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 I, species of biomarkers as listed in the response filed 1/22/25, and pembrolizumab as the immunotherapeutic agent in the reply filed on 1/22/25 is acknowledged.
Upon further consideration, the restriction requirement between Groups I and III is withdrawn. The restriction requirement between Groups I and II is maintained.
Claims 16-20, directed to a method of treating cancer, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Claims 11-15, directed to a pharmaceutical composition have NOT been rejoined.
Because a claimed invention previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 has been rejoined, the restriction requirement between Groups I and III as set forth in the Office action mailed on 11/26/24 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Status
The claim set filed 1/22/25 is acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 1/22/25.
Claims 1-10 and 16-20 are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 7/14/22 has been considered. A signed copy is enclosed.
Applicant is advised that 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." 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) these references will be considered.
Specification
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains legal phraseology in the phrase “inter alia”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Hyperlinks
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code in paragraphs [0240] and [0241]. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Trademarks
The use of the terms AVERTIN, GENTLEMACS, PERCOLL, LIVE/DEAD, TruStain, TOTALSEQ, TWEEN, CHROMIUM, GLUTAMAX, and possibly others, which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “T cell are” contains improper grammar and should be amended to read “T cells are”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims contain acronyms and/or abbreviations that should be spelled out upon first occurrence. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 9 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claim does not end with a period. Each claim must begin with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995). See also MPEP 608.01(m). 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.
Written Description
Claims 1-10 and 16-20 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 examined claims are drawn to a method of treating all types of cancer by isolating “tumor-matching” T cells ex vivo from blood obtained from a patient, expanding the cells ex vivo, and administering the expanded tumor-matching cells to the patient, thereby treating the cancer. The cells can express increased and/or decreased expression of biomarkers as listed in instant claims 3-6. The patient can also be administered an immunotherapeutic agent that can be a checkpoint inhibitor or immunomodulator, an anti-cancer agent, or a combination thereof.
The claims require specific functions of the agents and methods for which a corresponding structure is not provided. First, the claims require that the T cells are “tumor-matching” but neither the claims nor the specification provides a sufficient description of these cells to demonstrate possession of the method. The term "Tumor-matching T cells" or "TM cells" is defined as referring to T cells in a subject's blood that have common T cell receptors (TCRs) or markers with tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (e.g., T cells) in the subject's tumor ("tumor T cells") (see instant specification paragraph [0024]). The specification does not define the terms “common” with regard to TCRs or markers on T cells. These cells are defined entirely by function (i.e. “The tumor-matching T cells in the subject's blood have increased activation and tissue resident memory compared to other T cells (e.g., non-tumor- matching T cells) in the subject's blood which are enriched for quiescent markers” See instant specification paragraph [0024]), without providing any identifying structure such as cell surface markers or expression profiles that correlate with the required functions.
Second, the claims recite several genera of agents to be administered without adequately defining the agents, or providing structure that would correlate with the required functions within the claimed method. For example, the terms “immunotherapeutic agent,” “ checkpoint inhibitor” and “immunomodulator” are terms that define compounds merely by function without providing any corresponding structure. The term “immunotherapeutic agent” is defined in specification paragraph [0062] to refer to “therapeutic agents that activate or suppress the immune system.” The specification in paragraph [0063] states that the term “refers to a form of immunotherapy that targets immune checkpoints, key regulators of the immune system, that when stimulated can dampen the immune response to an immunologic stimulus.” The term “immunomodulator” is defined in specification paragraph [0064] as referring “to therapeutic agents that modulate the immune system.” These terms potentially encompass millions of compounds, and the specification does not provide adequate description of structure that would correlate with the required functions, or that would be capable of functioning in the claimed method.
The specification discloses a limited number of compounds for each genera, many of which are actually sub-genera defined entirely by function (see e.g. “PD-1 inhibitors” and similar). However, the claims are drawn to very large genera, the breadth of which are not adequately described by the small number of provided examples. The specification provides no guidance regarding which agents are capable of the required functions for the agent, or in the claimed method. 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.)
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.
In emerging and unpredictable technologies, or for inventions characterized by factors not reasonably predictable which are known to one of ordinary skill in the art, more evidence is required to show possession. For example, disclosure of only a method of making the invention and the function may not be sufficient to support a product claim other than a product-by-process claim. See, e.g., Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d at 1169, 25 USPQ2d at 1605; Amgen, 927 F.2d at 1206, 18 USPQ2d at 1021; see also MPEP 2163.
