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 .
Status of the Claims:
Claims 1-26, 31-35 and 37 are cancelled. Claims 27-30, 36, 38-44 and 48 are pending and are being examined. New claim 49 is withdrawn as being directed to unelected species. Claims 45-47 and 49 are withdrawn as being directed to unelected group.
Claim Interpretation
Optional embodiments are not required by the claim, and are not considered for patentability as they are not required elements. For example, section (c) of claim 1 requires an optional polynucleotide linker is not being considered for patentability.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
Claim 37 and 35 was 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.
Claim 37 was rejected under 35 USC 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
The rejection is withdrawn following cancellation of the claims.
MAINTAINED REJECTION
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).
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 27-28, 31-35 and 44 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18, and 20-21 of copending Application No. 18/258,039 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 27-28: Claim 20 of ‘039 application disclosed a nucleic acid encoding a first DNA binding protein capable of binding and cleaving a nucleic acid construct and a second nucleic acid construct comprising a transposase is a modified hyperactive PiggyBac, comprising one or more amino acid mutations as compared to hyperactive PiggyBac of SEQ ID NO: 9. As such the disclosure of claim 1 of ‘039 application reads on the subject matter of claim 27.
Regarding claim 31-35: Claim 8 of ‘039 application disclosed mutations at R275, R277, R347, R372, K375, R376, E377, and/or E380.
Regarding claim 44: Claim 21 of 039 Application recited “method for site specific integration of an exogenous nucleic acid sequence into the genome of a cell, the method comprising delivering to the cell the composition according to claim 1, a guide RNA, and the exogenous nucleic acid”. As such it would have been obvious for a person to arrive at the claimed method of site specific integration using the nucleic acid of claim 27 and an exogenous nucleic acid in view of the steps taught by ‘039 application.
Response to Arguments: Applicants argued that the present application has an effective filing date of June 11, 2020, which is earlier than the effective filing date of December 16, 2021, for the 18/258,039 Application. Consequently, pursuant to M.P.E.P. § 1490(VI)(D) this rejection should be withdrawn.
It is submitted that according to MPEP 804(I)(B)(1)(b)(i) and MPEP 1490(VI)(D)(2)(a), a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection is only withdrawn when it is the only rejection remaining in an application having the earliest effective U.S. filing date (taking into account any benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) ) with respect to the conflicting claims); at which point the "provisional" nonstatutory double patenting rejection in the other (later filed) application(s) will be converted into a nonstatutory double patenting rejection when the application with the earliest U.S. effective filing date issues as a patent.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 27-28, 30, 38, 39, 40 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrock et al (WO2018175872A1; Hereinafter "Shrock;" Published Sep. 27, 2018; See PTO-892 of 10/07/2025) in view of Li et al (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Jun 18; Hereinafter “Li;” See PTO-892 of 10/07/2025).
Regarding claims 27-28, 30, 38-40 and 44: Claim 32 of Shrock (WO2018175872A1) disclosed a method of altering a target nucleic acid sequence in a cell using Cas9 fused to a hyperactive piggybac transposase. Cas9 reads on the first polynucleotide sequence. Hyperactive piggybac transposase reads on the claimed (b)(i) element – a second polynucleotide comprising a nucleic acid encoding a second DNA binding protein which enables insertion of an exogenous nucleic acid into a genome, wherein the second DNA binding protein is a hyperactive piggybac transposase. While Shrock did not explicitly teach a nucleic acid encoding a hyperactive piggybac transposase Cas9 fusion protein, Example I of Shrock taught a hyperactive piggyBac transposase sequence downstream of Cas9 was cloned into a pcDNA3.3 backbone vector using Gateway recombination. (this orientation reads on Cas9-piggyback as required by claim 30 and vector of claim 38). A such, Shrock taught a method to arrive at a nucleic acid encoding the Cas9-hyperactive piggybac fusion protein. It is also pointed out that Shrock taught in Example I, [i]n certain embodiments, linkers are included between Cas9 and the hyperactive piggyBac transposase. Shrock also taught integration of GFP in ROSA26 locus of porcine fibroblast cells nucleofected with a Cas9-piggyBac transposase fusion construct, a 20 kb piggyBac transposon (harboring a GFP reporter sequence), and a gRNA targeting the ROSA26 locus of the porcine genome. The porcine fibroblasts nucleofected with a Cas9-piggyBac transposase fusion construct read on claim 39. Additionally successful integration of the GFP reporter requires expression of Cas9-transposase protein as required by claim 40. (Also see Claims 1 and 34 of Shrock). As such Shrock taught a method for controlled site-specific integration of an exogenous nucleic acid by delivering Cas9-transposase and exogenous nucleic acid and resulting in integration of one nucleic acid into the genome of cells.
