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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 19, 2025 has been entered.
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Status of Application/Amendments/claims
3. Applicant’s amendment filed September 19, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-148 are canceled. Claim 149 is amended. Claims 150-511 are newly added. Claims 149 and new claims 150-151 are pending in this application. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 16, 2024.
4. Claims 149-151 are under examination in this office action.
5. Applicant’s arguments filed on September 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections/Objections Withdrawn
6. The rejection of claims 1,130-133, 135-143 and 148 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite is moot because the claims are canceled.
The rejection of claims 131 and 136-140 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form is moot because the claims are canceled.
The rejection of claims 1,130-133, 135-143 and 148 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Helms et al. (US2016/0310424) is moot because the claims are canceled.
The rejection of claims 1,130, 132-133, 135-136, 140, 142-143 and 148 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Green et al. (PLoS ONE, 2013; 8:e58395. Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0058395) as evidenced by the factsheet of pTRE-Tight plasmid (PT3720-5, from the Clontech catalogue, Cat No.631059), the factsheet of Accession No. BC103921 from NCBI and Muroyama et al. (Biochem. Biophy. Comm. 2004; 313:915-921) is moot because the claims are canceled.
The rejection of claims 137-141 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green et al. (2013) as evidenced by the factsheet of pTRE-Tight plasmid (PT3720-5), the factsheet of Accession No. BC103921 from NCBI and Muroyama (2004) in view of Rhee et al. (US7713526) is moot because the claims are canceled.
The rejection of claims 131 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green et al. (2013) in view of Rhee et al. (US7713526) and evidentiary references: the factsheet of pTRE-Tight plasmid (PT3720-5), the factsheet of Accession No. BC103921 from NCBI and Muroyama (2004) as applied to claims 137-141, and further in view of Kakitani et al. (US2011/0237514) is moot because the claim is canceled.
The rejection of claims 1,130-133,135-143 and 148 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 9937126 in view of Green (2013), Rhee (US7713526), Kakitani (US2011/0237514) and evidentiary references: the factsheet of pTRE-Tight plasmid (PT3720-5), the factsheet of Accession No. BC103921 from NCBI and Muroyama (2004) is moot because the claims are canceled.
Claim Rejections/Objections Maintained
In view of the amendment filed on September 19, 2025, the following rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections/Objections
7. Claim 149 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “CHO S” is not a unique or common abbreviation in the art. Applicants are required to spell out “CHO S” cell line at the first usage. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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 149-151 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Helms et al. (US2016/0310424). The rejection is maintained for the reasons of record and the reasons set forth below.
Claims 149-151 as amended are drawn to a Wnt culture system consisting essentially of:
i) serum-free culture medium;
ii) a biologically active Wnt polypeptide secreted into the serum-free culture medium; and
iii) cells from an engineered CHO S cell line transfected with an expression vector encoding the biologically active Wnt polypeptide, wherein the cells are grown in the presence of the serum-free culture medium; wherein the Wnt polypeptide is according to SEQ ID NO:1 or 2; and wherein the concentration of the secreted biologically active Wnt3A polypeptide is at least 10ng/ml in the culture medium.
Response to Arguments
On p. 3-4 of the response, Applicant argues that Helms does not teach every limitation recited in instant claims because the production of secreted Wnt3A from CHO-S cells disclosed by Helms were cultured in the presence of 10%FBS.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive. Contrary to Applicant's arguments, the examiner asserts that based on MPEP §2131, Helms (US2016/0310424) does teach a serum-free culture medium and the claimed Wnt culture system because:
i. Helms et al. (US2016/0310424) teaches a culture system comprising engineered CHO cells including CHO-S cells (see para. [0090]; Example 4; paragraphs [0297]-[0298) in a serum-free culture medium (see para. [0005], p.2, right col., line 14; p. 3, left col. line 11; para. [0052]; [0094]; Example 4; para. [0297]-[0298]), wherein the engineered CHO-S cells are transfected with an expression vector (see para. [0098]) encoding Wnt3A polypeptide and wherein the Wnt3A polypeptide comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:1 or SEQ ID NO:2 (see para.[0060]; [0086]; [0102]-[0103]; [0105]), which meets the limitation recited in instant claim 149 (see paragraphs [0057]; [0060]; [0086]; [0089]-[0090]; [0102]-[0103]; [0105], Example 4; paragraphs [0297]-[0298]); Example 1, paragraphs [0212]-[0219]; Example 2, [0254]-[0256]; tables 1-2).
