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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/16/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. The claims have an earliest effective filing date of 07/30/2019, corresponding to application PRO 62/880,514.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 09/29/2022, 07/23/2025, and 01/16/2026 have been considered.
Status of Claims
Claims 2-3, 5-9, 12, 14-15, 17, 19, 25-29, 31-32, 34-40, 42, 44-48, 50, 53, and 56-63 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 4, 10-11, 13, 16, 18, 20-24, 30, 33, 41, 43, 49, 51-52, 54-55 and 64-68 are pending.
Rejections Withdrawn - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 23 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention, is withdrawn in view of Applicant arguments, dated 01/16/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant states: “Independent claim 1 and claims dependent thereon are directed to a method of treating a cancer comprising administering a phthalocyanine dye conjugated to an anti-CD25 antibody, and an anti-PD-1 antibody and illuminating a first tumor whereby a secondary population of cells that is distal to the first that is not directly illuminated is inhibited.
The presently claimed methods include inhibition of a population of tumor cells that is not illuminated. There is no motivation in the teachings in the cited references that it would be possible for one of ordinary skill in the art to treat a distal tumor when only a first tumor (away from the distal tumor) is illuminated and the distal tumor is not illuminated with any reasonable expectation of success.
As described and shown by the present application, combining the action of the CD25- targeted phthalocyanine dye (e.g., IR700), and the therapeutic function of the anti-PD-1 antibody can work in concert for treatment of both a primary and treatment of a secondary population of tumor cells that is distal to the illumination site (see e.g., at paragraph [0131]). Exemplary results are shown in the Working Examples, e.g., Examples 3 and 5 which demonstrate the synergistic inhibitory effect of an exemplary anti-CD25 antibody-IR700 with an anti-PD-1 antibody on the growth of distal tumors that were not illuminated. The methods provide various advantages in treating cancers, e.g., distal metastatic cancers or distal metastatic and invasive cancers, including without the need to locate and/or directly illuminate the distal metastatic tumor cells and/or invasive tumor cells. None of the cited references, Mitsunaga, Vargas et al., or Biel et al, individually or taken together, teach or suggest the presently claimed methods or effects thereof.
The Examiner alleges at page 4 of the Office Action that Biel et al. teaches that the cancer can be associated with metastasis and invasion and cites page 30, paragraph [0367], and alleges that “metastasis by definition is a secondary tumor,” and thus “the secondary population is invasive or metastatic tumor cells” are taught by Biel et al. Biel et al. teaches illuminating a tumor to target and kill the illuminated cells and includes that the illuminated, targeted cells can be metastatic cells. This is a different method than the presently claimed method, where the second population of tumor cells are not illuminated but are inhibited. Biel et al. does not teach or suggest, including at paragraph [0367] inhibition of any tumor cell population that is not illuminated.
Additionally, at page 5 of the present Office Action states that “[w]ith respect to the wherein clauses of claims 1 and 33, the conjugate without illumination is expected to be less cytotoxic than with said illumination as without removes one of its mechanisms of action... [n]ot only is each wherein clause merely a logical conclusion but it is also just the intended results of method steps positively recited and is not given patentable weight.”
Applicant respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 does not merely say “the conjugate is less cytotoxic without illumination.” The claim says something fundamentally different; the claim recites that the first tumor and the secondary distal population are both inhibited to a greater degree as compared with three different controls recited in the claim. The claim requires a therapeutic outcome in a subject with two distinct tumor populations, including a therapeutic effect in one population that is not directly illuminated.
Furthermore, MPEP § 2112(IV) warns that “[t]he Federal Circuit stated that while 'inherency may support a missing claim limitation in an obviousness analysis,’ ‘the use of inherency, a doctrine originally rooted in anticipation, must be carefully circumscribed in the context of obviousness’” and “in order to rely on inherency to establish the existence of a claim limitation in the prior art in an obviousness analysis - the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the natural result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art.” PAR Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. TWI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1194-95 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). This burden is on the Office, not the Applicant. See MPEP § 2112(IV).
