The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4-29-2025 has been entered.
The amendment filed on 4-29-2025 is acknowledged. Claims 18-23 have been canceled. Claims 24-29 are pending and currently under examination.
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Claim Rejections Withdrawn
The rejection of claims 24-29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McConnell et al. (Vaccine Vol. 29 pages 1-5 – IDS filed on 2-8-2022), Moffatt et al. (Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Vol. 54 No. 12, pages 4971-4977 – IDS filed on 2-8-2022 and van der Ley et al. (Journal of Endotoxin Research Vol. 9, No. 2, pages 124-128 – IDS filed on 2-8-2022) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 24-29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McConnell et al. (Vaccine Vol. 29 page 1-5 – IDS filed on 2-8-2022), Moffatt et al. (Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Vol. 55 No. 12, pages 3022-3024 – IDS filed on 2-8-2022) and van der Ley et al. (Journal of Endotoxin Research Vol. 9, No. 2, pages 124-128 – IDS filed on 2-8-2022) is withdrawn.
New Grounds of Rejection
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.
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 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry et al. (Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Vol. 56 No. 1, pages 59-69 – IDS filed on 2-8-2022) and of Campbell, A.M. (Monoclonal Antibody Technology, Elsevier, N.Y. 1984; chapter 1, pages 1-32).
Henry et al. disclose an LPS-deficient strain of Acinetobacter baumannii comprising a mutation in the lpxA gene (see abstract).
Henry et al. differs from the instant invention in that they don’t explicitly disclose the use of said mutant strain of Acinetobacter baumannii to produce antibodies.
Campbell discloses that it is customary for any group working on a macromolecule to both clone the genes coding for it and to make antibodies to it even when there is no clear objective for their application (see page 29, section 1.3.4).
Consequently, it would have been obvious for one of skill in the art to make antibodies to the LPS-deficient strain of Acinetobacter baumannii of Henry et al. Moreover, the KSR decision sets forth “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person’s skill”. Given that Henry et al. disclose a LPS-deficient strain of Acinetobacter baumannii and the production of antibodies utilizing known antigens is well established in the art, the production of antibodies utilizing the LPS-deficient strain of Acinetobacter baumannii as disclosed by Henry et al. well within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. Hence, the requirements of obviousness under the KSR decision are met.
Claims 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (PLOS One Vol. 9, Issue 6, pages 1-13) and Henry et al. (Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Vol. 56 No. 1, pages 59-69 – IDS filed on 2-8-2022).
Huang et al. disclose the use of out membrane vesicles (OMVs) from a Acinetobacter baumannii strain to produce antibodies (see abstract for example). Huang et al. further disclose that the LPS content in their may play a role in vaccine toxicity (see page 12).
Huang et al. differ from the instant claims in that they don’t explicitly disclose the use of OMVs from LPS-deficient strains to produce their antibodies.
Henry et al. disclose an LPS-deficient strain of Acinetobacter baumannii comprising a mutation in the lpxA gene (see abstract).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize OMVs from the LPS-deficient strain of Acinetobacter baumannii of Henry et al. to eliminate the possibility of LPS toxicity in their “vaccine compositions”.
One would have had a reasonable expectation of success as Huang already disclose the use of OMVs from Acinetobacter baumannii strains.
Claims 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moffatt et al. (Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Vol. 54 No. 12, pages 4971-4977 – IDS filed on 2-8-2022) and of Campbell, A.M. (Monoclonal Antibody Technology, Elsevier, N.Y. 1984; chapter 1, pages 1-32).
Moffatt et al. disclose an LPS-deficient strains of Acinetobacter baumannii ATCC 19606 (see page 4975, right-hand column). Moffatt et al. further disclose that the loss of LPS production is due to mutations in the lpxA, lpxC or lpxD genes (see Table 3 and page 4975, left-hand column).
Moffatt et al. differs from the instant invention in that they don’t explicitly disclose the use of said mutant strain of Acinetobacter baumannii ATCC 19606 to produce antibodies.
Campbell discloses that it is customary for any group working on a macromolecule to both clone the genes coding for it and to make antibodies to it even when there is no clear objective for their application (see page 29, section 1.3.4).
Consequently, it would have been obvious for one of skill in the art to make antibodies to the LPS-deficient strain of Acinetobacter baumannii ATCC 19606 of Moffatt et al. Moreover, the KSR decision sets forth “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person’s skill”. Given that Moffatt et al. disclose LPS-deficient strains of Acinetobacter baumannii ATCC 19606 and the production of antibodies utilizing known antigens is well established in the art, the production of antibodies utilizing the LPS-deficient strains of Acinetobacter baumannii ATCC 19606 as disclosed by Moffatt et al. well within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. Hence, the requirements of obviousness under the KSR decision are met.
Claims 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (PLOS One Vol. 9, Issue 6, pages 1-13) and Moffatt et al. (Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Vol. 54 No. 12, pages 4971-4977 – IDS filed on 2-8-2022).
Huang et al. disclose the use of out membrane vesicles (OMVs) from a Acinetobacter baumannii strain to produce antibodies (see abstract for example). Huang et al. further disclose that the LPS content in their may play a role in vaccine toxicity (see page 12).
Huang et al. differ from the instant claims in that they don’t explicitly disclose the use of OMVs from LPS-deficient strains to produce their antibodies.
Moffatt et al. disclose an LPS-deficient strains of Acinetobacter baumannii ATCC 19606 (see page 4975, right-hand column). Moffatt et al. further disclose that the loss of LPS production is due to mutations in the lpxA, lpxC or lpxD genes (see Table 3 and page 4975, left-hand column).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize OMVs from the LPS-deficient strains of Acinetobacter baumannii ATCC 19606 of Moffatt et al. to eliminate the possibility of LPS toxicity in their “vaccine compositions”.
One would have had a reasonable expectation of success as Huang already disclose the use of OMVs from Acinetobacter baumannii strains.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT A ZEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0866. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 6:30 am - 3pm EST.
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, Vanessa Ford can be reached on 571-272-0857. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT A ZEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1645 November 1, 2025