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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III in the reply filed on 8/7/25 is acknowledged.
Claim Status
Claims 15-24, 37-40 and 44-55 are cancelled. Claims 1-14, 25-36, and 41-43 are pending. Claims 1-14 and 25-36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/7/25.
Claims 41-43 are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 8/7/25 has been considered. A signed copy is enclosed.
The references lined through were not considered because a copy of the reference was not provided (see 37 CFR 1.98(a)).
Notably, the disclosure statement filed lists a Search Report. The listing of the references cited in a Search Report itself is not considered to be an information disclosure statement (IDS) complying with 37 CFR 1.98. 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) requires a legible copy of: (1) each foreign patent; (2) each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; (3) for each cited pending U.S. application, the application specification including claims, and any drawing of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion, unless the cited pending U.S. application is stored in the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system; and (4) all other information, or that portion which caused it to be listed. In addition, each IDS must include a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office (see 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) and (b)), and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, "the list ... must be submitted on a separate paper." Therefore, the references cited in the Search Report have not been considered. Applicant is advised that the date of submission of any item of information or any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the IDS, including all "statement" requirements of 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Note: If copies of the individual references cited on the Search Report are also cited separately on the IDS (and these references have not been lined-through) they have been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 41 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains acronyms and/or abbreviations that should be spelled out upon first occurrence. Appropriate correction is required.
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 41-43 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 claim(s) contains 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.
The MPEP states that the purpose of the written description requirement is to ensure that the inventor had possession, as of the filing date of the application, of the specific subject matter later claimed. The MPEP lists factors that can be used to determine if sufficient evidence of possession has been furnished in the disclosure of the application. These include “level of skill and knowledge in the art, partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics alone or coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between structure and function, and the method of making the claimed invention.”
The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, disclosure of drawings, or by disclosure of relevant identifying characteristics, for example, structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the Applicants were in possession of the claimed genus.
The instant claims are drawn to a method for monitoring efficacy of treatment with a MASP-2 inhibitor antibody or antigen binding fragment thereof, wherein the method comprises administering a dose of the antibody, assessing a first level of MASP-2/C1-INH complex in a biological sample obtained from the subject after the dose is administered, treating the subject with the antibody at a second point in time, assessing a second level of MASP-2/C1-INH complex in a biological sample obtained after the second dose is administered, and comparing the level of MASP-2/C1-INH complex in each sample to determine efficacy of the administered antibody. The method can further comprise adjusting the dose of MASP-2 inhibitory antibody.
There are at least two separate issues regard written description. First, the claims recite a “MASP-2 inhibitory antibody, or antigen binding fragment thereof” that is not adequately described. The claims require specific functions, namely that the antibody or fragment thereof inhibit MASP-2 and treat a disease, although the disease itself is not named in the claims. The specification provides a single example of an antibody described by sequences, which is an antibody comprising a heavy chain comprising SEQ ID NO:67, and a light chain comprising SEQ ID NO:69. However, the claims are not limited to this antibody, or to any particular disease to be treated by this antibody or any other antibody that is not provided in the specification. The specification has not provided either the structure that is correlates with the required function, or a representative number of species that are known to possess the required functions. Therefore, the recited genus of antibodies and fragments thereof is not adequately described.
Second, the claims do not actually set forth steps or thresholds to identify “efficacy of the MASP-2 inhibitory antibody”. The claims require that the method “determine the efficacy of the MASP-2 inhibitory antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof”. However, no steps are set forth that actually identify efficacy, or identify steps for measuring efficacy. There is no presented correlation, no threshold, and no control identified for the method. Therefore, the steps of the method are not adequately described.
Therefore, the specification provides insufficient written description to support the genus encompassed by the claim. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 19 USPQ2d 1111, makes clear 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.)