Further, importantly, MPEP § 2112(IV) explicitly states that “[t]he fact that a certain result or characteristic may occur or be present in the prior art is not sufficient to establish the inherency of that result or characteristic." (quoting In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (emphasis in original).
The Office Action alleges only that the conjugate “is expected to be less cytotoxic” without illumination. Expected results do not satisfy the strict standard for inherency. The Examiner has not provided any basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support that the subjects of Biel et al. necessarily have a secondary population of metastatic tumor cells that are distal to the first tumor that are not illuminated, nor that such a population would necessarily be treated by only illuminating the primary tumor as required by MPEP §2112(IV) and case law defining the requirements of inherency in an obviousness analysis. Rather, patients having a primary tumor and a secondary tumor population represent a different patient subpopulation than the patient cohort of Biel et al. Not all patients with a tumor will have a secondary population of tumor cells. The patient cohort with a primary tumor and a secondary distal population of tumor cells does not “necessarily flow” from a cohort of patients having a primary tumor. As noted in MPEP §2112(IV) explicitly stating that “[t]he fact that a certain result or characteristic may occur or be present in the prior art is not sufficient to establish the inherency of that result or characteristic.” (emphasis added).
For at least these reasons, the Office has not met its burden of showing that the patients of Biel necessarily have a secondary distal population of cells that is not illuminated and, thus, Biel does not teach or suggest the presently claimed methods.
Furthermore, Biel et al. does not identify or suggest the presently claimed co- administered therapy, to treat a secondary population of tumor cells, let alone in the context of a method as claimed.
Biel describes only local phototoxic effect, i.e., tumor inhibition at the illuminated site. Mitsunaga et al. and Vargas et al., which the Examiner acknowledges do not treat the claimed combination, individually or in combination, do not cure this deficiency. There also is no motivation to modify their methods with Biel et al. to arrive at the presently claimed methods. Besides mentioning IR700 as the photoactive dye, Mitsunaga et al. provides no reason or motivation for a skilled person to combine the targeted dye to treat a secondary population of tumor cells, as Mitsunaga et al. teaches illuminating a single tumor and does not show any impact on a secondary population of cells.
The Examiner alleges at page 6, lines 1-2, of the present Office Action that Mitsunaga et al. “discloses that the effect occurred not only on the irradiated tumor but on a secondary tumor as well” and cites page 16 and FIG. SD of Mitsunaga et al.
Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that the Examiner has mischaracterized the teachings of Mitsunaga et al. Mitsunaga et al. is a study describing IR700 conjugated to monoclonal antibodies targeting HER2 or HER1 for treatment of cancer, and teaches that cell death of the illuminated tumor was induced upon irradiation of EGFR MaAb-IR700 bound target cells. The results in cited FIG. 5D, which use a different therapeutic than claimed, show that the second tumor (non-illuminated) is not reduced at Day 1 or Day 2, and at Day 7 (see e.g., tumor surrounded by solid line in FIG. 5D). The results in FIG. 5 consistently reference “Target specific tumor growth inhibition” or “Target-specific tumor shrinkage” (see e.g. FIG. 5e description; and title of section describing FIG. 5 results at page 5; and description of supplemental FIG. 4b). Thus, Mitsunaga et al., including in cited FIG. SD, and contrary to the assertion of the Examiner, does not teach or suggest treatment where the distal secondary population comprising metastatic tumor cells that is not illuminated is also inhibited. There is nothing in Mitsunaga et al. that teaches or suggests this effect.
Similarly, Vargas et al. does not mention, teach, or suggest treating a secondary population of tumor cells and so does not cure the deficiency of the teachings of Biel et al. and Mitsunaga et al.”
