6DETAILED 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, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 10/9/25 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laham et al (Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 78:603-619).
Laham discloses that inhibition of DYRK1A (as recited in claim 9) is a mechanistic treatment for DNA damage (claim 1), apoptosis, neuronal disfunction & cancer and that the enzyme can be inhibited by natural or synthetic agents such as mRNA (p 614), antibodies (p 607) and specifically natural inhibitors like EGCG or harmine (as in claim 9) (p 613-614).
Laham does not speak of the DREAM complex however as target (cells with damage or potentially damaged) and the method steps, e.g. inhibition of DYRK1A are the same in Laham as in the claims and even the end results are the same- e.g. mitigating DNA damage (p 609), the claimed effects on inhibiting or inhibiting the assembly of eth dream complex necessary would have had to happen and as such the action against the DREAM complex was inherent to the processes of Lanam.
See MPEP 2112:
"[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the court held that the claimed promoter sequence obtained by sequencing a prior art plasmid that was not previously sequenced was anticipated by the prior art plasmid which necessarily possessed the same DNA sequence as the claimed oligonucleotides. The court stated that "just as the discovery of properties of a known material does not make it novel, the identification and characterization of a prior art material also does not make it novel." Id.
There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (rejecting the contention that inherent anticipation requires recognition by a person of ordinary skill in the art before the critical date and allowing expert testimony with respect to post-critical date clinical trials to show inherency); see also Toro Co. v. Deere & Co., 355 F.3d 1313, 1320, 69 USPQ2d 1584, 1590 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[T]he fact that a characteristic is a necessary feature or result of a prior-art embodiment (that is itself sufficiently described and enabled) is enough for inherent anticipation, even if that fact was unknown at the time of the prior invention."); Abbott Labs v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 182 F.3d 1315, 1319, 51 USPQ2d 1307, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("If a product that is offered for sale inherently possesses each of the limitations of the claims, then the invention is on sale, whether or not the parties to the transaction recognize that the product possesses the claimed characteristics."); Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1348-49, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("Because ‘sufficient aeration’ was inherent in the prior art, it is irrelevant that the prior art did not recognize the key aspect of [the] invention.... An inherent structure, composition, or function is not necessarily known."); SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 403 F.3d 1331, 1343-44, 74 USPQ2d 1398, 1406-07 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (holding that a prior art patent to an anhydrous form of a compound "inherently" anticipated the claimed hemihydrate form of the compound because practicing the process in the prior art to manufacture the anhydrous compound "inherently results in at least trace amounts of" the claimed hemihydrate even if the prior art did not discuss or recognize the hemihydrate); In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation, 483 F.3d 1364, 1373, 82 USPQ2d 1643, 1650 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (The court noted that although the inventors may not have recognized that a characteristic of the ingredients in the prior art method resulted in an in situ formation of a separating layer, the in situ formation was nevertheless inherent. "The record shows formation of the in situ separating layer in the prior art even though that process was not recognized at the time. The new realization alone does not render that necessary [sic] prior art patentable.").
The reference anticipates the claim subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Laham et al (Ceullular and Molecular Life Sciences 78:603-619) and Litovchick et al (GENES & DEVELOPMENT 25:801–813 2011).
Laham discloses that inhibition of DYRK1A (as exemplified claim 9) is a mechanistic treatment for DNA damage (claim 1), apoptosis, neuronal disfunction & cancer and that the enzyme can be inhibited by natural or synthetic agents such as mRNA (p 614), antibodies (p 607) and specifically natural inhibitors like EGCG or harmine (as in claim 9) (p 613-614). As such it was obvious at the time the invention was filed to inhibit DYRK1A to address DNA damage conditions with a reasonable expectation that there would be some mitigation of that damage or prophylaxis of DNA damage.
Lanam is silent on the connection between DYRK1A and DREAM complex however at the time the invention was filed, Litovchick had connected the activity of DYRK1A with the DREAM complex. Given the connection established by Litovchick it would have been obvious to inhibit DYRK1A to mitigate DNA damage in a cell and specifically so where it is known that the DREAM complex has a role in the cells per se.
Applicant is directed to pages 12-13 of KSR v Teleflex (500 US 398 2007) “ … the Court has held that a “patent for a combination which only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions . . . obviously withdraws what is already known into the field of its monopoly and diminishes the resources available to skillful men.” Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U. S. 147, 152 (1950). This is a principal reason for declining to allow patents for what is obvious. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one(emphasis added). If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”
At the time the invention was filed, the inhibition of DRK1A was well known for the treatment and prophylaxis of a pantheon of human diseases and it would have been obvious to inhibit the enzyme and by way of doing so inhibit the assembly of the DREAM complex in order to treat the disease or disorder. Lanam teaches that a variety of inhibitors and means for delivering said inhibitors was well known in the art and as such the selection of any known inhibitor and known means for delivery, e.g. a vector, would’ve been obvious at the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in the art.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); >see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.");< ** In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Accordingly, the claimed invention was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was filed especially in the absence of evidence
to the contrary.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laham et al (Ceullular and Molecular Life Sciences 78:603-619) and Litovchick et al (GENES & DEVELOPMENT 25:801–813 2011) & US 2011/0110912.
Lanam discloses that inhibition of DYRK1A (as exemplified claim 9) is a mechanistic treatment for DNA damage (claim 1), apoptosis, neuronal disfunction & cancer and that the enzyme can be inhibited by natural or synthetic agents such as mRNA (p 614), antibodies (p 607) and specifically natural inhibitors like EGCG or harmine (as in claim 9) (p 613-614). As such it was obvious at the time the invention was filed to inhibit DYRK1A to address DNA damage conditions with a reasoinable expectation that there would be some mitigation of that damage or prophylaxis of DNA damage. Lanam is silent on the connection between DYRK1A and DREAM complex however at the time the invention was filed, Litovchick had connected the activity of DYRK1A with the DREAM complex. Given the connection established by Litovchick it would have been obvious to inhibit DYRK1A to mitigate DNA damage in a cell and specifically so where it is known that the DREAM complex has a role in the cells per se.
Applicant is directed to pages 12-13 of KSR v Teleflex (500 US 398 2007) “ … the Court has held that a “patent for a combination which only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions . . . obviously withdraws what is already known into the field of its monopoly and diminishes the resources available to skillful men.” Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U. S. 147, 152 (1950). This is a principal reason for declining to allow patents for what is obvious. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one(emphasis added). If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”
At the time the invention was filed, the inhibition of DRK1A was well known for the treatment and prophylaxis of a pantheon of human diseases and it would have been obvious to inhibit the enzyme and by way of doing so inhibit the assembly of the DREAM complex in order to treat the disease or disorder. Lanam teaches that a variety of inhibitors and means for delivering said inhibitors was well known in the art and as such the selection of any known inhibitor and known means for delivery, e.g. a vector, would’ve been obvious at the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Wherein Lanam doesn’t specifically teach the use of a directed vector (as in claim 12), it would have been obvious to use a specific vector as ‘912 [0033] teaches such is old and well known in the art and has been specifically applied to inhibit DRK1A as is desired by Lanam.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); >see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.");< ** In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Accordingly, the claimed invention was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was filed especially in the absence of evidence
to the contrary.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAINE LANKFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-0917. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6:30.
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, Louise Humphrey can be reached at 571-272-5543. 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.
/BLAINE LANKFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1657