The technology regarding transfer of expanded cells to treat cancer is extremely unpredictable and inventions involving this technology require more evidence to show possession. For example tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) are a very heterogeneous cell population, and the subpopulations that could provide the most convenient source of TILs for adoptive cell transfer (ACT) have not yet been defined (see e.g. Strizova et al (Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy (2019) 68:1831–1838), page 1833). Morotti et al (British Journal of Cancer (2021) 124:1759–1776) teach that several challenges exist with ensuring efficacy of TIL based therapy (see e.g. page 1759, right column). Cancer heterogeneity represents a pivotal challenge for the development of neoantigen-directed-T cell therapies (see e.g. page 1760, right column). Predicting neoantigens that are shared amongst a substantial proportion of the target cell population is vital for the success of ACT, irrespective of which gene a mutation resides in (see e.g. Morotti, page 1761, left column). The identification of clonal mutations relies on the accurate computation of the prevalence of mutations in a tumor (see e.g. Morotti, page 1761, left column). This is not a trivial task and is often confounded by normal cell contamination, substantial heterogeneity and copy number alterations (see e.g. Morotti, page 1761, left column). Another key challenge is that only a few predicted neoantigens encoded by somatic non-synonymous mutations are actually immunogenic (see e.g. Morotti, page 1761, left column). Therefore challenges exist in determining the anti-tumor reactivity of neoantigen-specific T-cells, and it is important to note that not every specific neoepitope gives an immune response (see e.g. Morotti, page 1761, right column last paragraph to page 1762, left column first paragraph). It is important to note that the immunogenicity of neoantigens has been challenged (see e.g. Morotti, page 1764, right column). A study using data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) showed that neoantigen depletion, detected using HLA affinity predictions, is weak or absent in the untreated cancer genome overall (see e.g. Morotti, page 1764, right column). In a further complication, the number of expanded TCRs found ubiquitously across all tumor samples in lung cancer or paired metastatic breast and ovarian cancer implies that some level of immune surveillance directed against clonal neoantigens can be initiated early and maintained through all levels of cancer development, including metastatic progression (see e.g. Morotti, page 1764, left column). This means that the timing of initiation of immunological sculpting is an important question in applying ACT (see e.g. Morotti, page 1764, left column). As is evident through the observed lack of cancer cell elimination, immune escape mechanisms capable of preventing T-cell mediated death might be an extremely early event in cancer evolution (see e.g. Morotti, page 1764, left column).
Additionally, tumors react differently to cell transfer therapies such as adoptive cell transfer, making this type of therapy unpredictable. According to Strizova et al (Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy (2019) 68:1831–1838), adoptive cell transfer (ACT) is a particular form of cell-based anticancer immunotherapy, which may be one potential treatment modality in metastatic diseases, where conventional therapy tends to fail (see e.g. Strizova, page 1832). ACT is a cell therapy based on immune cells extracted from the patient, processed in vitro, extensively expanded, then transferred back to the patient (see e.g. Strizova, page 1832). The following in vitro expansion of the cells allows the tumor-specific cells to be grown outside the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment these cells encounter in vivo (see e.g. Strizova, page 1832). ACT has been shown in clinical trials to cause objective clinical responses in 40–72% of patients with metastatic melanoma. However, in addition to clearly not being capable of treating all melanoma tumors, ACT has shown limited efficacy for other tumor types such as metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC; see e.g. Strizova, page 1832). Taken together, one of skill in the art would conclude that the field of cell transfer therapy is at best extremely unpredictable, requiring additional evidence to demonstrate possession of such a method.
Regarding protein and peptide agents that are encompassed by the claims, 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. 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 therapeutics encompassed by the instant claims (see e.g. page 661, left column).
Regarding small molecule inhibitors of a particular protein target, the prediction of binding to a target, much less the inhibitory activity, is highly unpredictable. According to Guido et al (Curr Med Chem. 2008;15(1):37-46), accurately predicting the binding affinity of new drug candidates remains a major challenge in drug discovery (see page 37). There are a vast number of possible compounds that may bind a particular target, many of which have likely not been discovered. Relying on virtual screening also lends unpredictability to the art regarding identification of molecules that would be capable of the required functions of the instant claims. Guido et al teach that there are two main complex issues with predicting activity for a small molecule: accurate structural modeling and/or correct prediction of activity (see page 40). As taught by Clark et al (J. Med. Chem., 2014, 57 (12), pp 5023–5038), even when guided by structural data, developing selective structure-activity relationships has been challenging owing to the similarities of the enzymes (see page 5028). Therefore, it is impossible for one of skill in the art to predict that any particular encompassed small molecule therapeutic would function to inhibit a particular protein, especially a particular protein family member, or treat disease.
