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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 07/07/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 21, 39, 46 and 48-50 are amended and claims 13 and 14 are newly canceled. Claims 1-3, 5-12, 18, 21, 22, 24-29, 38, 39, 46-50 and 55 are under examination.
Rejections Withdrawn
Any previous rejections over claims 13 and 14 are hereby withdrawn in response to Applicant’s cancelation of those claims.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 reads upon a recombinant Neu2 sialidase comprising either a substitution corresponding to P62 or A93 or both P62 and A93.
The specification defines a recombinant sialidase at paragraph [0075]:
In certain embodiments, the amino acid sequence of the recombinant mutant human sialidase has at least 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 96%, 97%, 98%, or 99% sequence identity to the amino acid sequence of a corresponding wild-type human sialidase.
Therefore, the recombinant mutant human Neu2 sialidase enzyme in claim 1 is interpreted as encompassing proteins having at least 50% sequence identity in which either the P62 or A93 or both P62 and A93 are substituted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-12, 18, 21, 22, 24-29, 38, 39, 46-50 and 55 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendment to specify Neu2 sialidase and to clarify the language of claim 39.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejection of claims 2, 6, 8 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Alkhateeb et al. (WO2020/142727) is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s invocation of the exception under 35 USC s102(b)(2)(C) at pages 9-10 of the Remarks filed 07/07/2026 because the instant application and that of Alkhateeb et al. were jointly owned by Palleon Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Double Patenting
17/624,118
The provisional rejection of claims 1-3, 5-12, 18, 21, 22, 24-29, 38, 39, 46-50 and 55 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 8, 12-14, 16, 21, 25, 27, 29-33, 44, 45, 47, 55-57, 59, 61 and 63-67 of copending Application No. 17/624,118 (reference application) is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendment in the reference application regarding substitutions at either P62 or A93 of Neu2.
17/624,116
The provisional rejection of claims 1-3, 5-12, 18, 21, 22, 24-29, 38, 39, 46-50 and 55 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 8, 12-14, 16, 21, 25, 27, 29-33, 35, 44-46 and 60-64 of copending Application No. 17/624,116 (reference application) is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s abandonment of the reference application.
17/624,123
The provisional rejection of claims 1-3, 5-12, 18, 21, 22, 24-29, 38, 39, 46-50 and 55 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 11-18, 20, 24-26, 32, 33, 68, 71, 72, 74 and 79-83 of copending Application No. 17/624,123 (reference application) in view of Woods et al. (WO 2018/006034) is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s filing of a terminal disclaimer on 07/07/2026, which was approved the same day.
Rejections Maintained
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.
18/003,234
The provisional rejection of claims 1-3, 5-12, 18, 21, 22, 24-29, 38, 39, 46-50 and 55 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 7, 11, 15-20, 24, 27, 28, 30, 32-36, 45, 46 and 53-57 of copending Application No. 18/003,234 (reference application) is maintained for reasons of record and the following.
18/260,383
The provisional rejection of claims 1-3, 5-12, 18, 21, 22, 24-29, 38, 39, 46-50 and 55 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5, 9, 11, 15, 17, 19, 21-23, 25, 26, 35-37, 48-52, 60, 65, 66 and 68 of copending Application No. 18/260,383 (reference application) in view of Dimasi (US20120213705) is maintained for reasons of record and the following.
18/260,378
The provisional rejection of claims 1-3, 5-12, 18, 21, 22, 24-29, 38, 39, 46-50 and 55 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4-6, 9, 13, 15, 17, 19-21, 23, 24, 33-35 and 44-48 of copending Application No. 18/260,378 (reference application) in view of Dimasi (US20120213705) is maintained for reasons of record and the following.
18/260,364
The provisional rejection of claims 1-3, 5-12, 18, 21, 22, 24-29, 38, 39, 46-50 and 55 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 10-12, 15-18, 21, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 34, 43-45 and 54-58 of copending Application No. 18/260,364 (reference application) in view of Dimasi (US20120213705) is maintained for reasons of record and the following.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues at pages 11-15 that the claims of the reference applications do not constitute proper reference claims for an obviousness-type double-patenting rejection over the presently pending claims, citing Ex Parte Baurin, Appeal 2024-002920, Appl. No. 17/135,529 (PTAB Nov. 6, 2024) and Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSNLabs. Private LTD., 111 F.4th 1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2024). Further, Applicant argues that the provisional NSDPs should be withdrawn because they have later patent-term filing dates, citing MPEP 804(1)(B)(1).
