DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 24-30, 32, 34 and 44-47 are pending.
Claims 26-30, 32 and 34 have been withdrawn.
Claims 24, 25, 44, 45 and 47 are currently under examination.
Applicant elected the claims of Group I drawn to an anti-LILRB4 antibody in their response on July 25, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 47 is objected to The Sequence Listing submitted by Applicant was improper. As disclosed below, the submitted Sequence Listing was not in ABSS Export readable format. Applicant must submit a Sequence Listing was not in ABSS Export readable format. If you have questions contact STIC-S3C at 571-272-2510 or STICSSSCHelpdesk@uspto.gov.
1. REQUIREMENTS FOR PATENT APPLICATIONS CONTAINING NUCLEOTIDE AND/OR AMINO ACID SEQUENCE DISCLOSURES
Items 1) and 2) provide general guidance related to requirements for sequence disclosures.
37 CFR 1.821(c) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.821(a) must contain a "Sequence Listing," as a separate part of the disclosure, which presents the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences and associated information using the symbols and format in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825. This "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure may be submitted:
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (see Section I.1 of the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application- process/filing-online/legal-framework-efs-web), hereinafter "Legal Framework") as an ASCII text file, together with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file in a separate paragraph of the specification as required by 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
ii) the date of creation; and
iii) the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) on read-only optical disc(s) as permitted by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(1)(ii), labeled according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5), with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8) and 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) in a separate paragraph of the specification identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
the date of creation; and
the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(2) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF file (not recommended); or
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(3) on physical sheets of paper (not recommended).
When a “Sequence Listing” has been submitted as a PDF file as in 1(c) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(2)) or on physical sheets of paper as in 1(d) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(3)), 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1) requires a computer readable form (CRF) of the “Sequence Listing” in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.824.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the PDF copy and the CRF copy (the ASCII text file copy) are identical.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed on paper or read-only optical disc, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the paper or read-only optical disc copy and the CRF are identical.
Specific deficiencies and the required response to this Office Action are as follows:
Specific deficiency 1 - The Incorporation by Reference paragraph required by 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) is missing or incomplete. See item 1) a) or 1) b) above. In the instant case, the file size is disclosed in the wrong unit (KB), whereas it should be disclosed in bytes.
Required response – Applicant must provide:
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required incorporation-by-reference paragraph, consisting of:
A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
Specific deficiency 2 - This application contains sequence disclosures in accordance with the definitions for nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences set forth in 37 CFR 1.821(a)(1) and (a)(2). However, this application fails to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825.
The sequence disclosure is located on page 17 at line 9.
Required response – Applicant must provide:
A "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure, as described above in item 1); as well as
An amendment specifically directing entry of the "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure into the application in accordance with 1.825(b)(2);
A statement that the "Sequence Listing" includes no new matter in accordance with 1.825(b)(5); and
A statement that indicates support for the amendment in the application, as filed, as required by 37 CFR 1.825(b)(4).
If the "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure is submitted according to item 1) a) or b) above, Applicant must also provide:
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required incorporation-by-reference paragraph, consisting of:
A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter;
If the "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure is submitted according to item 1) b), c), or d) above, Applicant must also provide:
A replacement CRF in accordance with 1.825(b)(6); and
Statement according to item 2) a) or b) above.
1. REQUIREMENTS FOR PATENT APPLICATIONS CONTAINING NUCLEOTIDE AND/OR AMINO ACID SEQUENCE DISCLOSURES
Items 1) and 2) provide general guidance related to requirements for sequence disclosures.
37 CFR 1.821(c) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.821(a) must contain a "Sequence Listing," as a separate part of the disclosure, which presents the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences and associated information using the symbols and format in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825. This "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure may be submitted:
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (see Section I.1 of the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application- process/filing-online/legal-framework-efs-web), hereinafter "Legal Framework") as an ASCII text file, together with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file in a separate paragraph of the specification as required by 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
ii) the date of creation; and
iii) the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) on read-only optical disc(s) as permitted by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(1)(ii), labeled according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5), with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8) and 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) in a separate paragraph of the specification identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
the date of creation; and
the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(2) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF file (not recommended); or
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(3) on physical sheets of paper (not recommended).
When a “Sequence Listing” has been submitted as a PDF file as in 1(c) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(2)) or on physical sheets of paper as in 1(d) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(3)), 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1) requires a computer readable form (CRF) of the “Sequence Listing” in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.824.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the PDF copy and the CRF copy (the ASCII text file copy) are identical.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed on paper or read-only optical disc, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the paper or read-only optical disc copy and the CRF are identical.