However, Li taught R372A and D450N mutations in iPB7, a piggyback transposase with I30V, S103P, G165S, M282V, S509G, N570S, N538K (See Li, Fig. 7). Li explicitly taught that engineered ZFPs fused to the iPB7R372A/D450N can restore the DNA target-binding function and demonstrated preservation of iPB7 integration activity. (See Li E2283, col. 1, para 2, Fig. 7). It is submitted that as both Li and Shrock taught the claimed Cas9 (or ZFN)-transposase construct, and the Li taught the use of claimed mutations, the claimed mutants represent a predictable combination of known elements and rendering the claims prima facie obvious. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate one or more of the known piggybac fusion construct of Shrock. Li taught that R372A/D450N retain integration activity, and thus a skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success that a Cas9-piggybac transposase fusion containing integration competent substitution would still achieve the site specific insertion.
Regarding claim 28: Shrock taught that “mechanism of integration involves simultaneous cleavage of the ROSA26 locus by Cas9 and the transposon by the piggyBac transposase, followed by non-homologous end joining of the transposon at the site of Cas9 cleavage.” (See Shrock, Example I). It is also submitted that in Example I, Shrock used a gRNA targeting the ROSA26 locus of the porcine genome. As such it is submitted that the Cas9 protein used in Shrock comprises an active DNA cleavage domain and gRNA binding domain as required by the claim.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrock et al (WO2018175872A1; Hereinafter "Shrock;" Published Sep. 27, 2018; See PTO-892 of 10/07/2025) in view of Li et al (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Jun 18; Hereinafter “Li;” See PTO-892 of 10/07/2025) and further in view of Chen et al (Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2013 Oct; hereinafter “Chen”; See PTO-892 of 10/07/2025).
Regarding claim 29: Example I of Shrock taught that there is a 6-amino acid linker (GSGSGS (glycine-serine-glycine-serine-glycine-serine)) downstream of the gateway attachment site and upstream of the hyperactive piggyBac transposase. While Shrock and Li did not explicitly teach a GGS or XTEN linker, Chen taught that linkers have shown increasing importance in the construction of stable, bioactive fusion proteins. (See Chen Abstract). Chen exemplified several linkers for design of fusion proteins including GGS linkers (See Table 1). Chen taught that “[t]he rational choice of linkers should be based on the properties of the linkers and the desired fusion proteins.“ (See Chen p. 7, para 3). it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the GSGSGS linker in the fusion protein of Shrock with the GGS linker as taught by Chen because the choice of linker is a matter of routine experimentation depending on the desired properties of the fusion protein. Chen taught that GGS linker is known flexible linker and a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving a functional fusion protein by such substitutions.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrock et al (WO2018175872A1; Hereinafter "Shrock;" Published Sep. 27, 2018; See PTO-892 of 10/07/2025) in view of Li et al (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Jun 18; Hereinafter “Li;” See PTO-892 of 10/07/2025) and further in view of Wu et al (US20180320196A1; Published Nov 8, 2018; Hereinafter “Wu;” See IDS 5/1/2026).