[0094] In some embodiments, the mammalian host cells (e.g. CHO or CHO-S cells) are cultured in a serum-free medium. Non-limiting examples of serum-free media include CD CHO medium, CD CHO AGT™ medium, CD OptiCHO™ medium, CHO-S-SFM II (optionally including hypoxanthine and thymidine), CD 293 AGT™ medium, Adenovirus Expression Medium (AEM), FreeStyle™ 293 Expression medium, EX-CELL® 302 Serum-Free medium, EX-CELL® 325 PF CHO Serum-Free medium, EX-CELL® CD CHO-2 medium animal-component free, EX-CELL® CD CHO-3 medium, and EX-CELL® CDHO DHFR.sup.− medium animal-component free.
Helms teaches that the secreted Wnt3A is at a concentration of 0.01….0.5ng/ul (i.e.10-500ng/ml), which meets the limitation “at least 10ng/ml in the culture medium” recited in claim 149 (see paragraphs [0120]; [0256], tables 1-2). Helms teaches that the Wnt3A-transformed CHO cells were grown in serum-free media between 3-13 days, which meets the limitation “the culture medium is about 3-13 days old” in claim 150 (see Example 4; paragraphs [0297]-[0298]), free of adventitious agents in claim 151(see Example 4; paragraphs [0297]-[0298]); Example 1, paragraphs [0212]-[0219]; Example 2, [0254]-[0256]). Thus, claims 149-151 are anticipated by Helms.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 149-151 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Helms et al. (US2016/0310424) is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 149-151 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green et al. ((PLoS ONE, 2013; 8:e58395. Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0058395) in view of Kakitani et al. (US2011/0237514), and evidentiary references: the factsheet of pTRE-Tight plasmid (PT3720-5), the factsheet of Accession No. BC103921 from NCBI and Muroyama (Muroyama et al. (Biochem. Biophy. Comm. 2004; 313:915-921). The reference of Rhee (US7713526) is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendment to the claims. The rejection is maintained for the reasons of record and the reasons set forth below.
Response to Arguments
On p. 4-5 of the response, Applicant argues that instant claims are obvious over the combination of cited reference because no active Wnt3A protein is secreted into the medium by a number of GMP compliant cell lines including CHO-K, DG-44 and TReX2 with various serum supplements and vectors and the prior art does not teach specific requirements for the cell line and reagents for useful secretion of the Wnt3A protein into medium.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive. Contrary to Applicant's arguments, the examiner asserts that based on MPEP §2141, MPEP2141-I, rationales identified by the Court in KSR (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)), MPEP2141-II, the basic factual inquires of Graham v. John Deere Co.(Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966)),and MPEP §2141.01-2147.03, the cited references do render the claimed invention obvious because:
i. Applicant cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case, Green teaches a Wnt3A cell culture system consisting essentially of Wnt3A-producting iCHO cells cultured in drug-free DMEM plus 250ng/ml Dox (i.e. a serum free medium) for 72hours (3 days) wherein the Wnt3A polypeptide is secreted into the serum-free culture medium to generate Wnt3A-containing conditioned medium and the medium was collected and store at 4oC for less than one week (7 days) before use; and wherein the Wnt3A-producting iCHO cells are transfected with an expression vector including pJG011 (L3-pTRETight-eGFP-polyA-SV40-BSD-2L) or pTRE-Tight plasmid encoding the Wnt3A) (p. 3, 1st col., 2nd paragraph to 2nd col.1st paragraph; p.4, figure 2C; p. 5, figure 3A-B; p. 10, 1st col., section: Molecular Biology; 2nd col., 1st paragraph; 2nd col. section: Wnt purification).