The skilled artisan cannot envision the detailed chemical structure of the encompassed antibodies or fragments thereof, 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 for isolating it. See Fiers v. Revel, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (CAFC 1993) and Amgen Inc. V. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., 18 USPQ2d 1016. In Fiddes v. Baird, 30 USPQ2d 1481, 1483, claims directed to mammalian FGF's were found unpatentable due to lack of written description for the broad class. The specification provided only the bovine sequence.
University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1404. 1405 held that:
...To fulfill the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe an invention and does so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that "the inventor invented the claimed invention." Lockwood v. American Airlines Inc. , 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (1997); In re Gosteli , 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (" [T]he description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed."). Thus, an applicant complies with the written description requirement "by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious," and by using "such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that set forth the claimed invention." Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2datl966.
Regarding the encompassed antibodies and fragments thereof, protein chemistry is one of the most unpredictable areas of biotechnology. This unpredictability prevents prediction of the effects that a given number or location of mutation will have on a protein (such as TNF or a cytokine) As taught by Skolnick et al (Trends Biotechnol. 2000 Jan;18(1):34-9), sequence based methods for predicting protein function are inadequate because of the multifunctional nature of proteins (see e.g. abstract). Further, just knowing the structure of the protein is also insufficient for prediction of functional sites (see e.g. abstract). Sequence to function methods cannot specifically identify complexities for proteins, such as gain and loss of function during evolution, or multiple functions possible within a cells (see e.g. page 34, right column). Skolnick advocates determining the structure of the protein, then identifying the functionally important residues since using the chemical structure to identify functional sites is more in line with how a protein actually works (see e.g. page 34, right column).
The sensitivity of proteins to alterations of even a single amino acid in a sequence are exemplified by Burgess et al. (J. Cell Biol. 111:2129-2138, 1990) who teach that replacement of a single lysine reside at position 118 of acidic fibroblast growth factor by glutamic acid led to the substantial loss of heparin binding, receptor binding and biological activity of the protein and by Lazar et al. (Mol. Cell. Biol., 8:1247-1252, 1988) who teach that in transforming growth factor alpha, replacement of aspartic acid at position 47 with alanine or asparagine did not affect biological activity while replacement with serine or glutamic acid sharply reduced the biological activity of the mitogen. These references demonstrate that even a single amino acid substitution will often dramatically affect the biological activity and characteristics of a protein.
Further, Miosge (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Sep 15;112(37):E5189-98) teach that Short of mutational studies of all possible amino acid substitutions for a protein, coupled with comprehensive
functional assays, the sheer number and diversity of missense mutations that are possible for proteins means that their functional importance must presently be addressed primarily by computational inference (see e.g. page E5189, left column). However, in a study examining some of these methods, Miosge shows that there is potential for incorrect calling of mutations (see e.g. page E5196, left column, top paragraph). The authors conclude that the discordance between predicted and actual effect of missense mutations creates the potential for many false conclusions in clinical settings where sequencing is performed to detect disease-causing mutations (see e.g. page E5195, right column, last paragraph). The findings in their study show underscore the importance of interpreting variation by direct experimental measurement of the consequences of a candidate mutation, using as sensitive and specific an assay as possible (see e.g. page E5197, left column, top paragraph). Additionally, Bork (Genome Research, 2000,10:398-400) clearly teaches the pitfalls associated with comparative sequence analysis for predicting protein function because of the known error margins for high-throughput computational methods. Bork specifically teaches that computational sequence analysis is far from perfect, despite the fact that sequencing itself is highly automated and accurate (p. 398, column 1). One of the reasons for the inaccuracy is that the quality of data in public sequence databases is still insufficient. This is particularly true for data on protein function. Protein function is context dependent, and both molecular and cellular aspects have to be considered (p. 398, column 2). Conclusions from the comparison analysis are often stretched with regard to protein products (p. 398, column 3). Further, although gene annotation via sequence database searches is already a routine job, even here the error rate is considerable (p. 399, column 2). Most features predicted with an accuracy of greater than 70% are of structural nature and, at best, only indirectly imply a certain functionality (see legend for table 1, page 399). As more sequences are added and as errors accumulate and propagate it becomes more difficult to infer correct function from the many possibilities revealed by database search (p. 399, paragraph bridging columns 2 and 3). The reference finally cautions that although the current methods seem to capture important features and explain general trends, 30% of those features are missing or predicted wrongly. This has to be kept in mind when processing the results further (p. 400, paragraph bridging cols 1 and 2).