Regarding claim 36: Shrock and Li did not specifically teach a transposase comprising SEQ ID NO: 120 as claimed. However, US20180320196A1 (Published Nov 8, 2018; Hereinafter “Wu”) taught a transposase that is 100% identical to the claimed and elected SEQ ID NO: 120. Wu taught that an exogenous sequence can be integrated into the genome of an organism using the transposase comprising instant SEQ ID NO: 120.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to substitute transposase taught by Wu for the transposase domain taught by Shrock since both polypeptides are known to have transposase capability. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this as simply substituting one type of transposase for another useful for the same purpose ((KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) pg 14 and 12). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the sequence comprising SEQ ID NO: 120 in the nucleic acid composition as recited in claim 27.
Query Match 100.0%; Score 3132; Length 899;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 594; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 MGSSLDDEHILSALLQSDDELVGEDSDSEVSDHVSEDDVQSDTEEAFIDEVHEVQPTSSG 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 19 MGSSLDDEHILSALLQSDDELVGEDSDSEVSDHVSEDDVQSDTEEAFIDEVHEVQPTSSG 78
Qy 61 SEILDEQNVIEQPGSSLASNRILTLPQRTIRGKNKHCWSTSKPTRRSRVSALNIVRSQRG 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 79 SEILDEQNVIEQPGSSLASNRILTLPQRTIRGKNKHCWSTSKPTRRSRVSALNIVRSQRG 138
Qy 121 PTRMCRNIYDPLLCFKLFFTDEIISEIVKWTNAEISLKRRESMTSATFRDTNEDEIYAFF 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 139 PTRMCRNIYDPLLCFKLFFTDEIISEIVKWTNAEISLKRRESMTSATFRDTNEDEIYAFF 198
Qy 181 GILVMTAVRKDNHMSTDDLFDRSLSMVYVSVMSRDRFDFLIRCLRMDDKSIRPTLRENDV 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 199 GILVMTAVRKDNHMSTDDLFDRSLSMVYVSVMSRDRFDFLIRCLRMDDKSIRPTLRENDV 258
Qy 241 FTPVRKIWDLFIHQCIQNYTPGAHLTIDEQLLGFRGRCPFRVYIPNKPSKYGIKILMMCD 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 259 FTPVRKIWDLFIHQCIQNYTPGAHLTIDEQLLGFRGRCPFRVYIPNKPSKYGIKILMMCD 318
Qy 301 SGTKYMINGMPYLGRGTQTNGVPLGEYYVKELSKPVHGSCRNITCDNWFTSIPLAKNLLQ 360
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 319 SGTKYMINGMPYLGRGTQTNGVPLGEYYVKELSKPVHGSCRNITCDNWFTSIPLAKNLLQ 378
Qy 361 EPYKLTIVGTVRSNKREIPEVLKNSRSRPVGTSMFCFDGPLTLVSYKPKPAKMVYLLSSC 420
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 379 EPYKLTIVGTVRSNKREIPEVLKNSRSRPVGTSMFCFDGPLTLVSYKPKPAKMVYLLSSC 438
Qy 421 DEDASINESTGKPQMVMYYNQTKGGVDTLDQMCSVMTCSRKTNRWPMALLYGMINIACIN 480
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 439 DEDASINESTGKPQMVMYYNQTKGGVDTLDQMCSVMTCSRKTNRWPMALLYGMINIACIN 498
Qy 481 SFIIYSHNVSSKGEKVQSRKKFMRNLYMGLTSSFMRKRLEAPTLKRYLRDNISNILPKEV 540
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 499 SFIIYSHNVSSKGEKVQSRKKFMRNLYMGLTSSFMRKRLEAPTLKRYLRDNISNILPKEV 558
Qy 541 PGTSDDSTEEPVMKKRTYCTYCPSKIRRKASASCKKCKKVICREHNIDMCQSCF 594
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 559 PGTSDDSTEEPVMKKRTYCTYCPSKIRRKASASCKKCKKVICREHNIDMCQSCF 612
Alignment of SEQ ID NO: 120 with SEQ ID NO: 4 of USPN 11345926
Claims 41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrock et al (WO2018175872A1; Hereinafter "Shrock;" Published Sep. 27, 2018; See PTO-892 of 10/07/2025) in view of Li et al (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Jun 18; Hereinafter “Li;” See PTO-892 of 10/07/2025) and further in view of Hart et al (G3 (Bethesda). 2017 Aug 7; Hereinafter "Hart;" See PTO-892 of 10/07/2025).