The secreted Wnt3A polypeptide disclosed by Green is hWNT3A (Accession No. BC103921: instant SEQ ID NO:1), which is identical to the claimed native Wnt3A polypeptide recited in paragraph [0043] of the instant specification (p.17), and is identical to the native Wnt3A polypeptide comprising 100% identity to instant SEQ ID NO:1 recited in claim 149, and comprises instant SEQ ID NO:2 recited in claim 149 as evidenced by the factsheet of hWNT3A (Accession No. BC103921).
The amount of the secreted Wnt3A in the Wnt3A culture system or conditioned medium from the Wnt3A-producing iCHO cells disclosed by Green is more than the amount of the Wnt3A secreted from Wnt3A-producing L cells (see p. 4, 2nd col., last paragraph to p. 5, 1st col., 2nd paragraph; p. 5, figure 3, in Green), and the concentration of Wnt3A secreted from the Wnt3A-producing L cells is 400ng/ml as evidenced by Muroyama (see p. 916). The culture medium disclosed by Green is about 3 days old (72hrs) as in claim 150 (see p. 10, 2nd col., 1st paragraph; 2nd col. section: Wnt purification) and is free of adventitious agents as in claim 151 (i.e. sterile and filtered for culture) (see p. p.5, 1st col, 1st paragraph).
While Green does not CHO-S cells in claim 149, Kakitani (US2011/0237514) teaches FreeStyle CHO-S cells and FreeStyle CHO expression medium are better for expression of secretory proteins (see para. [0469]).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that selecting and applying the known CHO-S cells and the known technique disclosed by Kakitani to the Green’s Wnt culture system of Green would have yielded the predictable result of generating a Wnt3A culture system comprising the claimed serum free medium, the claimed CHO-S cells and the claimed secreted Wnt3A at a concentration of at least 10ng/ml in the culture medium, and resulted in an improved product.
Including and using the known CHO-S cells in the Green’s Wnt culture system would generate the secreted Wnt3A polypeptide at a concentration at least 10ng/ml in the culture medium, and expand application of the Green’s Wnt culture system, and would increase the use of the Wnt3A conditioned medium and the yield of the secreted Wnt3A for therapeutic and diagnosis purposes related to Wnt3A because the CHO-S cells have been used for better expression of secretory proteins as taught by Kakitani.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select and apply the known CHO-S cells and the known technique disclosed by Kakitani to the Green’s Wnt culture system of Green, and yield the predictable result of the claimed Wnt culture system.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 149-151 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green in view of Kakitani, and evidentiary references: the factsheet of pTRE-Tight plasmid (PT3720-5), the factsheet of Accession No. BC103921 from NCBI and Muroyama is maintained.
Double Patenting
10. 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 149-151 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of US9937126 in view of Green (2013) and Kakitani (US2011/0237514), and evidentiary references: the factsheet of pTRE-Tight plasmid (PT3720-5), the factsheet of Accession No. BC103921 from NCBI and Muroyama (2004). The reference of Rhee (US7713526) is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendment to the claims. The rejection is maintained for the reasons of record and the reasons set forth below.
Response to Arguments
On p. 5-6 of the response, Applicant argues that instant claims are patentably distinct from claim 9 of US9937126 because claim 9 is drawn to a method of preparing a liposomal polypeptide and does not recite specific features in particular CHO-S in serum free medium as recited in instant claims.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive. Contrary to Applicant's arguments, the examiner asserts that based on MPEP § 804, MPEP §2141, MPEP2141-I, rationales identified by the Court in KSR (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)), MPEP2141-II, the basic factual inquires of Graham v. John Deere Co.(Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966)),and MPEP §2141.01-2147.03, the cited references do render the claimed invention obvious because:
i. Applicant cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
ii. Claim 9 of US9937126 (the ‘126 patent) claims a) harvesting Wnt3A polypeptide from a Wnt3-containining conditioned medium comprising CHO cells.