Overall, Applicant argues that claim 1 is a method by which a primary tumor is illuminated and the second tumor is not directly illuminated, but is inhibited to a greater degree as compared to the control groups. However, it remains that the wherein clauses of claim 1 is effectively an intended result. As previously discussed, Biel at al teach that the subject may have metastasis, a secondary tumor. Biel et al does not specifically teach that the metastatic tumor is affected by the primary tumor being illuminated; however it is well known in the art that immunotherapies, including PD-1, may result in abscopal responses when combined with other therapies in cancer patients as evidenced by Trommer et al (Trommer et al, Frontiers in Pharmacology, 2019, 10, 1_9; published 05/14/2019). The abscopal response is simply an intended result of the claimed method, as indicated at the Abstract - “Immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) targeting the programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) has shown promising results in the fight against cancer. Systemic anti-tumor reactions due to radiation therapy (RT) can lead to regression of non-irradiated lesions (NiLs), termed ‘abscopal effect’ (AbE).” Furthermore at p. 8, Trommer et al. state that “[i]n this data analysis, we were able to show that 29% of the patients we included after applying strict inclusion criteria showed regression of lesions outside the irradiation field. We have identified AbE after radiation therapy distinctly from the treatment effects of immunotherapy alone. Most patients presenting AbE had received multiple RTs. Abscopal responses are yet rarely described in humans and systematic analyses of patients treated with radio-immunotherapy are lacking. Our results provide evidence for a clinical existence of a systemic effect of irradiation during immunotherapy and contribute to the further development of cancer therapy options (emphasis added)…”
Finally, regarding the unexpected results, Applicant states: “the unexpected result that non-illuminated tumors (i.e., the secondary population) are inhibited to a greater degree supports nonobviousness. As discussed above, and evidenced by the Working Examples (see e.g., Examples 3 and 5 which demonstrate the synergistic inhibitory effect of an exemplary anti-CD25 antibody-IR700 with an anti-PD-1 antibody on the growth of distal tumors that were not illuminated), the claimed combination produces an inhibitor effect on distal tumors, not predicted by Biel's localized phototoxicity approach. Such advantageous effects are nonobvious, particularly when the art does not suggest or expect them.”
These arguments have been fully considered but are not deemed persuasive. Abscopal responses are well documented in the field, particularly in regards to immunotherapy combination treatments. Additionally, the data disclosed herein shows that the patterns of responses to the primary tumors and the distal tumors, such as in instant Figures 2A and 2B, are exactly the same. This in fact, does not lead to the conclusion that the combination treatment has a unique effect on the distal tumor, but instead suggest that all of the treatment groups are similarly effective in both the primary and distal tumors. Additionally, the combination treatment would be expected to work better than anti-PD-1 or IR700 PIT alone as two drugs are more effective than one. Therefore, the results are not unexpected, and the 35 USC 103 rejection is maintained. By the same logic, the obviousness-type double patenting rejections of record are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 10-11, 13, 16, 18, 20-24, 30, 33, 41, 43, 49, 51-52, 54-55, and 64-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 20180250405 (Biel et al, filed 02/15/2018).
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 33, Biel et al discloses a method of treating a tumor comprising administering immune modulating agent, administering conjugated phthalocyanine dye linked to target molecule capable of binding surface of a cell in the tumor microenvironment (TME), irradiating the tumor at a wavelength rendering the conjugate cytotoxic (Biel et al, pg. 110-111, claim 75). Biel et al discloses that the immune modulating agent can be a PD-1 antibody (Biel et al, pg. 111, claim 83). Claim 91 of the referenced application discloses that the cell surface molecule the conjugate is capable of binding can be CD25 (Biel et al, pg. 111, claim 91). Claim 129 of the referenced application discloses that the tumor can be irradiated at a wavelength of 600nm to 850nm and at a dose of at least 1J/cm2 or at least 1 J/cm fiber length. Biel et al further discloses that the cancer can be associated with metastasis and invasion (Biel et al, pg. 30, paragraph 0367). Metastasis by definition is a secondary tumor. Instant claim 4 makes clear the secondary population is invasive or metastatic tumor cells and so these are taught by Biel.
Biel et al further disclose that the treatment has no effect without illumination or where the conjugate has no cell surface binding modality (Biel et al, Figure 7 and pg. 79, paragraph 1083).
It is noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” and even when the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have similar properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2144.05.01).
The courts have also found that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II.
The claimed dose ranges merely represent an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values of the cited prior art.
Regarding claims 1 and 33 therefore, the wavelength and doses of the illumination are result effective variables in the range taught by Biel et al and so will be arrived at by routine experimentation.
