DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicants elected SEQ ID 12 without traverse in the reply filed on 27 March, 2025. This species was found novel and unobvious over the prior art in the office action of 24 April, 2025.
Claims Status
Claims 1-8 and 12-15 are pending.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 5-8 and 12-15 are withdrawn due to an election/restriction requirement.
Withdrawn Objections
The objection to claim 1 due to the use of acronyms is hereby withdrawn due to amendment.
The objection to the drawings due to lack of SEQ ID numbers is hereby withdrawn due to argument.
Withdrawn Rejections
The rejection of claim(s) 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yin et al (Mol. Pharmacol. (2004) 65(6) p1323-1335) is hereby withdrawn due to amendment.
The rejection of claim(s) 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al (Mol. Pharmacol. (2004) 65(6) p1323-1335, cited by applicants) in view of Moore et al (Sci. Rep. (2018) 8:10397) is hereby withdrawn due to amendment.
New Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 1-4 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.
The MPEP lists factors that can be used to determine if sufficient evidence of possession has been furnished in the disclosure of the application. These include "level of skill and knowledge in the art, partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics alone or coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between structure and function, and the method of making the claimed invention. Disclosure of any combination of such identifying characteristics that distinguish the claimed invention from other materials and would lead one of skill in the art to the conclusion that the applicant was in possession of the claimed species is sufficient" (MPEP 2163).
A claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species or disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics such as functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure(MPEP 2163(3)a(II)). The number of species that describe the genus must be adequate to describe the entire genus; if there is substantial variability, a large number of species must be described.
The analysis for adequate written description considers (a) actual reduction to practice, (b) disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas, (c) sufficient relevant identifying characteristics in the way of complete/partial structure or physical and/or chemical properties or functional characteristics when coupled with known or disclosed correlation with structure and (d) representative number of samples.
The issue is if a person of skill in the art would know what structural features required for binding and detection.
(a and b) actual reduction to practice and disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas: Applicants are claiming a hybridized GPCR, that is in a complex, and is fused to a binding sequence that gives a signal when the binding ligand binds or is in close proximity to the binding sequence. The ligand for the binding sequence is not defined by the claim; it can be anything. This has two binding events – the hybridized GPCR with whatever protein it forms a complex with, and the binding sequence with its ligand – and an interaction that forms a signal. There is a great deal of discussion in the disclosure about binding, but it is mostly mention of embodiments with a functional binding to some aspect of the invention, rather than actual binding sequences.
(c) sufficient relevant identifying characteristics in the way of complete/partial structure or physical and/or chemical properties or functional characteristics when coupled with known or disclosed correlation with structure: Applicants are claiming a complex where one protein is covalently bound to a binding sequence, that generates a signal when in close proximity. These limitations impose the functional requirements of binding (to the GPCR and the binding sequence) and detection if the ligand for the binding sequence is close (not necessarily binding to) the binding sequence. However, applicants have not disclosed what structural features are required for these binding and detection events. A person of skill in the art would not know what sequence/hydrophobicity/charge requirements are necessary to meet these functional limitations. In essence, applicants have claimed a portion of their invention by function. That is not sufficient to meet the written description requirement.
As of applicant’s priority date, it was not possible to predict if a given ligand bound to a protein. Lowe (blog “In the pipeline” entry of 7 Sept, 2022) describes an experiment where that was attempted. 39K compounds, including known antibiotics, were screened against E. coli for growth inhibition, finding 218 active compounds (1st page, 3d paragraph). These were computer docked to a set of 296 essential bacterial proteins by multiple docking procedures (1st page, 3d paragraph), along with 100 random inactive compounds from the screen (2nd page, 1st paragraph). The number of strong binders predicted were essentially the same between the active compounds and the controls, and out of 142 compound/target interactions previously known, the methodology found only 3 (2nd page, 2nd paragraph). While a given docking program may accurately predict if compound A binds to protein B, it is impossible to a priori know if the prediction is accurate. In other words, several years after applicant’s priority date, it was not possible to predict if a given compound and target bound to each other.
Nor is it possible to modify known sequences to reliably find new binding compounds. Guo et al (PNAS (2004) 101(25) p9205-9210) looked at the effect of random mutations (title). In a DNA repair enzyme, about one mutation in three killed the activity of the protein, consistent with studies with other proteins (abstract). Yampolsky et al (Genetics (2006) 170 p1459-1472), using a different methodology, found that even conservative substitutions were prone to problems (table 3, p1465, top of page). In other words, unless there is some information known about the binding, mutating the sequence is likely to be detrimental, making it a poor way to generate new compounds.
Applicants also require that the binding sequence and the ligand give a detectable signal when in close proximity. While it is possible to generate systems that do that, it requires some sort of energy transfer, note Tung et al (Bioconj. Chem. (1999) 10 p892-896). Note that the authors used a fluorescence-based method, where the signal is quenched with proximity (p895, 1st column, 4th paragraph). It is not clear how to introduce the fluorescent probes to the system, esp. if the ligand for the binding sequence is native to the cell. While there is no limitation that the ligand be a unlabeled, a labeled ligand limits the invention to proof of principle studies. Nor are the claims limited to energy transfer techniques – it is not clear how a mass spec or antibody based technique could determine if two compound are close to each other.
(d) representative number of samples: Examples appear to use a luciferase assay to see when the GPCR binds to a ligand (p164, line 22-23), a radiodisplacement assay (p168, line 14-29), and a cAMP detection system (p170, line 12-17). Note that none of these examples discuss binding of an attached binding sequence and an arbitrary ligand, much less detection when the two are in proximity. In other words, there are no examples of any embodiments that read on the claims. This makes it impossible to extrapolate to all possible embodiments that read on the claims. Thus, the claims lack written description.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-4 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 1, and claims dependent on it, allows for a signal when the first and second binding members are in close proximity to each other. However, it is not clear what the cutoff is between a pair of compounds that are close and a pair of compounds that are not close, rendering the claims indefinite.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRED REYNOLDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7214. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-3:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Melissa Fisher can be reached at 571-270-7430. 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.
/FRED H REYNOLDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1658