The CHO cells recited in a) of claim 9 of the ‘126 patent are Wnt3A-secreting CHO cells transfected with an expression vector encoding Wnt3A polypeptide and cultured under serum-free conditions in view of col. 63 or Example 4 (see col.75-76)
While the claim of the ‘126 patent does not explicitly recite that the Wnt3A-secreting CHO cells are CHO-S cells transfected with an expression vector encoding the Wnt3A polypeptide and cultured in a serum-free medium, and wherein the Wnt3A polypeptide has the recited SEQ ID NO:1 or 2, Green, Kakitani and evidentiary references: the factsheet of pTRE-Tight plasmid, the factsheet of Accession No. BC103921 from NCBI and Muroyama teach these limitations for the reasons set forth above under the 103 rejection.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that selecting and applying the known Wnt3A-secreting CHO-S cells transfected with an expression vector encoding the Wnt3A polypeptide and cultured in a serum-free medium and the known technique disclosed by Green, Kakitani and evidentiary references: the factsheet of pTRE-Tight plasmid, the factsheet of Accession No. BC103921 from NCBI and Muroyama to the culture system and the conditioned medium recited in the ‘126 patent would have yielded the predictable result of generating a Wnt3A culture system comprising the claimed sequences, and resulted in an improved product of Wnt3A culture system.
Using the known Wnt3A-secreting CHO-S cells transfected with an expression vector encoding the Wnt3A polypeptide and cultured in a serum-free medium in the conditioned medium of the ‘126 patent would generate the Wnt3A polypeptide and expand application of the Wnt culture system and the conditioned medium of the ‘126 patent, and would increase use of the Wnt3A conditioned medium and the yield in therapeutic and diagnosis purposes related to Wnt3A.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select and apply the known Wnt3A-secreting CHO-S cells transfected with an expression vector encoding the Wnt3A polypeptide and cultured in a serum-free medium and the known technique disclosed by Green, Kakitani and evidentiary references: the factsheet of pTRE-Tight plasmid, the factsheet of Accession No. BC103921 from NCBI and Muroyama to the culture system and the conditioned medium of the ‘126 patent, and yield the predictable result of the claimed Wnt culture system.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 149-151 a on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of US9937126 in view of Green and Kakitani, and evidentiary references: the factsheet of pTRE-Tight plasmid (PT3720-5), the factsheet of Accession No. BC103921 from NCBI and Muroyama is maintained.
New Grounds of Rejection Necessitated by the Amendment
The following rejections are new grounds of rejections necessitated by the amendment filed on September 19, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
11. 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 149-151 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 149-151 are indefinite because:
i. Claim 149 recites the limitation "the concentration" in line 8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
ii. The rest of claims are indefinite as depending from an indefinite claim.
Conclusion
12. NO CLAIM IS ALLOWED.
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Helms et al. (US2016/0310424) under the 102 rejection teach a Wnt3A culture system comprising a Wnt3A polypeptide having the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:1, which is 100% identical to instant SEQ ID NO:2 or 91.2% identical to instant SEQ ID NO:1(see the sequence alignment below).