This argument has been fully considered but is not found persuasive. Regarding the citation of Ex Parte Baurin, the Appeals Review Panel recently issued a precedential decision on non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) in Baurin reversing the PTAB decision and reinstated examiner’s rejection of claims for NSDP. The USPTO designates as precedential an Appeals Review Panel decision addressing obviousness-type double patenting USPTO. The PTAB had previously reversed NSDP rejections over issued patents that expired earlier than the instant application, relying on Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., and described the anti-harassment rationale as “immaterial.” This PTAB decision was inconsistent with the guidance in the MPEP, including MPEP § 1504.16:
The doctrine of nonstatutory double patenting also seeks to prevent the possibility of multiple suits against an accused infringer by different assignees of patents claiming patentably indistinct variations of the same invention. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 944-48, 214 USPQ 761, 767-70 (CCPA 1982). The submission of a terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b) to overcome a double patenting rejection ensures that a patent owner with multiple patents claiming obvious variations of one invention retains all those patents or sells them as a group.
In Ex Parte Baurin, the Appeals Review Panel overturned the PTAB decision and elaborated on why the anti-harassment rationale is also an important rationale for NSDP. The Appeal Review Panel noted that there are two rationales for NSDP:
As discussed above, the primary and historically dominant rationale for OTDP is preventing unjustified timewise extension of a patent's term. Cases such as AbbVie, Gilead, and Allergan focused on whether the challenged patent improperly extended exclusivity beyond the point at which the public should be free to practice the invention and obvious variants.
The courts, however, also have recognized a second policy rationale behind OTDP: preventing harassment from separate lawsuits brought by multiple assignees asserting patents covering the same invention or obvious variants thereof (the “anti-harassment rationale”). See, e.g., In re Fallaux, 564 F.3d 1313, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (stating that “there is a second justification for obviousness-type double patenting-harassment by multiple assignees”).
Further, provisional NSDP rejections may be withdrawn where the reference applications have later paten term filing dates once the instant claims are allowed. However, since the instant claims are not yet allowable, the rejections must be maintained. See MPEP 804(I)(B).
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 1-3, 5-12, 21, 22, 24-29, 39, 46-50 and 55 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 claims contain 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. This is a written description rejection.
In deciding whether the application complies with the written description requirement of 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, it is necessary to understand what Applicant is claiming and what Applicant has possession of. Claim 1 recites a recombinant mutant human Neu2 sialidase, wherein the sialidase comprises:(a) a substitution of a proline residue at a position corresponding to position 62 of wild-type human Neu2 (P62); and/or (b) a substitution of an alanine residue at a position corresponding to (i.e., analogous to) position 93 of wild-type human Neu2 (A93). The specification defines a recombinant sialidase at paragraph [0075] as encompassing 50% sequence identity to that of a wild-type human sialidase. Therefore, the recombinant mutant human Neu2 sialidase enzyme in claim 1 is interpreted as encompassing proteins having at least 50% sequence identity in which either the P62 or A93 or both P62 and A93 are substituted. Dependent claims 2, 3, 5-12 and 55 further define the substitutions, however, the base Neu2 sialidase encompassed by the claim may still share only 50% sequence identity to wild-type, while inherently requiring sialidase activity. Further, claims 29, 38-39 recite an antibody conjugate, which comprises an unidentified immunoglobulin light and heavy chain.
To provide evidence of possession of a claimed genus, the specification must provide sufficient distinguishing identifying characteristics of the genus. The factors to be considered include disclosure of complete or partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics, structure/function correlation, methods of making the claimed product, or any combination thereof. The specification makes clear that Applicant has possession of sialidase enzymes comprising SEQ ID NOs: 48-50, 52-54, 149, 154, 159 and 191 (see paragraphs [0013]; [00116]; [00131]) and antibody conjugates comprising a first, second and third polypeptide as set forth in paragraph [00174]. As noted above, the claims encompass a Neu2 sialidase having as little as 50% sequence identity to wild-type while preserving Neu2 sialidase activity. Further, regarding the antibody conjugates, it is well established in the art that the formation of an intact antigen-binding site generally requires the association of the complete heavy and light chain variable regions of a given antibody, each of which consists of three CDRs which provide the majority of the contact residues for the binding of the antibody to its target epitope. The amino acid sequences and conformations of each of the heavy and light chain CDRs are critical in maintaining the antigen binding specificity and affinity which is characteristic of the parent immunoglobulin, however, the claims do not recite any structure for the antibodies. Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient recitation of distinguishing identifying characteristics of the sialidases and antibody conjugates, the specification does not provide adequate written description of the claimed genus.
Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 19USPQ2d 1111, clearly states that “applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the ‘written description’ inquiry, whatever is now claimed.” (See page 1117.) The specification does not “clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed.” (See Vas-Cath at page 1116). With the exception of SEQ ID NOs: 48-50, 52-54, 149, 154, 159 and 191 (see paragraphs [0013]; [00116]; [00131]) and antibody conjugates comprising a first, second and third polypeptide as set forth in paragraph [00174], the skilled artisan cannot envision the detailed chemical structure of the encompassed polypeptides, and therefore conception is not achieved until reduction to practice has occurred, regardless of the complexity or simplicity of the method of isolation. Adequate written description requires more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method of isolating it. The compound itself is required. See Fiers v. Revel, 25 USPQ2d 1601 at 1606 (CAFC 1993) and Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., 18 USPQ2d 1016.
One cannot describe what one has not conceived. See Fiddes v. Baird, 30 USPQ2d 1481 at 1483. In Fiddes, claims directed to mammalian FGF’s were found to be unpatentable due to lack of written description for that broad class. The specification provided only the bovine sequence. Therefore, only sialidases comprising the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 48-50, 52-54, 149, 154, 159 and 191 (see paragraphs [0013]; [00116]; [00131]) and antibody conjugates comprising a first, second and third polypeptide as set forth in paragraph [00174], but not the full breadth of the claim meets the written description provision of 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph. Applicant is reminded that Vas-Cath makes clear that the written description provision of 35 U.S.C. §112 is severable from its enablement provision (see page 1115).
Notice for all US Patent Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013: 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6 and 46-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Warner (US Patent 5,928,915). Warner teaches a sialidase having the sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 26, which shares about 69.5% similarity with a recombinant mutant human Neu2 sialidase in which both the P62 or A93 are substituted (see “Claim Interpretation”). In addition, Warner also teaches substitutions at residues Q126 and Q270, thus meeting the limitations of claims 1 and 2. Warner teaches that the P62 substitution may be P62D and the A93 substitution may be A93K, which anticipates claim 5. Warner teaches the glutamine residue at position 126 is substituted by histidine (Q126H), thereby meeting the limitation of claim 6. See the alignment between the Neu2 protein encompassed by claims 1 and 2 and SEQ ID NO: 26 of Warner:
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Genentech, Inc.
TITLE OF INVENTION: CHO Cell Sialidase By Recombinant DNA Technology
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 26
SEQ ID NO 26
LENGTH: 379
TYPE: PRT
Query Match 69.5%; Score 1403.5; Length 379;
Best Local Similarity 69.5%;
Matches 262; Conservative 48; Mismatches 66; Indels 1; Gaps 1;
Qy 1 MASLPVLQKESVFQSGAHAYRIPALLYLPGQQSLLAFAEQRASKKDEHAELIVLRRGDYD 60
||: ||||||::||:| :|||||||:|| |::||||||:| :| ||||:| ||||| |:
Db 1 MATCPVLQKETLFQTGDYAYRIPALIYLSKQKTLLAFAEKRLTKTDEHADLFVLRRGSYN 60
Qy 61 AXTHQVQWQAQEVVAQARLDGHRSMNPCPLYDXQTGTLFLFFIAIPGQVTEQQQLQTRAN 120
|:||||||||:||| || |:|||||:||||||:|| ||||||||: ||::| |||| |
Db 61 ADTHQVQWQAEEVVTQAYLEGHRSMSPCPLYDKQTRTLFLFFIAVRGQISEHHQLQTGVN 120
Qy 121 VTRLCQVTSTDHGRTWSSPRDLTDAAIGPAYREWSTFAVGPGHCLQLHDRARSLVVPAYA 180