Kulmanov et al (Bioinformatics, 34(4), 2018, 660–668), teach that there are key challenges for protein function prediction methods (see e.g. page 661, left column). These challenges arise from the difficulty identifying and accounting for the complex relationship between protein sequence structure and function (see e.g. page 661, left column). Despite significant progress in the past years in protein structure prediction, it still requires large efforts to predict protein structure with sufficient quality to be useful in function prediction (see e.g. page 661, left column). Another challenge is that proteins do not function in isolation. In particular higher level physiological functions that go beyond simple molecular interactions will require other proteins and cannot usually be predicted by considering a single protein in isolation (see e.g. page 661, left column). Due to these challenges it is not obvious what kinds of features should be used to predict the functions of a protein and whether they can be generated efficiently for a large number of proteins, such as the vast genus of antibodies encompassed by the instant claims (see e.g. page 661, left column).
Regarding the encompassed antibodies and fragments thereof, the functional characteristics of antibodies (including binding specificity and affinity are dictated on their structure. Amino acid sequence and conformation 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. For example, Vajdos et al. (J Mol Biol. 2002 Jul 5;320(2):415-28 at 416) teaches that, “ … Even within the Fv, antigen binding is primarily mediated by the complementarity determining regions (CDRs), six hypervariable loops (three each in the heavy and light chains) which together present a large contiguous surface for potential antigen binding. Aside from the CDRs, the Fv also contains more highly conserved framework segments which connect the CDRs and are mainly involved in supporting the CDR loop conformations, although in some cases, framework residues also contact antigen. As an important step to understanding how a particular antibody functions, it would be very useful to assess the contributions of each CDR side-chain to antigen binding, and in so doing, to produce a functional map of the antigen-binding site." The art shows an unpredictable effect when making single versus multiple changes to any given CDR. For example, Brown et al. (J Immunol. 1996 May;156(9):3285-91 at 3290 and Tables 1 and 2), describes how the VH CDR2 of a particular antibody was generally tolerant of single amino acid changes, however the antibody lost binding upon introduction of two amino changes in the same region.
The claims encompass an extremely large number of polypeptide constructs that have specific required functions. The specification discloses two species of constructs (hz12E9v09 and hz16G10v11) within the instant claims scope that also have the required functions, but the specification does not provide any guidance as to which protein structures, sequences or individual amino acids are necessary, or can be varied, within the polypeptide and still retain the required functions.
The claims encompass an extremely genus of antibodies or antigen binding fragments thereof that have required functions. The specification discloses two closely related sub-genera of 5T4 VHH domains and anti-CD3 antibodies designated by SEQ ID NO for the required CDRs and VH/Vl. However, the claims are not so limited. Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) decided Amgen v. Sanofi, 872 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017), which concerned adequate written description for claims drawn to antibodies. The Federal Circuit explained in Amgen that when an antibody is claimed, 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) requires adequate written description of the antibody itself even when preparation of such an antibody would be routine and conventional. Amgen, 872 F.3d at 1378-79. A key role played by the written description requirement is to prevent “attempt[s] to preempt the future before it has arrived.” Ariad at 1353, (quoting Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d at 1171). Upholding a patent drawn to a genus of antibodies that includes members not previously characterized or described could negatively impact the future development of species within the claimed genus of antibodies. In the instant application, neither the art nor the specification provide a sufficient representative number of antibodies or a sufficient structure-function correlation to meet the written description requirements.
