAAC SHOMER whose telephone number is (571)270-7671. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM Monday Through Friday.
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, Sahana Kaup can be reached at (571)272-6897. 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.
ISAAC . SHOMER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1612
/ISAAC SHOMER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights