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 .
Applicants Amendments
Applicants’ amendment filed 1/7/2026 has been received and entered. Claims 1, 8-13, 18-20 have been amended, claim 21 has been added.
Claims 1-21 are pending.
Priority
This application filed 1/21/2022 is a continuation of 16/403331 filed now US Patent 11,264117 which a continuation of PCT/US18/55283 filed 10/10/2018 which claims benefit to US provisional application 62/570569 filed 10/101/2017.
Applicants do comment on the summary of priority.
Information Disclosure Statement
The two information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/7/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
It was noted that the listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement, citing the list starting on page 132, and citations throughout specification. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
A new IDS has been filed, but no comment on the references in the specification was indicated to be on the new IDS forms.
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).
Response to Applicants comments
Applicants request the rejections be held in abeyance.
In response, a rejection and response can not be held in abeyance. In view of no specific arguments, the rejections are maintained for the reasons of record.
The rejections of record have been updated to include the amendments to the claims and are provided below.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11264117 (application 16/403331 which is the parent of this continuation). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because bot the claim sets overlap in the specific method steps used to analyze potential peptides ability to bind to MHC using a neural network model.
A copy of claim 1 of ‘117 is provided for clarity of the record and comparison of pending claims of the instant application.
1. (Currently Amended) A method for identifying one or more neoantigens from one or more tumor cells of a subject that are likely to be presented on a surface of the tumor cells, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) obtaining at least one of exome, transcriptome, or whole genome nucleotide sequencing data from the tumor cells and normal cells of the subject, wherein the nucleotide sequencing data is used to obtain data representing peptide sequences of each of a set of neoantigens identified by comparing the nucleotide sequencing data from the tumor cells and the nucleotide sequencing data from the normal cells, wherein the peptide sequence of each neoantigen comprises at least one alteration that makes it distinct from the corresponding wild-type peptide sequence identified from the normal cells of the subject;
(b) encoding the peptide sequence of each of the neoantigens into a corresponding numerical vector, each numerical vector including information regarding a plurality of amino acids that make up the peptide sequence and a set of positions of the amino acids in the peptide sequence;
(c) associating the peptide sequence of each of the neoantigens with one or more k- mer blocks of a plurality of k-mer blocks of the nucleotide sequencing data of the subject;
(d) determining, using a neural network model stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium of one or more computing devices a set of presentation likelihoods for the set of neoantigens, each presentation likelihood in the set representing the likelihood that a corresponding neoantigen is presented by one or more MHC alleles on the surface of the tumor cells of the subject, the neural network model comprising:
(i) two or more layers comprising a first layer and a second layer, each layer comprising one or more nodes, wherein said nodes comprise a memory location for one or more input values;
(ii) a plurality of connections between nodes of said first layer and one or more nodes of said second layer;
(iii) optimized parameters stored in memory locations, wherein the optimized parameters transform input values of nodes of the first layer into input values for nodes of the second layer connected to the nodes of the first layer,
(iv) wherein the optimized parameters are identified using at least a training data set comprising:
(A) training peptide sequences encoded as numerical vectors including information regarding a plurality of amino acids that make up the peptide sequences and a set of positions of the amino acids in the peptide sequences;
(B) at least one MHC allele associated with the training peptide sequences;
(C) for each of the training peptide sequences, one or more labels indicating associations between the training peptide sequence and one or more k-mer blocks of a plurality of k-mer blocks of the nucleotide sequencing data of the training peptide sequences; and
(D) for each of the training peptide sequences, a label indicating whether the training peptide was presented by the at least one MHC allele, wherein a subset of the optimized parameters represent a presence or absence of a presentation hotspot for the one or more k-mer blocks; and
(e) wherein said determining comprises:
(i) forward feeding the numerical vectors, using a computer processor, through nodes of the first layer and the second layer of the neural network model, said forward feeding comprising transforming values of the numerical vectors as they are fed from nodes of the first layer to nodes of the second layer using the optimized parameters;
(ii) generating, using a computer processor, the set of presentation likelihoods for the set of antigens from the transformed numerical vectors, each presentation likelihood in the set representing the likelihood that a corresponding antigen is presented by one or more class I MHC alleles on the surface of the tumor cells of the subject;
(f) selecting a subset of the set of neoantigens based on the set of presentation likelihoods to generate a set of selected neoantigens; and
(g) returning the set of selected neoantigens.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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 for the metes and bounds of ‘antigen’ and the requirements of the claims for what is required of a given peptide sequence set forth in the previous rejection is withdrawn.
The amendments to the claims have addressed the basis of the issues raised.
Claim 21 is 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 21 is newly added and sets forth in the preamble the method is ‘for achieving an improvement to a computer’ which is accomplished ‘by improving a neural network model’, however there does not appear to be any steps which provide for improvement to a computer or neural network. Step (b) for antecedent basis appears to refer to the preamble for support that a neural network first exists, however the steps of the method appear to provide simply analysis and fails to provide any apparent improvement but are steps of training or creating a model. Similarly for improving a computer, it appears that the method steps are simply practiced using a computer, and there are no steps of the method which appear to improve the computer in any means. In review of the specification, some form of ‘improve’ appears 26 times, however each appear to support description of ‘lack of predictive accuracy improvement of binding-restricted neoantigens’ (in [0006] for example) and general indication for trying to improve the identification of discovery of neoantigens ([00212] for example pointing to specific steps required or analysis), but all fail to support that any and all computers would be improved, or that the method steps as a whole provide for the basis of any improvement to a neural network, in fact it appears that the method itself requires creating the model and that a model that can be improved does not exist.
Deleting improves or providing support in the specification or the art as a whole for how the preamble sets forth the metes and bounds of the claims which result in improvement would address the basis of the rejection.
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 1-20 stand and newly added claim 21 is 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.
The claims have been amended to set forth that the ‘optimized parameters’ now are ‘comprising one or more hotspot parameters’, however there is no specific definition as to what a hotspot parameter is in the specification or how if some attribute of a hotspot is provided, how is it valued and how then next it is ‘optimized’ as a value that is informative and used in the claim as a whole. Claim 1 has been amended to provide a wherein clause that ‘a presentation hotspot represents a propensity of a presented peptide’, however there is no means to determine whether an observed change in sequence data has any correlation to a resulting peptide having any ‘propensity’ or even necessarily being a ‘neoantigen’ presented by a MHC with any likelihood. To perform the analysis, what appears to be required is some guidance for how any change in any sequence data would necessarily correlate to a peptide having properties that make it a neoantigen, and that any possible sequence that ‘data representing peptide sequences of each of a set of neoantigens’ necessarily exists to accomplish the first step of obtaining required of the independent claims. There is no specific step of the claims that provides for valuation of any parameter, or even what a ‘hotspot’ is. While in view of the art as a whole, providing mutated or variant peptide sequences representative of target antigens that might serve to bind MHC for possible use in targeted or personalized cancer treatments, the claims and the specification as a whole fail to provide what these antigens or neoantigens are, and fail to provide the necessary guidance that instruct what data is needed, how it used to train and how the training to provided values and optimized parameters is to be performed, … beyond the generic requirements of the claims and use of a neural network to identify them. The ‘data’ which can be ‘obtained’ encompasses any peptide sequence from any cell and of any species and a corresponding ‘value’ for a presentation hotspot for one or more k-mer blocks of this enormous number of possible antigens/proteins without any guidance for any variant being an antigen or simply a difference between individuals. To practice the claims, these types of existing data and valuations appear necessary to create a model which is subsequently used to assess peptide sequences for the possible binding to the huge possible number of MHC alleles that exist. The issue is one of disclosure and possession, specifically there are no inherent ‘values’ associated with peptide sequences and presentation. There is no specific requirement of presentation, but from the guidance and as might be implied in the claims, the peptides are intended to be bound and presented by MHC, While this is an active area of research, there is no inherent value or means of scoring any given peptide and/or establishing a nexus that a given peptide would bind any specific MHC allele. The art of record demonstrates that peptides can be tested for binding, and that binding for specific peptides and MHC alleles can be modeled, but the present specification fails to provide the necessary guidance to practice the claims as generically and broadly claimed because the specification fails to provide the necessary information to practice the claims.
Response to Applicants arguments
Applicants note the amendments to the claims and argue that they provide additional detail of how limitations are obtained and that applicants had possession of the claimed invention.
In response, the amendments are noted and analyzed above. As provided above, the additional generic description does not support that this data existed in the art nor the necessary guidance within the claims or the specification as a whole to provide adequate support that the required limitations for the breadth of the claims of any source, any variation of possible peptide data could be interpreted and provided for as a neoantigen, provided as a value, somehow optimized by undefined values, or even what is required of a ‘hotspot’. Again, as general acknowledged in prosecution the idea of identifying alterations in proteins that might server as targets in immunotherapy were an area of active research, however given the generic nature of the analysis required of the claims steps and generic indication that a neural network is used to create a model without any of the necessary guidance or data for values or optimization set forth in the claims, it does not appear that the amendments, nor the specification as a whole satisfies the requires of 112 as argued.
Accordingly, for the reasons above and of record, the rejection is maintained.
To address the issues raised, more clearly providing support of the specification or the art as a whole that the required data exists and subsequent steps where values are specifically obtained to practice the claims, which then are evaluated to provide values that they are a hotspot and ability to provide a corresponding likelihood of any antigen being presented by a MHC allele would address the basis of the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
101 Rejection
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 stand and newly added claim 21 is rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim analysis
Claim 1 has been amended and still is generally directed to the method that assess whether a peptide will bind and be presented by a MHC allele. Specifically, the claims set forth providing data of peptides serving as possible antigens and values that they are likely presented, then creating a neural network model which represents this data and using the model to assess other proteins. It is noted that no empirical steps are required for any of the data, and only data is provided and processed to provide information about the protein evaluated. As acknowledged in applicants comments, newly added claim 21 mirrors the method of claim 1 and sets forth in the preamble that there is an improvement to a computer and neural network model that is accomplished practicing the steps of the claims.
For step 1 of the 101 analysis, the claims are found to be directed to a statutory category of a method.
For step 2A of the 101 analysis, the judicial exception of the claims are the steps of accessing sequence data for malicious sequences. The step of the method under the broadest most reasonable interpretation, the instant claims recite judicial exceptions that are an abstract idea of the type that is in the grouping of “mental process”, such as procedures for evaluating, analyzing or organizing information, forming judgement or an opinion. Steps drawn to a mental process recited in the claims include encoding peptide sequences into vectors, associating peptide sequences with K-mer blocks of nucleotide sequencing data, inputting vectors and K-mer blocks into a model, determining presentation likelihood, determining relation between the presentation likelihood and vectors and K-mers, selecting a subset of antigens. Further, the step of generating presentation likelihood by a machine-learned model addresses determining presentation likelihood using a plurality of parameters and a function, which is able to be performed in the mind, but for the recitation of the computer system (“machine learned process”). Other than reciting “by a machine-learned model ”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. There are no specifics in the claims of the steps that are performed by the machine-learned model that are clearly rooted in computer technology and are not able to be performed in human mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic “ machine-learned model” does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites steps drawn to a mental process.
Recent guidance from the office requires that the judicial exception be evaluated under a second prong to determine whether the judicial exception is practically applied. In the instant case, the claims do not have an additional element. In review of the claim requirements, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim can encompass additional elements which are data gathering, using a generic computer component, and/or insignificant pre-solution activity. Obtaining sequence data is a pre-solution activity directed to aspects of the information being analyzed
To the extent the additional element of using a processor to utilize “machine-learned model” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim does not describe any specific computational steps by which the computer performs or carries out the abstract idea, nor do they provide any details of how specific structures of the computer are used to implement these functions. The claim states nothing more than that a generic computer performs the functions that constitute the abstract idea. Hence, these are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer, and therefore the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims that are directed to abstract ideas must be examined further to determine whether the additional elements besides the abstract idea render the claims significantly more than the abstract idea.
It is noted that in explaining the Alice framework, the Court wrote that "[i]n cases involving software innovations, [the step one] inquiry often turns on whether the claims focus on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a tool." The Court further noted that "[s]ince Alice, we have found software inventions to be patent-eligible where they have made non-abstract improvements to existing technological processes and computer technology." Moreover, these improvements must be specific -- "[a]n improved result, without more stated in the claim, is not enough to confer eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea . . . [t]o be patent-eligible, the claims must recite a specific means or method that solves a problem in an existing technological process." None of the dependent claims recite any additional non-abstract elements; they are all directed to further aspects of the information being analyzed, the manner in which that analysis is performed, or the mathematical operations performed on the information. Because the claims recite an abstract idea, and do not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are directed to that abstract idea.
For step 2B of the 101 analysis, each of the independent claims recites additional elements and are found to be the steps of obtaining sequence data. As such, the claims do not provide for any additional element to consider under step 2B.
Response to Applicants arguments
Applicants provide an overview of case law applying to 101 analysis and note the amendments to the claims. Applicants argue that incorporating ‘hotspot’ parameters outperformed other methods of analysis, providing a copy of figure 15A where samples and precision were provided.
In response, the information in the figures was noted in the analysis, has considered generally teachings for example at [0010] which teaches ‘These deep learning models also utilize parameters describing the presence or absence of presentation hotspots in k-mer blocks associated with peptide sequences in determining presentation likelihood of the peptides.’ In review of the specification, it is noted that ‘hotspot’ is not defined and only at page 66 of the specification is quoted but not defined after providing a means of assessing possible antigenicity across different tissue types, possible loss of function and generally that it can be determined through appropriate analysis methods, which generally appear to rely on knowledge of MHC alleles and possible presentation, and generally that in the analysis a peptide or variant peptides ability to be presented based on calculated interactions with every and all possible MHC alleles (see section starting at VIII.b on page 60). Importantly, this is not a limiting requirement of the claims, but even so the guidance provides evidence that the ‘hotspot’ parameter is simply another form of analysis, or if provided a value used in analysis which does not move the claims from data analysis to a patent eligible category under Prong 2A. It is generally acknowledged that different analysis methods provide different results, and the some may be viewed to have greater predictive ability, however in the analysis of 101 increased predictive ability still fall into the category of analysis and abstract concepts. Further, the analysis attempts to provide a correlation that may exist in nature, for example the ability of peptide to be presented by MHC once it is altered. Given the claims as a whole and the guidance of the specification, while there is some indication in the figures that a specific method performs differently when a ‘hotspot’ parameter is used, it does not appear to be an improvement given that a hotspot value would represent the ability of a peptide be presented or bind to MHC, and the general data suggests that a majority of the peptides identified without it are sufficient to predict that it may be a neoantigen given the figures. Accordingly, for the reasons above and of record the rejection is maintained.
One way to overcome a rejection for non-patent-eligible subject matter is to persuasively argue that the claimed subject matter is not directed to a judicial exception. Another way for the applicants to overcome the rejection is to persuasively argue that the claims contain elements in addition to the judicial exception that either individually or as an ordered combination are not well understood, routine, or conventional. Another way for the applicants to overcome the rejection is to persuasively argue that the claims as a whole result in an improvement to a technology. Persuasive evidence for an improvement to a technology could be a comparison of results of the claimed subject matter with results of the prior art, or arguments based on scientific reasoning that the claimed subject matter inherently results an improvement over the prior art. The applicants should show why the claims require the improvement in all embodiments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stranzl et al. (Immunogenetics, 2010, 62:357–368), Soon-Shiong et al. (20170028044), Deniger et al. (Molecular Therapy Volume 24, Supplement 1, May 2016, S155), Schumacher et al. (Science, 3 April 2015, vol. 348, Issue 6230, p. 69-74) and Bremel et al. (US 20160117441) (all of record) is withdrawn.
Upon recosideration of the amendments and the cited art, it is agreed that the reference fail to provide all the limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The art of record demonstrates identification of peptides presented by MHC molecules was known. For example, While Stranzl et al. (Immunogenetics, 2010, 62:357–368) teach identifying presentation likelihoods for antigens presented by MHC 1 alleles with a method comprises generating MHC class I presentation likelihood score by combining predictions of proteasomal cleavage, TAP transport efficiency, and MHC binding, the combining being viewed as generating presentation likelihood by applying a presentation model. Further with respect to peptides serving as antigens for MHC, Soon-Shiong et al. (20170028044) is drawn to method for identifying cancer-related patient-specific neoantigens and teach that to resolve the problem of similarity between HLA alleles, nucleic sequences are read into relatively small k-mers (typically having a length of between 10-20 bases), and by implementing a weighted vote process in which each patient sequence read provides a vote (for the purposes of claim interpretation "quantitative read support" could be considered to be a “hot spot”) for each of the alleles on the basis of k-mers of that sequence read that match the sequence of the allele. More generally, Deniger et al. (Molecular Therapy Volume 24, Supplement 1, May 2016, S155) teach that mutations expressed by the tumor can serve as neoantigens for autologous T cells, and that, while neoantigens are usually unique to each patient, i.e. no overlapping mutations between patients, identifying ‘hotspot’ mutations existing in all tumor types or among many patients opens opportunities for treatment of other cancer patients.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph T Woitach whose telephone number is (571)272-0739. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8:00-4:00.
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, Karlheinz R Skowronek can be reached at 571 272-9047. 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.
/Joseph Woitach/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1687
Prosecution Insights