With respect to the wherein clauses of claims 1 and 33, additivity is expected between the anti-PD1 antibody and anti-CD25 conjugate above. Two agents are used against the cancer cells as compared to one. Thus, the tumor populations are inhibited to a greater degree as compared to only one of the drugs. Furthermore, the conjugate without illumination is expected to be less cytotoxic than with said illumination as without removes one of its mechanisms of action. Not only is each wherein clause merely a logical conclusion but it is also just the intended results of method steps positively recited and is not given patentable weight.
Taken together, for the advantage of better treating the target cancer, it would have been obvious to combine the anti-PD1 antibody of Biel with the conjugate of Biel, even in patients with the multiple tumor populations above for the advantage of better treating the disease as additivity of the agents is expected. It is also noted that both agents are taught in Biel for the same purpose and so it is obvious to combine them into one therapeutic regimen to achieve the same purpose for which they are individually taught. Thus, claims 1, 4 and 33 are obvious here over Biel.
Regarding claims 10, 11, 13, 41, and 64-66, Biel et al discloses the conjugate can be administered prior to, simultaneously, or subsequent to the immune modulating agent (Biel et al, pg. 111, claim 79). More anti-tumor agent correlates generally with more anti-tumor effect. Thus, the administration ranges and intervals of claims 11 and 13 are result effective variables as it depends on disease type, patient, and other factors and will be arrived at by routine optimization by a person of ordinary skill in the art (Biel et al, pg. 33-34, paragraph 0394-0398).
Regarding claims 16 and 30, Biel et al discloses that the tumor can be a sarcoma or carcinoma, including head and neck, breast, liver, colon, ovary, prostate, pancreas, brain, cervix, bone, skin, eye, bladder, stomach, esophagus, peritoneum, and lung, which are solid tumors (Biel et al, pg. 113 claim 126).
Regarding claim 18, 20, 49, 51, 67 and 68, Biel et al discloses that the CD25 antibody of Biel et al can be basiliximab (Biel et al, pg. 4, paragraph 0035).
Regarding claims 21 and 52, Biel et al discloses the anti-PD1 antibody can be nivolumab, pembrolizumab, pidilizumab, MK-3475, BMS-936559, MPDL3280A, ipilimumab, tremelimumab, IMP31, BMS-986016, urelumab, TRX518, dacetuzumab, lucatumumab, SEQ-CD40, CP-870, CP-893, MED16469, MEDI4736, MOXR0916, AMP-224, and MSB001078C, or is an antigen-binding fragment thereof (Biel et al, pg. 111, claim 85).
Regarding claims 22, 23, 54, and 55, Biel et al discloses that the phthalocyanine can be IR700, which is a Si-phthalocyanine (Biel et al, pg. 113, claim 122).
Regarding claim 24, Biel et al discloses the conjugate can be administered 12-48 hours prior to irradiation (Biel et al, pg. 111, claim 81). The claimed time ranges merely represent an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values of the cited prior art. Regarding claim 24 therefore, the time is result effective variables in the range taught by Biel et al and so will be arrived at by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 43, Biel et al discloses that in some embodiments, the combination therapy provided herein, such as therapies that employ an immune modulating agent, can be used to stimulate an immune response in a cancer patient. Typically, immune responses may be detected by any of a variety of well-known parameters, including but not limited to in vivo or in vitro determination of: soluble immunoglobulins or antibodies; soluble mediators such as cytokines, lymphokines, chemokines, hormones, growth factors and the like as well as other soluble small peptide, carbohydrate, nucleotide and/or lipid mediators; cellular activation state changes as determined by altered functional or structural properties of cells of the immune system, for example cell proliferation, altered motility, induction of specialized activities such as specific gene expression or cytolytic behavior; cellular differentiation by cells of the immune system, including altered surface antigen expression profiles or the onset of apoptosis (programmed cell death); an increase in cytotoxic T-cells, activated macrophages or natural killer cells; or any other criterion by which the presence of an immune response may be detected (Biel et al, pg.50, paragraph 0529). Thus, activity of cytotoxic T cells (CD8+ T cells) is an obvious metric to use in these assays to measure success of treatment for the advantage of adjusting doses to optimize therapeutic efficacy for each patient.