||||| :||||||:|||: :|||| || :::|:|| ||||||||| : | ||:|||||
Db 121 VTRLCHITSTDHGKTWSAVQDLTDTTIGSTHQDWATFGVGPGHCLQLRNTAGSLLVPAYA 180
Qy 181 YRKLHPIQRPIPSAFCFLSHDHGRTWARGHFVAQDTLECQVAEVETGEQRVVTLNARSHL 240
||| || | |||||||||||| || ||||:|::|||||||| || :||| ||||| |
Db 181 YRKQPPIHAPAPSAFCFLSHDHGSTWELGHFVSQNSLECQVAEVGTGAERVVYLNARSCL 240
Qy 241 RARVQAQSTNDGLDFQESQLVKKLVEPPPQGCQGSVISFPSPRSGPGSPAQWLLYTHPTH 300
||||||| | |||||::|:| |||| ||:|| ||||:||:| | : ||||||||
Db 241 GARVQAQSPNSGLDFQDNQVVSKLVE-PPKGCHGSVIAFPNPTSKADALDVWLLYTHPTD 299
Qy 301 SWQRADLGAYLNPRPPAPEAWSEPVLLAKGSCAYSDLQSMGTGPDGSPLFGCLYEANDYE 360
| :| :|| ||| :| | || | ||| | |||||||:|| |||||| ||||||:|:||
Db 300 SRKRTNLGVYLNQKPLDPTTWSAPTLLATGICAYSDLQNMGHGPDGSPQFGCLYESNNYE 359
Qy 361 EIVFLMFTLKQAFPAEY 377
||||||||||||||| :
Db 360 EIVFLMFTLKQAFPAVF 376
Warner also teaches a nucleotide sequence encoding SEQ ID NO: 26, an expression vector comprising said nucleotide sequence, a host cell transformed with said nucleotide sequence, and the process of transforming a host cell and expressing the protein set forth in SEQ ID NO: 26 (see claims 1-5), thereby meeting the limitations of claims 46-48. Finally, Warner teaches that the sialidase may be formulated in a pharmaceutically acceptable dosage form (see column 17, lines 14-22), thereby meeting the limitation of claim 49.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chiou (Sequence submitted (MAY-2018) to the EMBL/GenBank/DDBJ databases). Chiou teaches a sialidase sharing about 96% sequence similarity with a recombinant mutant human Neu2 sialidase in which P62 is substituted with serine, thereby meeting the limitation of claims 1 and 5. See the alignment between the sialidase submitted by Chiou and instant claim 1:
RESULT 16
A0A8D2FMI2_THEGE
ID A0A8D2FMI2_THEGE Unreviewed; 381 AA.
AC A0A8D2FMI2;
DT 19-JAN-2022, integrated into UniProtKB/TrEMBL.
DT 19-JAN-2022, sequence version 1.
DT 10-JUN-2026, entry version 20.
DE RecName: Full=exo-alpha-sialidase {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00012733};
DE EC=3.2.1.18 {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00012733};
GN Name=NEU2 {ECO:0000313|Ensembl:ENSTGEP00000025016.1};
OS Theropithecus gelada (Gelada baboon).
OC Eukaryota; Metazoa; Chordata; Craniata; Vertebrata; Euteleostomi; Mammalia;
OC Eutheria; Euarchontoglires; Primates; Haplorrhini; Catarrhini;
OC Cercopithecidae; Cercopithecinae; Theropithecus.
OX NCBI_TaxID=9565 {ECO:0000313|Ensembl:ENSTGEP00000025016.1, ECO:0000313|Proteomes:UP000694411};
RN [1] {ECO:0000313|Ensembl:ENSTGEP00000025016.1}
RP NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE [LARGE SCALE GENOMIC DNA].
RA Chiou K.L., Snyder-Mackler N.;
RT "Whole genome of Theropithecus gelada.";
RL Submitted (MAY-2018) to the EMBL/GenBank/DDBJ databases.
CC --------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC Copyrighted by the UniProt Consortium, see https://www.uniprot.org/terms
CC Distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) License
CC --------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR RefSeq; XP_025261305.1; XM_025405520.1.
DR AlphaFoldDB; A0A8D2FMI2; -.
DR Ensembl; ENSTGET00000029800.1; ENSTGEP00000025016.1; ENSTGEG00000020184.1.
DR GeneID; 112636698; -.
DR KEGG; tge:112636698; -.
DR CTD; 4759; -.
DR Proteomes; UP000694411; Chromosome 12.
DR GO; GO:0005737; C:cytoplasm; IEA:TreeGrafter.
DR GO; GO:0016020; C:membrane; IEA:TreeGrafter.
DR GO; GO:0004308; F:exo-alpha-sialidase activity; IEA:UniProtKB-EC.
DR GO; GO:0006689; P:ganglioside catabolic process; IEA:UniProtKB-ARBA.
DR GO; GO:0009313; P:oligosaccharide catabolic process; IEA:TreeGrafter.
DR CDD; cd15482; Sialidase_non-viral; 1.
DR FunFam; 2.120.10.10:FF:000002; Neuraminidase 3; 1.
DR Gene3D; 2.120.10.10; -; 1.
DR InterPro; IPR011040; Sialidase.
