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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Responsive to communications entered 11NOV2025.
Claims pending 1-14
Claims currently under consideration 1-14
Priority
This application has a filing date of 02/17/2022 and is a 371 of PCT/EP2020/075109 filed 09/08/2020
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) to UNITED KINGDOM document no. 1913351.1 filed 09/16/2019. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the application file.
Withdrawn Objection(s) and/or Rejection(s)
The rejection of claims 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is hereby withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Maintained 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1,4-6,8,10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 and 2) as being anticipated by Miles et al (US AppPub 20150269312 – IDS entry 2/17/2022).
Miles et al teach, throughout the document and especially the abstract and figures 1-8, methods and computer systems that qualify a subgroup of target binding biomolecules (e.g. antibody clones) from a larger group thereof for further study. More specifically, in the passages particularly when taken with paragraphs 0068,0030,0034, Miles et al disclose a method including steps of: in a competitive immunoassay including a target protein, identifying interactions between different pairs of the target binding biomolecules, next using a processing unit, generating interaction profiles for said target binding biomolecules from said identified interactions; then using a binning unit, allocating each target binding biomolecule to a bin, wherein each bin represents an epitope family and target binding biomolecules sharing a common interaction profile are allocated to a common bin and each target binding biomolecule is only allocated to one bin; and finally associating data representative thereof identified bins with identified respective target binding biomolecule(s), wherein based on the association between identified bins and identified respective target binding molecule(s) in the bin chart, selecting a subgroup of target binding biomolecules for further analysis by selecting one or more of the target binding biomolecule(s) of one or more of the bins. As such, the foregoing passages read on claims 1,5, the line embodiment of claim 6; claims 8,10,11; and necessarily on claims 4,12,13 & 14.
***
Please note that the above rejection has been modified from the original version to more clearly address applicants’ newly amended and/or arguments.
Response to Arguments
Page 6 of the remarks accompanying the present response argue the examiner has not pointed out where the claimed subject matter is disclosed in the Miles reference and asserts Miles as not teaching association in a circular or semi-circular bin chart on a display.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not deemed persuasive for the following reasons.
Regarding which sections of Miles teach the claimed subject matter, Applicant’s attention is respectfully invited to the abstract, figures 1-8 in light of paragraphs 0068,0030,0034 as reiterated above from p 3 of the previous action.
Concerning association in a circular or semi-circular bin chart on a display, it is noted present claims 1,4-6,8,10-14 are not so limited, that is the “associating...” in claim 1 lines 12-13 is set forth in the alternative with associating data representative, which is indeed disclosed in Miles et al in figure 1 as elements 120,130 and 140 or else figures 3E at least.
As such in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., associating in a circular or semi-circular bin chart on a display) does not limit the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
Claims 1,4-6,8,10-14 and 2,3,7,9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miles et al (US AppPub 20150269312 – IDS entry 2/17/2022) in view of Lanzavecchia et al (US AppPub 20110212106).
Miles et al is relied on as above.
Miles et al do not explicitly teach: associating bins of identified respective target binding biomolecule(s) illustrated as patterned circle sectors displayed in a pie or doughnut chart with a line connecting bin sectors in the middle of a doughnut shape connecting separate bins with each other per claims 1-3,7; nor receptors as targets as recited in claim 9.
As in claim 9, Lanzavecchia et al throughout the document and especially the abstract and paragraph 0154, teach antibodies against AIDS virus HIV-1 gp120 and/or suggest antibodies against human CD4 receptor. Moreover in figure 7, Lanzavecchia et al quite literally disclose epitope bins of target binding biomolecules illustrated as patterned circle sectors displayed in doughnut chart with a line around the inner circumference intersecting the sectors like claim 1 lines 12,13-14; claims 2, 3 and “a line connecting bin sectors in the middle of the [recited] doughnut shape connecting separate bins with each other” of claim 7.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have displayed epitope bins of Miles et al in a doughnut chart such as by Lanzavecchia et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have displayed epitope bins of Miles et al in a doughnut chart such as by Lanzavecchia et al for the benefit of evaluating if particular antibody clones can neutralize a broad spectrum of viral strains, beneficial in treating AIDS according to Lanzavecchia et al in paragraphs 0004-0004.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying the pie and/or doughnut chart of Lanzavecchia et al toward evaluating epitopes of Miles et al since such formats have been used in the biochemical arts and related fields for centuries.
***
Please note that the above rejection has been modified from the original version to more clearly address applicants’ newly amended and/or arguments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant does not offer further arguments regarding the above obviousness rejection(s) beyond what was set forth with regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection, above. To the extent that Applicant is merely repeating their previous argument, the examiner respectfully submits that those issues were adequately addressed in the above section(s), which is/are incorporated in their entireties herein by reference.
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 CHRISTOPHER M GROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-4446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Heather Calamita can be reached on (571)272-2876. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M GROSS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1684
19FEB2026
Prosecution Insights