Thus, the combined teachings above render all claims above obvious.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 10-11, 13, 16, 18, 20-24, 30, 33, 41, 43, 49, 51-52, 54-55, and 64-68 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 235-247, 260-275 of U.S. Patent No. 11154620 in view of US Publication 20180250405 (Biel et al, filed 02/15/2018).
The claims above are all rendered obvious by the Biel et al. The reasons for this in the 103 above are incorporated here in their entirety. Addition of the patented or copending claims over related subject matter only further supports this finding of obviousness.
The patented claims are drawn to combination treatment of cancer with a PD-1 antibody, a phthalocyanine dye, and illumination of the tumor.
Thus, the combination of the prior art with related products and/or methods to these claims renders all instant claims obvious.
Claims 1, 4, 10-11, 13, 16, 18, 20-24, 30, 33, 41, 43, 49, 51-52, 54-55, and 64-68 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 235-244, 247-249 of U.S. Patent No. 11141483 in view of US Publication 20180250405 (Biel et al, filed 02/15/2018).
The claims above are all rendered obvious by the Biel et al. The reasons for this in the 103 above are incorporated here in their entirety. Addition of the patented or copending claims over related subject matter only further supports this finding of obviousness.
The patented claims are drawn to combination treatment of cancer with a PD-1 antibody, a phthalocyanine dye, and illumination of the tumor.
Thus, the combination of the prior art with related products and/or methods to these claims renders all instant claims obvious.
Claims 1, 4, 10-11, 13, 16, 18, 20-24, 30, 33, 41, 43, 49, 51-52, 54-55, and 64-68 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 49-61, 73-83 of U.S. Application No. 17442487 in view of US Publication 20180250405 (Biel et al, filed 02/15/2018).
The claims above are all rendered obvious by the Biel et al. The reasons for this in the 103 above are incorporated here in their entirety. Addition of the patented or copending claims over related subject matter only further supports this finding of obviousness.
The copending claims are drawn to a conjugate and combination treatment of cancer with a PD-1 antibody, a phthalocyanine dye, and illumination of the tumor.
Thus, the combination of the prior art with related products and/or methods to these claims renders all instant claims obvious.
This is a provisional rejection.
Claims 1, 4, 10-11, 13, 16, 18, 20-24, 30, 33, 41, 43, 49, 51-52, 54-55, and 64-68 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 12, 16, 23-30, 35, 47, 54, 57, 59 of U.S. Application No. 18274985 in view of US Publication 20180250405 (Biel et al, filed 02/15/2018).
The claims above are all rendered obvious by the Biel et al. The reasons for this in the 103 above are incorporated here in their entirety. Addition of the patented or copending claims over related subject matter only further supports this finding of obviousness.
The copending claims are drawn to a conjugate and combination treatment of cancer with a PD-1 antibody, a phthalocyanine dye, and illumination of the tumor.
Thus, the combination of the prior art with related products and/or methods to these claims renders all instant claims obvious.
This is a provisional rejection.
Claims 1, 4, 10-11, 13, 16, 18, 20-24, 30, 33, 41, 43, 49, 51-52, 54-55, and 64-68 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 152-170 of U.S. Application No. 18554414 in view of US Publication 20180250405 (Biel et al, filed 02/15/2018).
The claims above are all rendered obvious by the Biel et al. The reasons for this in the 103 above are incorporated here in their entirety. Addition of the patented or copending claims over related subject matter only further supports this finding of obviousness.
The copending claims are drawn to a conjugate and combination treatment of cancer with a PD-1 antibody, a phthalocyanine dye, and illumination of the tumor.
Thus, the combination of the prior art with related products and/or methods to these claims renders all instant claims obvious.
This is a provisional rejection.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPHINE K DARPOLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-0115. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30ET-4:30ET.
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, Samira Jean-Louis can be reached on (571)270-3503. 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.
/J.K.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1642
/NELSON B MOSELEY II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1642