Regarding claims 41-43: The teachings of Shrock and Li are set forth above. Shrock and Li however, did not teach a packaging vector bound to a piggybac-cas9 fusion construct. It is noted that co-transfection of lentiviral vectors with packaging vectors, envelope vectors and the vectors encoding CRISPR enzymes and the inserts are well known in the art of gene editing with lentivirus. For example, Hart taught “TKOv3 library lentivirus was produced by co-transfection of lentiviral vectors psPAX2 (packaging vector) and pMDG.2 (envelope vector) with TKOv3 lentiCRISPR plasmid library, using X-tremeGene 9 transfection reagent (Roche).” Hart taught that the packaging vector is a lentivirus particle as required by claim 43. Hart taught the gRNAs were cloned into the lentiCRISPR plasmid library, which contains cas9. Hart taught a composition comprising a nucleic acid insert and the Crispr enzyme comprising vector bound to a packaging vector as required by claim 41. Hart taught that the nucleic acid inserts are amplified into a DNA and cloned into the vector comprising Cas9 nuclease as required by claim 42. As such it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the nucleic acid construct taught by Shrock and gRNA inserts bound to the packaging vector as taught by Hart to generate lentivirus to transduce mammalian cells.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention by combining the teachings of Shrock and Hart. Shrock taught a composition of Cas9-hyperactive piggybac transposase as enumerated above. Hart taught a method of delivering vectors by packaging into a viral vector. It would have been obvious to combine the teachings to the person of skill in the art to arrive at the claimed composition with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments:
Applicant argues that Li teaches excision competent/integration defective transposases and therefore teaches away from the claimed invention. However, the rejection relies specifically on the iPB7R372A/D450N mutant disclosed in Li. Li expressly taught “ZFPs fused to the iPB7R372A/D450N can restore the DNA target-binding function” See Li Fig. 7. It is also noted that Fig. 7 showed retention of 80% if integration activity by the iPB7R372A/D450N transposase. Thus Li did not discourage the use of the R372A/D450N mutant in a targeted integration system. Rather Li affirmatively taught that the mutants remain suitable for targeted integration when fused to a DNA-binding protein. Accordingly Li supported, rather than taught away from incorporation of the disclosed transposase mutant into the analogous Cas9-transposase fusion system of Shrock. It is also pointed out that the rejection does not rely on substituting a ZFP for Cas9. Shrock already taught the Cas9 fusion architecture. Li relied upon only for the known transposase mutation and its demonstrated functionality in a DNA-binding-domain-directed integration system.
NEW REJECTIONS NECESSITATED BY CLAIM AMENDMENTS
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrock et al (WO2018175872A1; Hereinafter "Shrock;" Published Sep. 27, 2018; See PTO-892 of 10/07/2025) in view of Li et al (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Jun 18; Hereinafter “Li;” See PTO-892 of 10/07/2025) and further in view of Wu et al (US20180320196A1; Published Nov 8, 2018; Hereinafter “Wu;” See IDS 5/1/2026).
Regarding claims 48: The teachings of Shrock and Li are set forth above. Shrock and Li did not specifically teach a transposase comprising SEQ ID NO: 120 as claimed. However, US20180320196A1 (Published Nov 8, 2018; Hereinafter “Wu”) taught a transposase that is 100% identical to the claimed and elected SEQ ID NO: 120. Wu taught that an exogenous sequence can be integrated into the genome of an organism using the transposase comprising instant SEQ ID NO: 120.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to substitute transposase taught by Wu for the transposase domain taught by Shrock since both polypeptides are known to have transposase capability. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this as simply substituting one type of transposase for another useful for the same purpose ((KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) pg 14 and 12). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the sequence comprising SEQ ID NO: 120 in the nucleic acid composition as recited in claim 27.