The prior art recognizes that the antigen binding by antibodies requires precise orientation of the complementarity determining region (CDR) loops in the variable domain to establish the correct contact surface. For example, Vattekatte, (PeerJ. 2020 Mar 6:8:e8408. doi: 10.7717/peerj.8408. eCollection 2020.) teach that antigen binding in heavy chain only antibodies, (HCAbs) is mediated by only three CDR loops from the single variable domain (VHH) at the N-terminus of each heavy chain, (see abstract). The Vattekatte et al further teach that the amino acid length distribution in different regions of VHH (see Fig. S7) shows diversity in CDR lengths, and that most diversity in CDR3, (see page 7 and 19). However, the prior art also recognizes that a single protein can be bound by a very large and structurally diverse genus of antibodies (i.e., there is no common structural relationship even for antibodies that bind to the same protein, epitope, or overlapping epitopes). For example, Edwards et al. (Mol Biol. 2003 Nov 14;334(1):103-18) teach that over 1,000 different antibodies to a single protein can be generated, all with different sequences, and representative of almost the entire extensive heavy and light chain germline repertoire (42/49 functional heavy chain germlines and 33 of 70 V-lambda and V-kappa light chain germlines), and with extensive diversity in the HCDR3 region sequences (that are generated by VDJ germline segment recombination) as well (see table 2, figure 2).
Lloyd et al. (Protein Eng Des Sel. 2009 Mar;22(3):159-68. Epub 2008 Oct 29.) teach that a large majority of VH/VL germline gene segments are used in the antibody response to an antigen, even when the antibodies were selected by antigen binding, (abstract). The Lloyd et al reference further teaches that in their studies, of the 841 unselected and 5,044 selected antibodies sequenced, all but one of the 49 functional VH gene segments was observed, and that there are on average about 120 different antibodies generated per antigen (page 167, column 1). Said reference also teaches that a wide variety of VH and VL pairings further increase diversity. (page 159, column 2).
Goel et al. (J Immunol. 2004 Dec 15;173(12):7358-67) teach that three mAbs that bind to the same short (12-mer) peptide, exhibit diverse V gene usage, indicating their independent germline origin. Said reference further teaches that two of these mAbs recognize the same set of amino acid residues defining the epitope (alternate amino acid residues spread over the entire sequence), however, the relative contribution of each set of residues in the peptide showed significant variation. The reference notes that all of the mAbs do not show any kind of V gene restriction among themselves, implying variable paratope structure, despite that two of these mAbs bind to the peptide through a common set of residues. (See entire reference).
Khan et al. (J Immunol (2014) 192 (11): 5398–5405) teach that two structurally diverse germline mAbs recognizing overlapping epitopes of the same short peptide do so in different topologies, the antibodies possessing entirely different CDR sequences. Said reference teaches that unrelated mAbs structurally adjust to recognize an antigen, indicating that the primary B cell response is composed of BCRs having a high degree of structural adaptability. Said reference also teaches that the common epitope(s) also adopt distinct conformations when bound to different mAbs, with the higher degree of structural plasticity inherent to the mAbs. Said reference further teaches “It has been shown that both the framework region and the CDRs have a considerable amount of inherent conformational plasticity...Therefore, it is not surprising that distinct germline Abs recognize the same epitope by rearranging the CDR conformations. This may well have implications of Ag specificity beyond the naive BCR repertoire, because Kaji et al... .have shown in a recent report that the B cell memory can contain both germline-encoded and somatically mutated BCRs.” (See entire reference).
Poosarla et al. (Biotechnol Bioeng. 2017 June ; 114(6): 1331–1342) teach substantial diversity in designed mAbs (sharing less than 75% sequence similarity to all existing natural antibody sequences) that bind to the same 12-mer peptide, binding to different epitopes on the same peptide. Said reference further teaches “most B-cell epitopes... in nature consist of residues from different regions of the sequence and are discontinuous...de novo antibody designs against discontinuous epitopes present additional challenges...". (See entire reference.)
Rabia, et al. (Biochem Eng J. 2018 Sep 15:137:365-374. Epub 2018 Jun 5) teach what effects mutations can have on an antibody's stability, solubility, binding affinity and binding specificity. Rabia et al. report that an increase in antibody affinity can be associated with a decrease in stability (p. 366, col. 2 last paragraph; Fig. 2). Rabia et al. thus teach that affinity and specificity are not necessarily correlated and that an increase in affinity does not indicate an increase in specificity (Fig. 3; p. 368, col. 1, section 3,1st full paragraph to col. 2, 2nd full paragraph).
Therefore, neither the art nor the specification provide a sufficient representative number of antibodies or a sufficient structure-function correlation to meet the written description requirements.
Applicant is reminded that generally, in an unpredictable art, adequate written description of a genus which embraces widely variant species cannot be achieved by disclosing only one species within the genus (Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen- Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly Co., 119 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). A patentee must disclose “a representative number of species within the scope of the genus of structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can visualize or recognize the member of the genus” (see Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 124 USPQ2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2017) at page 1358). An adequate written description must contain enough information about the actual makeup of the claimed products — “a precise definition, such as structure, formula, chemic name, physical properties of other properties, of species falling with the genus sufficient to distinguish the gene from other materials”, which may be present in “functional terminology when the art has established a correlation between structure and function” (Amgen page 1361).
Given the teachings of these references that point out the limitations and pitfalls of using sequence to predict functions, and the lack of a representative number of species across the breadth of the genus, one of skill in the art would reasonably conclude that only an antibody of SEQ ID NO:67 and 69, but not the full breadth of the claims, meet the written description provision of 35 USC 112(a).
Adequate written description requires more than a mere statement that is part of the invention. See Fiers v. Revel, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (CAFC 1993) and Amgen Inc. v. Chungai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., 18 USPQ2d 1016. In Fiddes v. Baird, 30 USPQ2d 1481, 1483, claims directed to mammalian FGF's were found unpatentable due to lack of written description for the broad class. The specification provided only the bovine sequence.
The University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1404, 1405 held that: …To fulfill the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe an invention and does so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that “the inventor invented the claimed invention.” Lockwood v. American Airlines Inc. 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (1997); In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("[T]he description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed."). Thus an Applicant complies with the written description requirement "by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious," and by using "such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that set forth the claimed invention." Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2dat1966.
MPEP § 2163.02 states, “[a]n objective standard for determining compliance with the written description requirement is, 'does the description clearly allow person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that he or she invented what is claimed’”. The courts have decided: the purpose of the "written description" requirement is broader than to merely explain how to "make and use"; the 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 Vas-Cath, Inc v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Federal Circuit, 1991).
Furthermore, the written description provision of 35 USC §112 is severable from its enablement provision; and adequate written description requires more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method for isolating it. Fiers v. Revel, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (CAFC 1993). And Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., 18 USPQ2d 1016. Moreover, an adequate written description of the claimed invention must include sufficient description of at least a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, reduction to drawings, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. However, factual evidence of an actual reduction to practice has not been disclosed by Applicant in the specification; nor has Applicant shown the invention was “ready for patenting” by disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete; nor has the Applicant described distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that Applicant were in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Therefore for all these reasons the specification lacks adequate written description, and one of skill in the art cannot reasonably conclude that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the instant application was filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional assays and samples that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the law of nature and abstract idea.
The Supreme Court in Mayo laid out a framework for determining whether an applicant is seeking to patent a judicial exception itself, or a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961). See MPEP 2106. The first step of the analysis asks whether the claimed invention is directed to a statutory category of invention. The instant claims recite a method of monitoring the efficacy of a treatment with a MASP-2 inhibitory antibody or antigen binding fragment thereof. The claim is directed to a method, which is a statutory category of invention.
Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception (see MPEP 2106). Based upon an analysis with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 41-43 are determined to be directed to a law of nature/natural principle an abstract idea. The instant claims recite a method of monitoring efficacy of treatment with a MASP-2 inhibitor antibody or antigen binding fragment thereof, comprising measuring levels of MASP-2/C1-INH complexes after administration of the MASP-2 inhibitory antibody. The relationship between the level of MASP-2/C1-INH complex after administration of the MASP-2 inhibitory antibody is a natural principle, which is a judicial exception. This method describes correlation of a particular biomarker with a particular drug response, which is comparable to concepts identified by the Supreme Court in Mayo. (see Mayo 101 USPQ2d at 1966). Further, the use of the correlation to determine efficacy of the MASP-2 inhibitory antibody could be performed by a human using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas (e.g., the mental comparison in Ambry Genetics, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in Grams).
Third, a claim that focuses on the use of a natural principle must also include additional elements or steps to show that the inventor has practically applied, or added something significant to, the natural principle itself. See Mayo 101 USPQ2d at 1966. Adding steps to a natural biological process that only recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously engaged in by researchers in the field would not be sufficient. See id. At 1966, 1970. The claims identifies samples for testing, subjects to be tested, and the specification points to well-known assays for determining protein product expression levels and complex formation. The identification of sample types and subjects from which the samples are to be collected is routine in the art of medical testing. As stated in MPEP 2106.05(d), the courts have recognized the following laboratory techniques as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the life science arts when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. Determining the level of a biomarker in blood by any means has been determined as one of the well-understood, routine, conventional activity: see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1362, 123 USPQ2d 1081, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Regarding the assays to detect the MASP-2/C1-INH complexes, the assays claimed are routine in the art. This is acknowledged by the instant specification, which states that "Methods of performing a double-determinant ELISA are well-known by those of skill in the art.” (see paragraph [00692] of the published application). Therefore, the additional features of the claims (i.e., measuring the level of the recited biomarkers, and identifying the source of the sample for screening) do not ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the natural principle itself. The claims use conventional means to observe a natural correlation and therefore the steps of the claimed methods are not sufficient to transform unpatentable natural correlations into patentable applications of those regularities. This is also supported by the findings of the in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 115 USPQ2d 1152 (Fed. Cir. 2015), wherein the Federal Circuit held that claims that measure biological substances using methods that are routine and conventional do not amount to more than reliance on a correlation that is a law of nature for patentability.
The question of whether identification of the patient population amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception is addressed in Mayo Collaborative Serv. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. _, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293-94, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965-66 (2012) (citing Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187, 209 USPQ at 7), when the Supreme Court determined that process claims reciting a correlation may inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up future use of laws of nature, even though the laws of nature at issue are narrow laws that may have limited applications. After measurement of the correlation, the claims can tie up a doctor's subsequent treatment decisions, whether treatment does or does not change in light of inference the doctor has drawn using disclosed correlations, since the claims threaten to inhibit development of more refined treatment recommendations that combine the patentee's correlations with later discovered features, and since the correlation step of the claims is set forth in highly general language covering all processes that make use of the correlation. Further, the steps simply refer to a relevant patient population, which is a pre-existing audience; doctors wish to determine whether a particular patient has a disease, or if the disease has/has not progressed. The claims inform a relevant audience about certain laws of nature; and additional steps consist of well understood, routine, conventional activity already engaged in by the scientific community, and those steps, when viewed as a whole, add nothing significant beyond the sum of the parts taken separately. Even though the laws of nature at issue are narrow laws that may have limited applications, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the natural law itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 41-43 are rejected 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.
Claims 41-43 fail to set forth any step for “determin[ing] efficacy of the MASP-2 inhibitor antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof”. Without a specific step for making the determination, the scope of the claims is indefinite.
Claim 42 recites “adjusting the dose of the MASP-2 inhibitory antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof” but does not indicate at which step the adjustment must occur. It is unclear if the adjusting occurs at any point in the method steps, or if it must occur at during/after a specific method step.
The term “increased” in claim 43 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “increased” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular it is not clear to what the “increase” is compared, and at what point in the method the “increase” must occur.