Regarding nucleic acid based therapeutics, the efficacy of any possible DNA or RNA based therapeutic modality is highly unpredictable. This unpredictability stems from an inability to predict the effects of any particular sequence the expression or function of any target. As taught by Aagaard et al (Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 59 (2007) 75–86), the development of RNAi based therapeutics faces several challenges, including the need for controllable or moderate promoter systems and therapeutics that are efficient at low doses (see page 79), the ability of an unpredictable number of sequences to stimulate immune responses, such as type I interferon responses (see page 79), competition with cellular RNAi components (see page 83), the side effect of suppressing off targets (see page 80), and challenging delivery (see page 83). The success of antisense strategies, including anti-RNA and anti-DNA strategies are also highly unpredictable. Warzocha et al (Leukemia and Lymphoma (1997) Vol. 24. pp. 267-281) teach that the efficacy of antisense effects varies between different targeted sites of RNA molecules and three dimensional RNA structures (see page 269), while DNA-targeting strategies have numerous problems including a restricted number of DNA sequences that can form triple helices at appropriate positions within genes and the inaccessibility of particular sequences due to histones and other proteins (see page 269). These references demonstrate that variation in RNA or DNA based therapeutics will often dramatically affect the biological activity and characteristics of the intended therapeutic. McKeague et al (J Nucleic Acids. 2012;2012:748913. Epub 2012 Oct 24) teach that aptamers have particular challenges because unlike antibodies or molecular imprinted polymers, their tertiary structure is highly dependent on solution conditions and they are easily degraded in blood. Further, they have less chemical diversity than other antagonist molecules (see page 2), and have issues associated with determining the Kd measurements for a given molecule (see page 13). Given the teachings of Aagaard et al, Warzocha et al, and McKeague et al, nucleic acid therapeutics could not be predicted based on the targets selected or similarities to the disclosed example therapeutics. Therefore, it is impossible for one of skill in the art to predict that any particular encompassed nucleic acid based therapeutic, such as oligonucleotide aptamers, RNAi molecules and antisense oligonucleotides, would function to decrease expression or function of a target gene or protein, or treat disease.
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.
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).
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.
Enablement
Claims 1-9 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for treating metastatic melanoma with the claimed method, does not reasonably provide enablement for treating all types of tumors with the claimed method. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
As a general rule, enablement must be commensurate with the scope of claim language. MPEP 2164.08 states, “The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that “the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation’.” In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993)” (emphasis added). The “make and use the full scope of the invention without undue experimentation” language was repeated in 2005 in Warner-Lambert Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., 75 USPQ2d 1865, and Scripps Research Institute v. Nemerson, 78 USPQ2d 1019 asserts: “A lack of enablement for the full scope of a claim, however, is a legitimate rejection.” The principle was explicitly affirmed most recently in Auto. Tech. Int’l, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 501 F.3d 1274, 84 USPQ2d 1108 (Fed. Cir. 2007), Monsanto Co. v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., 503 F.3d 1352, 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1705 (Fed. Cir. 2007), and Sitrick v. Dreamworks, LLC, 516 F.3d 993, 85 USPQ2d 1826 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also In re Cortright, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1466 and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1370.
The factors to be considered in determining whether a disclosure meets the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, have been described in In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Among these factors are: (1) the nature or the invention; (2) the state of the prior art; (3) the relative skill of those in the art; (4) the predictability or unpredictability of the art; (5) the breadth of the claims; (6) the amount of direction or guidance presented; (7) the presence or absence of working examples; and (8) the quantity of experimentation necessary. When the above factors are weighed, it is the examiner’s position that one skilled in the art could not practice the invention without undue experimentation. Some experimentation is not fatal; the issue is whether the amount of experimentation is “undue”; see In re Vaeck, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1444.
(1) The nature of the invention and (5) The breadth of the claims:
The examined claims are drawn to a method of treating all types of cancer by isolating “tumor-matching” T cells ex vivo from blood obtained from a patient, expanding the cells ex vivo, and administering the expanded tumor-matching cells to the patient, thereby treating the cancer. The cells can express increased and/or decreased expression of biomarkers as listed in instant claims 3-6. The patient can also be administered an immunotherapeutic agent that can be a checkpoint inhibitor or immunomodulator, an anti-cancer agent, or a combination thereof.