Query Match 100.0%; Score 3132; Length 899;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 594; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 MGSSLDDEHILSALLQSDDELVGEDSDSEVSDHVSEDDVQSDTEEAFIDEVHEVQPTSSG 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 19 MGSSLDDEHILSALLQSDDELVGEDSDSEVSDHVSEDDVQSDTEEAFIDEVHEVQPTSSG 78
Qy 61 SEILDEQNVIEQPGSSLASNRILTLPQRTIRGKNKHCWSTSKPTRRSRVSALNIVRSQRG 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 79 SEILDEQNVIEQPGSSLASNRILTLPQRTIRGKNKHCWSTSKPTRRSRVSALNIVRSQRG 138
Qy 121 PTRMCRNIYDPLLCFKLFFTDEIISEIVKWTNAEISLKRRESMTSATFRDTNEDEIYAFF 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 139 PTRMCRNIYDPLLCFKLFFTDEIISEIVKWTNAEISLKRRESMTSATFRDTNEDEIYAFF 198
Qy 181 GILVMTAVRKDNHMSTDDLFDRSLSMVYVSVMSRDRFDFLIRCLRMDDKSIRPTLRENDV 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 199 GILVMTAVRKDNHMSTDDLFDRSLSMVYVSVMSRDRFDFLIRCLRMDDKSIRPTLRENDV 258
Qy 241 FTPVRKIWDLFIHQCIQNYTPGAHLTIDEQLLGFRGRCPFRVYIPNKPSKYGIKILMMCD 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 259 FTPVRKIWDLFIHQCIQNYTPGAHLTIDEQLLGFRGRCPFRVYIPNKPSKYGIKILMMCD 318
Qy 301 SGTKYMINGMPYLGRGTQTNGVPLGEYYVKELSKPVHGSCRNITCDNWFTSIPLAKNLLQ 360
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 319 SGTKYMINGMPYLGRGTQTNGVPLGEYYVKELSKPVHGSCRNITCDNWFTSIPLAKNLLQ 378
Qy 361 EPYKLTIVGTVRSNKREIPEVLKNSRSRPVGTSMFCFDGPLTLVSYKPKPAKMVYLLSSC 420
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 379 EPYKLTIVGTVRSNKREIPEVLKNSRSRPVGTSMFCFDGPLTLVSYKPKPAKMVYLLSSC 438
Qy 421 DEDASINESTGKPQMVMYYNQTKGGVDTLDQMCSVMTCSRKTNRWPMALLYGMINIACIN 480
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 439 DEDASINESTGKPQMVMYYNQTKGGVDTLDQMCSVMTCSRKTNRWPMALLYGMINIACIN 498
Qy 481 SFIIYSHNVSSKGEKVQSRKKFMRNLYMGLTSSFMRKRLEAPTLKRYLRDNISNILPKEV 540
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 499 SFIIYSHNVSSKGEKVQSRKKFMRNLYMGLTSSFMRKRLEAPTLKRYLRDNISNILPKEV 558
Qy 541 PGTSDDSTEEPVMKKRTYCTYCPSKIRRKASASCKKCKKVICREHNIDMCQSCF 594
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 559 PGTSDDSTEEPVMKKRTYCTYCPSKIRRKASASCKKCKKVICREHNIDMCQSCF 612
Alignment of SEQ ID NO: 120 with SEQ ID NO: 4 of USPN 11345926
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAGAMYA VIJAYARAGHAVAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5934. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00a-5:00p.
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, Christopher M. Babic can be reached at 571-272-8507. 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.
/JAGAMYA NMN VIJAYARAGHAVAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1633
/EVELYN Y PYLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1633
Prosecution Insights