Claim 43 recites the limitation "the control or reference standard". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 41-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demopulos et al (US 2020/0140570 A1; filed 6/20/19; published 5/7/20) in view of Kajdacsi et al (Front Immunol. 2020 May 5:11:794. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00794. eCollection 2020).
The applied reference has a common inventor and applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier publication date and earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
The instant claims are directed to a method for monitoring the efficacy of treatment with a MASP-2 inhibitory antibody, or antigen-binding fragment thereof, in a mammalian subject in need thereof, the method comprising:(a) administering a dose of a MASP-2 inhibitory antibody, or antigen-binding fragment thereof, to a mammalian subject at a first point in time; (b) assessing a first level of MASP-2/C1-INH complex in a biological sample obtained from the subject after step (a); (c) treating the subject with the MASP-2 inhibitory antibody, or antigen-binding fragment thereof, at a second point in time; (d) assessing a second level of MASP-2/C1-INH complex in a biological sample obtained from the subject after step (c); and (e) comparing the level of MASP-2/C1-INH complex assessed in step (b) with the level of MASP-2/C1-INH complex assessed in step (d) to determine the efficacy of the MASP-2 inhibitory antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof in the mammalian subject. The method can further comprise adjusting the dose of the MASP-2 inhibitory antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof. The method can further comprise increasing the dose of MASP-2 inhibitory antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof administered to the subject if the level of MASP-2/C1-INH complex is higher than the control or reference standard.
Demopulos teaches administration of a MASP-2 inhibitor antibody to a subject in need thereof (see e.g. abstract). The patient can have a disease such as hereditary angioedema (see e.g. paragraph [0373], claim 7). Demopulos teaches measurement of MASP-2 activation as determined by MASP-2 serpin complex formation (MASP-2-C1-INH (see e.g. paragraph [0357],[0360]). Demopulos teaches that therapeutic efficacy of MASP-2 inhibitory antibodies can be determined by standard procedures (see e.g. paragraph [0119]), for example by complement assays known to those of skill in the art (see e.g. paragraph [0123]).
Demopulos fails to teach monitoring treatment efficacy by measuring MASP-2/C1-INH complex in biological samples obtained after administration of the MASP-2 inhibitory antibody, or adjustment of the dose as a result.
Kajdacsi teaches measurement of MASP-2/C1-INH complexes in healthy controls and hereditary angioedema patients (see e.g. abstract). The measurement included ELISA tests for the complexes (see e.g. page 3, left column, last paragraph). Significantly higher concentrations of the complex was found in Type II patients compared to healthy controls and type I patients (see e.g. page 8, left column). The results suggested a prominent role of the complement lectin pathway in Hereditary angioedema (see e.g. page 8, left column).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to use an assay for MASP-2/C1-INH complexes as taught in both Demopulos and Kajdacsi because the formation of complexes was known to correlate to disease activity in a subject as taught in Kajdacsi, and therefore the assay of Kajdacsi would be reasonably predictable to detect the surrogate marker of MASP-2/C1-INH complex formation to identify whether disease state improves upon administration of the anti-MASP-2 antibody as taught in Demopulos. The Supreme Court set forth in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007), that if the scope and content of the prior art included a similar or analogous product, with differences between the claimed invention and prior art that were encompassed in known variation or in a principle known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, the claimed variation would have been predictable in to one of ordinary skill in the art. The use of the MASP-2/C1-INH assay to detect disease state after administration of a treatment would apply a known principle in the art to identify efficacy through biomarkers that indicate disease activity. The application of this assay would combine known elements by known methods, in a variation that would have been predictable to any medical professional that wanted to determine the efficacy of the treatment administrated through measurement of a surrogate marker for disease state. Thus, the combination of prior art references as combined provided a prima facie case of obviousness, absent convincing evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA MCCOLLUM whose telephone number is (571)272-4002. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
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, VANESSA FORD can be reached at (571)272-0857. 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.
/ANDREA K MCCOLLUM/Examiner, Art Unit 1674