SEQ ID NO:1
US-14-910-616-1
Filing date in PALM: 2016-02-05
Sequence 1, US/14910616
Publication No. US20160310424A1
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Jill Helms
APPLICANT: Girija Dhamdhere
TITLE OF INVENTION: Wnt compositions and methods for
TITLE OF INVENTION: purification
FILE REFERENCE: STAN-1128WO
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/14/910,616
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2016-02-05
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: 61/885,827
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2013-10-02
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 2
SEQ ID NO 1
LENGTH: 352
TYPE: PRT
ORGANISM: Homo sapiens
Query Match 91.2%; Score 1962; Length 352;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 352; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 MAPLGYFLLLCSLKQALGSYPIWWSLAVGPQYSSLGSQPILCASIPGLVPKQLRFCRNYV 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 MAPLGYFLLLCSLKQALGSYPIWWSLAVGPQYSSLGSQPILCASIPGLVPKQLRFCRNYV 60
Qy 61 EIMPSVAEGIKIGIQECQHQFRGRRWNCTTVHDSLAIFGPVLDKATRESAFVHAIA SAGV 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 EIMPSVAEGIKIGIQECQHQFRGRRWNCTTVHDSLAIFGPVLDKATRESAFVHAIA SAGV 120
Qy 121 AFAVTRSCAEGTAAICGCSSRHQGSPGKGWKWGGCSEDIEFGGMVSREFADARENRPDAR 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 AFAVTRSCAEGTAAICGCSSRHQGSPGKGWKWGGCSEDIEFGGMVSREFADARENRPDAR 180
Qy 181 SAMNRHNNEAGRQAIA SHMHLKCKCHGLSGSCEVKTCWWSQPDFRAIGDFLKDKYDSASE 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 SAMNRHNNEAGRQAIA SHMHLKCKCHGLSGSCEVKTCWWSQPDFRAIGDFLKDKYDSASE 240
Qy 241 MVVEKHRESRGWVETLRPRYTYFKVPTERDLVYYEASPNFCEPNPETGSFGTRDRTCNVS 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 MVVEKHRESRGWVETLRPRYTYFKVPTERDLVYYEASPNFCEPNPETGSFGTRDRTCNVS 300
Qy 301 SHGIDGCDLLCCGRGHNARAERRREKCRCVFHWCCYVSCQECTRVYDVHTCK 352
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 301 SHGIDGCDLLCCGRGHNARAERRREKCRCVFHWCCYVSCQECTRVYDVHTCK 352
SEQ ID NO:2
US-14-910-616-1
Filing date in PALM: 2016-02-05
Sequence 1, US/14910616
Publication No. US20160310424A1
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Jill Helms
APPLICANT: Girija Dhamdhere
TITLE OF INVENTION: Wnt compositions and methods for
TITLE OF INVENTION: purification
FILE REFERENCE: STAN-1128WO
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/14/910,616
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2016-02-05
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: 61/885,827
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2013-10-02
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 2
SEQ ID NO 1
LENGTH: 352
TYPE: PRT
ORGANISM: Homo sapiens
Query Match 100.0%; Score 1962; Length 352;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 352; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 MAPLGYFLLLCSLKQALGSYPIWWSLAVGPQYSSLGSQPILCASIPGLVPKQLRFCRNYV 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 MAPLGYFLLLCSLKQALGSYPIWWSLAVGPQYSSLGSQPILCASIPGLVPKQLRFCRNYV 60
Qy 61 EIMPSVAEGIKIGIQECQHQFRGRRWNCTTVHDSLAIFGPVLDKATRESAFVHAIA SAGV 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 EIMPSVAEGIKIGIQECQHQFRGRRWNCTTVHDSLAIFGPVLDKATRESAFVHAIA SAGV 120
Qy 121 AFAVTRSCAEGTAAICGCSSRHQGSPGKGWKWGGCSEDIEFGGMVSREFADARENRPDAR 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 AFAVTRSCAEGTAAICGCSSRHQGSPGKGWKWGGCSEDIEFGGMVSREFADARENRPDAR 180
Qy 181 SAMNRHNNEAGRQAIA SHMHLKCKCHGLSGSCEVKTCWWSQPDFRAIGDFLKDKYDSASE 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 SAMNRHNNEAGRQAIA SHMHLKCKCHGLSGSCEVKTCWWSQPDFRAIGDFLKDKYDSASE 240
Qy 241 MVVEKHRESRGWVETLRPRYTYFKVPTERDLVYYEASPNFCEPNPETGSFGTRDRTCNVS 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 MVVEKHRESRGWVETLRPRYTYFKVPTERDLVYYEASPNFCEPNPETGSFGTRDRTCNVS 300
Qy 301 SHGIDGCDLLCCGRGHNARAERRREKCRCVFHWCCYVSCQECTRVYDVHTCK 352
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 301 SHGIDGCDLLCCGRGHNARAERRREKCRCVFHWCCYVSCQECTRVYDVHTCK 352
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANG-YU WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4521. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:00am-5:00pm 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, Jeffrey Stucker can be reached at 571-272-0911. 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.
Chang-Yu Wang
April 3, 2026
/CHANG-YU WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1675