PNG
media_image1.png
318
1337
media_image1.png
Greyscale
35 USC § 112(a) rejections maintained
The rejection of claims for failing to comply with the written description are maintained.
The claims are drawn to an anti-leukocyte immunoglobin-like receptor B4 (LILRB4) monoclonal antibody or a polyclonal antibody or a derivative thereof, wherein the antibody or derivative thereof inhibits binding between fibronectin and LILRB4. Claim 39 is drawn to an anti-LILRB4 antibody that activates LILRB4 that binds to the amino acid sequence represented by SEQ ID NO: 1
The specification discloses one anti-LILRB4 antibody, the anti-LILRB4 monoclonal antibody ZM4.1.
Applicant argue that they discovered unknown and non-obvious functions and uses of specific chemical species (i.e., anti-leukocyte immunoglobin-like receptor B4 (LILRB4) antibodies and derivatives thereof, anti-fibronectin antibodies and derivatives thereof, fibronectin analogs, and combinations thereof). Applicant argues that the claimed inventions reside in the novel application, i.e., the immune check point drug, of the specific chemical species as active agents. Applicant argues how to select the chemical species which inhibit binding between fibronectin (i.e., FN30) and LILRB4 ((i.e., B4) is disclosed in Example 6 (see paragraphs 0167 to 0168) of the description in the specification of the present patent application.
Applicant further argues that the specific chemical species (i.e., anti-leukocyte immunoglobin-like receptor B4 (LILRB4) antibodies and derivatives thereof, anti-fibronectin antibodies and derivatives thereof, fibronectin analogs, and combinations thereof) wherein each of the specific chemical species inhibits binding between
fibronectin and LILRB4 inhibit binding between fibronectin and LILRB4, thereby providing unexpected therapeutic effects in Examples 12, and 14 to 18. Applicant argues that an anti-LILRB4 antibody and a derivative thereof, an anti-fibronectin antibody and a derivative thereof, and a fibronectin analog themselves are not claimed subject matter. Applicant argues that the current claims are drawn to a therapeutic application (i.e., an immune checkpoint inhibitor drug for inhibiting binding between fibronectin and LILRB4) wherein the active agent is used as an ingredient.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. The claims are drawn to an anti-LILRB4 antibody, a product, not a method for using the anti-LILRB4 antibody. Thus, the claims are drawn to an anti-LILRB4 antibody that inhibits the binding between the fibronectin and the LILRB4.
Applicant appears to be arguing that the claimed anti-LILRB4 antibodies have unexpected therapeutic effects. Thus, it appears as if the claimed anti-LILRB4 antibodies are being defined by function, the ability to inhibit binding between fibronectin and LILRB4 and the ability to activate LILRB4. However, without a correlation between structure and function, the claim does little more than define the claimed invention by function. That is not sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406 (“definition by function … does not suffice to define the genus because it is only an indication of what the gene does, rather than what it is”).
With regards to Applicant’s argument that how to select the anti-LILRB4 antibodies which inhibit binding between fibronectin is disclosed in Example 6, possession may not be shown by merely describing how to obtain possession of members of the claimed genus or how to identify their common structural features. See University of Rochester, 358 F.3d at 927, 69 USPQ2d at 1895.
The court in In re Alonso (Fed. Cir. 2008) citing In re Enzo, Enzo, 323 F.3d at 969 stated that
[F]or purposes of satisfying the written description requirement, it is not enough merely to disclose a method of making and identifying compounds capable of being used to practice the claimed invention.
The Court in has indicated in Amgen Inc vs Sanofi ( 2017-1480, Fed Cir, 2017) stated that “an adequate written description must contain enough information about the actual makeup of the claim products – a precise definition such as by structure, formula, chemical name, physical properties, or other properties, of species falling within the genus sufficient to distinguish the genus from other material,” which may be present in “function “terminology “when the art has established a correlation between structure and function” (page 17, 1st paragraph). The Court went on to indicate that knowledge of the chemical structure of an antigen does not tell you anything about the structure of the antibody (Id).
The specification only discloses the structure of one anti-LILRB4 antibody, ZM4.1. The antibody ZM4.1 was already known in the art. There are insufficient structural features common to all members of the genus of anti-LILRB4 antibodies that inhibit binding between fibronectin and LILRB4 and activate LILRB4. The specification does not disclose sufficient information on the structural function relationship to identify the claimed genus of anti-LILRB4 antibodies. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to identify the broad claimed genus of anti-LILRB4 antibodies that inhibit binding between fibronectin and LILRB4 and activate LILRB4.
In addition, the term “derivative” does to appear to be defined in the specification. The term “derivative” is not one, which has a universally accepted meaning in the art nor is it one which has been adequately defined in the specification. The primary deficiency in the use of this phrase is the absence of an ascertainable meaning for said phrase. Since it is unclear how the anti-LILRB4 antibodies are to be derivatized, there is no way for a person of skill in the art to ascribe a discrete and identifiable class of compounds to said phrase. In addition, since the term “derived” does not appear to be clearly defined in the specification, and the term can encompass proteins with amino acid substitutions, insertions, or deletions, chemically derivatized molecules, or even mimetics. The specification does not disclose even one example for a derivative of an anti-LILRB4 antibody that inhibits the binding between the fibronectin and the LILRB4
35 USC § 102(b) rejections
The rejections of claims 24, 25, 44, 45 and 47 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gui et al (Cancer Immunol Res 7:1244-1257, published June 18, 2019, IDS, cited previously).
The claims are drawn to an anti-leukocyte immunoglobin-like receptor B4 (LILRB4) monoclonal antibody or a polyclonal antibody or a derivative thereof, wherein the antibody or derivative thereof inhibits binding between fibronectin and LILRB4. Claim 39 is drawn to an anti-LILRB4 antibody that activates LILRB4.
Gui discloses 26 rabbit anti-LILRB4 antibodies (page 4, 2nd paragraph). Although Gui does not specifically disclose that Gui’s anti-LILRB4 antibodies inhibits binding between fibronectin and LILRB4 and that Gui’s anti-LILRB4 antibodies activates LILRB4 such characterizations are merely suggestive of an intended use and are not given weight for purposes of comparing the claims with the prior art. The claims read on the product per se, an antibody that binds the protein consisting of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:1. Therefore, since the prior art teaches the identical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01.
The rejections of claims 24, 25, 44, 45 and 47 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deng et al (Nature 562:605-6092018, IDS) are maintained.
Deng discloses the anti-LILRB4 ZM4.1 antibodies (Methods and Antibodies sections). Although Gui does not specifically disclose that Gui’s anti-LILRB4 antibodies inhibits binding between fibronectin and LILRB4 and that Gui’s anti-LILRB4 antibodies activates LILRB4 such characterizations are merely suggestive of an intended use and are not given weight for purposes of comparing the claims with the prior art. The claims read on the product per se, an antibody that binds the protein consisting of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:22. Therefore, since the prior art teaches the identical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01.
Furthermore, Deng discloses the anti-LILRB4 ZM4.1 antibody, the only anti-LILRB4 antibody specifically recited in the specification. If the ZM4.1 antibody does not have the claimed functions, then the specification does not recite any specific antibody with the claimed functions of inhibiting binding between fibronectin and LILRB4 and activating LILRB4.
The rejections of claims 24, 25, 44, 45 and 47 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Sharma et al (US 2022/0144944, published May 12, 2022, effective filing date March 1, 2019) are maintained.
Sharma discloses monoclonal and polyclonal anti-LILRB4 antibodies (paragraphs 25, 33-39, 52, 106, 107, 113). Although Sharma does not specifically disclose that Sharma’s anti-LILRB4 antibodies inhibits binding between fibronectin and LILRB4 and that Sharma’s anti-LILRB4 antibodies activates LILRB4 such characterizations are merely suggestive of an intended use and are not given weight for purposes of comparing the claims with the prior art. The claims read on the product per se, an antibody that binds the protein consisting of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:22. Therefore, since the prior art teaches the identical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01.
Furthermore, polyclonal anti-LILRB4 antibodies would necessarily have the claimed function.
Applicant argues that Gui, Deng and Sharma do not specifically disclose anti-LILRB4 antibodies inhibit binding between fibronectin and LILRB4, as required by amended claims 24 and 25. Applicant argues that an important aspect of the claimed invention resides in unique use and application, i.e., an immune checkpoint inhibitor drug for inhibiting binding between fibronectin and LILRB4. Applicant argues that Gui, Deng and Sharma do not teach or suggest the critically important and unique features and functions of "inhibiting binding between fibronectin and an immunosuppressive receptor LILRB4" and "inhibiting the binding of the fibronectin to the LILRB4", exerted with the specific chemical species (i.e., anti-leukocyte immunoglobin-like receptor B4 (LILRB4) antibodies. Applicant argues that the Examiner's view of "such characterizations are merely suggestive of an intended use and are not given weight for purpose of comparing the claims with the prior art." is moot. Applicant argues that claims 24 and claim 25 which depends thereon cannot be said to be anticipated by or rendered obvious by Gui, Deng and/or Sharma.
Applicant further argues that the amended claims are directed to immune checkpoint inhibitor drugs for inhibiting binding between fibronectin and LILRB4 and methods for inhibiting binding between fibronectin and LILRB4 wherein non-obvious uses of the chemical species as active agents are defined. Applicant argues that the specific and unique features, such as non-obvious therapeutic applications of an anti-LILRB4 antibody as an active agent, are not suggested by Gui, Deng and/or Sharma individually or in combination. Applicant argues that the claimed invention provides an unexpected and advantageous effect (such as cancer metastasis inhibitory effect and effect of promoting osteoclast differentiation) demonstrated by experimental data. Applicant argues that the claimed invention involves a novelty and inventive step over the cited prior art documents.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. As an initial note the elected claims are drawn to an anti- LILRB4 monoclonal antibody or a polyclonal antibody or a derivative thereof, wherein the antibody or derivative thereof inhibits binding between fibronectin and LILRB4 and binds to the amino acid sequence represented by SEQ ID NO: 1, not methods of using the anti- LILRB4 antibody.
While Gui, Deng and Sharma do not explicitly disclose the function of the anti- LILRB4 antibody, the anti- LILRB4 antibodies of Gui, Deng and Sharma appears to be identical to the claimed anti- LILRB4 antibodies, and thus the anti- LILRB4 antibodies disclosed by Gui, Deng and Sharma would inherently possess the ability to inhibit cancer metastasis inhibitory effect and effect of promoting osteoclast differentiation by the claimed anti- LILRB4 antibodies. Gui discloses 26 rabbit anti-LILRB4 antibodies, at least one of which blocks LILRB4 activation. Sharma disclose polyclonal anti- LILRB4 antibodies which would almost certainly have the functions of the claimed anti- LILRB4 antibodies. Deng discloses the anti-LILRB4 ZM4.1 antibody, the only anti-LILRB4 antibody specifically recited in the specification. It has been interpreted that the anti-LILRB4 antibody, ZM4.1, has the claimed functions of binding to the amino acid sequence represented by SEQ ID NO: 1, inhibit cancer metastasis inhibitory effect and effect of promoting osteoclast differentiation. Otherwise, the specification does not disclose the structure of any anti-LILRB4 antibodies that have the claimed functions.
MPEP 2112 states
“[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
MPEP 2112 further states
There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01.
Thus, once a reference teaches a product appearing to be substantially identical to a product that is the basis of a rejection, and the Examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show an unobvious difference ‘[t]he PTO can require an Applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same...[footnote omitted].” The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (quoting In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)).” In regards to claim 24 and dependent claims, claim 24 recites an “intended use”. The active compound in claim 24 is anti-LILRB4 antibodies. Gui, Deng and Sharma disclose anti-LILRB4 antibodies. Please note that it is regarded that "intended use" of a composition or product will not further limit claims drawn to a composition or product. See, e.g., Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987) and In Re Hack 114, USPQ 161. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim limitation. Since the references teaches anti-LILRB4 antibodies, the references anticipates instant claims 24, 25, 44, 45 and 47. Thus, that Gui, Deng and Sharma did not recognize that their disclosed anti-LILRB4 antibodies were capable of binding to the amino acid sequence represented by SEQ ID NO: 1, inhibit cancer metastasis inhibitory effect and promote osteoclast differentiation does not deter from the fact that Gui, Deng and Sharma disclose anti-LILRB4 antibodies that are encompassed by the claims. These functions would be inherent properties of Gui, Deng and Sharma’s anti-LILRB4 antibodies.
Double Patenting
The provisional rejection of claims 24, 25, 44, 45 and 47 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15-18 of copending Application No. 18/577,957. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of copending Application No. 18/577,957 are drawn to a kit comprising an anti-immunosuppressive receptor LILRB4 monoclonal antibody are maintained.
Applicants do not agree that the claims are not patentably distinct. The '957 application describes biomarkers for predicting prognosis of a cancer patient whereas the instant application Appln. No. 17 /634,424 claims an immune checkpoint inhibitor to inhibit drugs from binding between receptors. Applicant argues that it is well known in the art that a biomarker in cancer are specific proteins, genes or genetic mutations
that are found in cancer cells and an inhibitor is utilized to block growth of cancers.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. For the reasons given above, if the anti-LILRB4 antibodies claimed in '957 are encompassed by the present claims these functions recited by Applicant would be inherent properties of the anti-LILRB4 antibodies recited the claims of the '957 application.
Summary
Claims 24, 25, 44, 45 and 47 stand rejected
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Mark Halvorson whose telephone number is (571) 272-6539. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Janet Epps-Smith, can be reached at (571) 272-0757. The fax phone number for this Art Unit is (571) 273-8300.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK HALVORSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1646