DR InterPro; IPR026856; Sialidase_fam.
DR InterPro; IPR036278; Sialidase_sf.
DR PANTHER; PTHR10628; SIALIDASE; 1.
DR PANTHER; PTHR10628:SF6; SIALIDASE-2; 1.
DR Pfam; PF13088; BNR_2; 1.
DR SUPFAM; SSF50939; Sialidases; 1.
PE 3: Inferred from homology;
KW Carbohydrate metabolism {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00023277};
KW Glycosidase {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00023295};
KW Hydrolase {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00022801};
KW Lipid degradation {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00022963};
KW Lipid metabolism {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00023098};
KW Reference proteome {ECO:0000313|Proteomes:UP000694411};
KW Repeat {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00022737}.
FT DOMAIN 34..344
FT /note="Sialidase"
FT /evidence="ECO:0000259|Pfam:PF13088"
FT ACT_SITE 47
FT /note="Proton acceptor"
FT /evidence="ECO:0000256|PIRSR:PIRSR626856-1"
FT ACT_SITE 335
FT /note="Nucleophile"
FT /evidence="ECO:0000256|PIRSR:PIRSR626856-1"
FT ACT_SITE 356
FT /evidence="ECO:0000256|PIRSR:PIRSR626856-1"
FT BINDING 22
FT /ligand="substrate"
FT /evidence="ECO:0000256|PIRSR:PIRSR626856-2"
FT BINDING 42
FT /ligand="substrate"
FT /evidence="ECO:0000256|PIRSR:PIRSR626856-2"
FT BINDING 219
FT /ligand="substrate"
FT /evidence="ECO:0000256|PIRSR:PIRSR626856-2"
SQ SEQUENCE 381 AA; 42160 MW; 3D9A30EA2A8C2BA4 CRC64;
Query Match 96.4%; Score 1946.5; Length 381;
Best Local Similarity 95.8%;
Matches 365; Conservative 7; Mismatches 8; Indels 1; Gaps 1;
Qy 1 MASLPVLQKESVFQSG-AHAYRIPALLYLPGQQSLLAFAEQRASKKDEHAELIVLRRGDY 59
|||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||:||||||||||||||||||||| || |
Db 1 MASLPVLQKESVFQSGAAHAYRIPALLYLPGQQTLLAFAEQRASKKDEHAELIVLCRGGY 60
Qy 60 DAXTHQVQWQAQEVVAQARLDGHRSMNPCPLYDXQTGTLFLFFIAIPGQVTEQQQLQTRA 119
||:| |||||||||||||:||||||||||||||:||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 DASTRQVQWQAQEVVAQAQLDGHRSMNPCPLYDAQTGTLFLFFIAIPGQVTEQQQLQTRA 120
Qy 120 NVTRLCQVTSTDHGRTWSSPRDLTDAAIGPAYREWSTFAVGPGHCLQLHDRARSLVVPAY 179
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||:|||||||
Db 121 NVTRLCQVTSTDHGRTWSSPRDLTDAAIGPAYREWSTFAVGPGHCLQLHDRAQSLVVPAY 180
Qy 180 AYRKLHPIQRPIPSAFCFLSHDHGRTWARGHFVAQDTLECQVAEVETGEQRVVTLNARSH 239
||| ||||||| ||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||
Db 181 AYRNLHPIQRPSPSAFCFLSHDHGRTWVRGHFVAQDTLECQVAEVEAGEQRVVTLNARSH 240
Qy 240 LRARVQAQSTNDGLDFQESQLVKKLVEPPPQGCQGSVISFPSPRSGPGSPAQWLLYTHPT 299
||||:|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||
Db 241 LRARIQAQSTNDGLDFQESQLVKKLVEPPPQGCQGSVISFPSPHSGPGSPAQWLLYTHPT 300
Qy 300 HSWQRADLGAYLNPRPPAPEAWSEPVLLAKGSCAYSDLQSMGTGPDGSPLFGCLYEANDY 359
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||:||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 301 HSWQRADLGAYLNPRPPAPEAWSEPVLLAKGNCAYSDLQSMGTGPDGSPLFGCLYEANDY 360
Qy 360 EEIVFLMFTLKQAFPAEYLPQ 380
|||||||||||||||||||||
Db 361 EEIVFLMFTLKQAFPAEYLPQ 381
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA M BORGEEST whose telephone number is (571)272-4482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30 EDT.
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, Jeffrey Stucker can be reached at 5712720911. 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.
/CHRISTINA M BORGEEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1675
Prosecution Insights