The claims are broad and inclusive of all types of cancer or neoplasia in humans generally. The breadth of the claim exacerbates the complex nature of the subject matter to which the present claims are directed. The claims are extremely broad due to the vast number of possible cancer types and tumor cell growth mechanisms represented by the terms “treating a cancer in a subject”. Cancer is not a single disease, or cluster of closely related disorders. There are hundreds of cancers, which have in common only some loss of controlled cell growth. Cancers are highly heterogeneous at both the molecular and clinical level, something seen especially in, for example, the cancers of the breast, brain and salivary glands. They can occur in pretty much every part of the body. Here are some assorted categories:
A. CNS cancers cover a very diverse range of cancers in many categories and subcategories. There are an immense range of neuroepithelial tumors. Gliomas, the most common subtype of primary brain tumors, most of which are aggressive, highly invasive, and neurologically destructive tumors are considered to be among the deadliest of human cancers. These are any cancers which show evidence (histological, immunohistochemical, ultrastructural) of glial differentiation. These fall mostly into five categories. There are the astrocytic tumors (astrocytomas): pilocytic astrocytoma (including juvenile pilocytic astrocytoma, JPA, and pediatric optic nerve glioma) diffuse astrocytomas (including fibrillary astrocytomas, protoplasmic astrocytomas and gemistocytic astrocytomas), anaplastic astrocytomas (including adult optic nerve glioma), Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), gliosarcoma and giant cell glioblastoma, and pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma. GBM exists in two forms, primary and secondary, which have very different clinical histories and different genetics, but GBM is considered to be one clinical entity. Second, there are the oligodendroglial tumors (oligodendrogliomas): low grade oligodendroglioma and anaplastic oligodendroglioma. Third, there is oligoastrocytomas (“mixed glioma”), a type of tumor with both astrocytoma & oligodendroglioma features. The fourth type is the ependymomas, which are intracranial gliomas, including papillary ependymoma, myxopapillary ependymoma, tanycytic ependymoma, anaplastic ependymoma and subependymal giant-cell astrocytomas. A fifth type is the gangliogliomas (glioneuronal tumors or glioneurocytic tumors), which have both glial and neuronal components, and are extremely varied, based in part on what types of glial and what types of neuronal components are present. These include Papillary Glioneuronal Tumor (PGNT), a range of supratentorial gangliogliomas, assorted intramedullary spinal cord gangliogliomas, pineal ganglioglioma, hypothalamic ganglioglioma, cerebellar ganglioglioma, ganglioglioma of the right optic tract, rosetted glioneuronal tumor (“glioneurocytic tumor with neuropil rosettes”), composite pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma (PXA)-ganglioglioma, desmoplastic ganglioglioma (both infantile (DIG) and non- infantile), angioganglioglioma, and others. There are also some glial tumors which do not comfortably fit into these five categories, notably astroblastoma, gliomatosis cerebri, and chordoid glioma, which is found solely in the hypothalamus and anterior third ventricle. Other neuroepithelial tumors include astrocytic tumors (e.g. astrocytomas) oligodendroglial tumors, ependymal cell tumors (e.g. myxopapillary ependymoma), mixed gliomas (e.g. mixed oligoastrocytoma and ependymo-astrocytomas) tumors of the choroid plexus(choroid plexus papilloma, choroid plexus carcinoma), assorted neuronal and neuroblastic tumors (e.g. gangliocytoma, central neurocytoma, dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumor, esthesioneuroblastoma, olfactory neuroblastoma, olfactory neuroepithelioma, and neuroblastomas of the adrenal gland), pineal parenchyma tumors (e.g. pineocytoma, pineoblastoma, and pineal parenchymal tumor of intermediate differentiation), embryonal tumors (e.g. medulloepithelioma, neuroblastoma, ependymoblastoma, atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumor, desmoplastic medulloblastoma, large cell medulloblastoma, medullomyoblastoma, and melanotic medulloblastoma) and others such as polar spongioblastoma and gliomatosis cerebri. A second Division is tumors of the meninges. this includes tumors of the meningothelial cells, including meningiomas (meningothelial, fibrous (fibroblastic), transitional (mixed), psammomatous, angiomatous, microcystic, secretory, lymphoplasmacyte-rich, metaplastic, clear cell, chordoid, atypical, papillary, rhabdoid, anaplastic meningioma) and the non- meningioma tumors of the meningothelial cells (malignant fibrous histiocytoma, leiomyoma, leiomyosarcoma, rhabdomyoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, chondroma, chondrosarcoma, osteoma, osteosarcoma, osteochondroma, haemangioma, epithelioid haemangioendothelioma, haemangiopericytoma, angiosarcoma, kaposi sarcoma). There are also mesenchymal, non-meningothelial tumors (liposarcoma, (intracranial) solitary fibrous tumor, and fibrosarcoma) as well as primary melanocytic lesions (diffuse melanocytosis, melanocytoma, malignant melanoma, and meningeal melanomatosis). A third division is the tumors of cranial and spinal nerves. This includes cellular schwannomas, plexiform schwannomas and the melanotic schwannomas (e.g. psammomatous melanotic schwannoma , neuro-axial melanotic schwannoma, dorsal dumb-bell melanotic schwannoma). There is also Perineurioma (Intraneural and Soft tissue) and malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (MPNST), including Epithelioid, MPNST with divergent mesenchymal differentiation, and MPNST with epithelial differentiation. A fourth division are germ cell tumors, including germinoma, embryonal carcinoma, yolk sac tumor, choriocarcinoma, and teratoma (mature teratoma, immature teratoma, and teratoma with malignant transformation). A fifth division are the tumors of the sellar Region, viz. pituitary adenoma, pituitary carcinoma, granular cell myoblastoma and craniopharyngiomas (adamantinomatous and papillary). Yet another division are