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
2. The election without traverse filed 06/30/2025 in response to the Office Action of 04/28/2025 is acknowledged and has been entered.
Applicant has elected Group I, claims 1-6 and 15, drawn to an isolated anti-HIV antibody that is capable of neutralizing at least 90% of the HIV pseudoviruses listed in Table 4 with an IC50 value of less than 1 g/mL.
Additionally, the Applicant has elected the species in part (a) of claim 4, namely, an antibody comprising a heavy chain variable region, wherein CDR H1 comprises GYRFPDYI (SEQ ID NO:497), CDR H2 comprises MNPMGGQV (SEQ ID NO:421) and CDR H3 comprises VRDRSNGSGKRFESSNWELDL (SEQ ID NO:441), wherein the heavy chain in the framework 3 region comprises an amino acid sequence selected from the group consisting of QLSQDPDDPDWG (SEQ ID NO:541) and LFSQDLY YPDRG (SEQ ID NO:542); and a light chain variable region, wherein CDR L1 comprises HNL, CDR L2 comprises DFN and CDR L3 comprises WAYEA (SEQ ID NO:408); and also elect the species in part (a) of claim 6, namely an antibody comprising a heavy chain amino acid sequence comprising SEQ ID NO:501 or an antigen binding fragment thereof and a light chain amino acid sequence comprising SEQ ID NO:503 or an antigen binding fragment thereof.
3. Claims 1-19 are pending in the application. Claims 7-14 and 16-19 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/30/2025.
4. Claims 1-6 and 15 are currently under prosecution.
Priority
5. Applicant’s claim under 35 U.S.C. §§ 119(e) and 365(c) for benefit of the earlier filing date of application is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 1-2 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
1) Claims 1-2 are objected to because claims recite, “the HIV pseudoviruses listed in Table 4”. Claims must, under modern claim practice, stand alone to define invention, and incorporation into claims by express reference to specification and/or drawings is not permitted except in very limited circumstances. See Ex parte Fressola, 27 USPQ2d 1608 (BPAI, 1993). See M.P.E.P. § 2173.05(s), which states:
“Where possible, claims are to be complete in themselves. Incorporation by reference to a specific figure or table “is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim. Incorporation by reference is a necessity doctrine, not for applicant's convenience.” Ex parte Fressola, 27 USPQ2d 1608, 1609 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (citations omitted).
2) Claim 15: “any of claim 1” should be “claim 1”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Improper Markush Grouping Rejection
7. Claims 4-6 are rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 706.03(y).
The Markush grouping of antibodies recited in claims 4-6 is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: because the antibodies do not share a “single structural similarity”.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. The following is a quotation 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.
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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.
10. Claim 5 is 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
This is a “written description” rejection.
The considerations that are made in determining whether a claimed invention is supported by an adequate written description are outlined by the published Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications Under the 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 1, ``Written Description'' Requirement (Federal Register; Vol. 66, No. 4, January 5, 2001; The 2015 Written Description Workshop materials; hereinafter “Guidelines”).
These guidelines state that rejection of a claim for lack of written description, where the claim recites the language of an original claim should be rare. Nevertheless, these guidelines further state, “the issue of a lack of written description may arise even for an original claim when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant has possession of the claimed invention” (Id. at 1105). The “Guidelines” continue:
The claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described if the claims require an essential or critical feature which is not adequately described in the specification and which is not conventional in the art or known to one of ordinary skill in the art. This problem may arise where an invention is described solely in terms of a method of its making coupled with its function and there is no described or art-recognized correlation or relationship between the structure of the invention and its function. A lack of adequate written description issue also arises if the knowledge and level of skill in the art would not permit one skilled in the art to immediately envisage the product claimed from the disclosed process.
With further regard to the proposition that, as original claims, the claims themselves provide in haec verba support sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement, the Federal Circuit has explained that in ipsis verbis support for the claims in the specification does not per se establish compliance with the written description requirement:
Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement. The disclosure must allow one skilled in the art to visualize or recognize the identity of the subject matter purportedly described. Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406.
Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 43 USPQ2d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also: University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 69 USPQ2d 1886 1892 (CA FC 2004).
Thus, an original claim may provide written description for itself, but it must still be an adequate written description, which establishes that the inventor was in possession of the invention.
In this instance, claim 5 is drawn to an anti-HIV antibody comprises VH region comprising 1, 2, 3, or 4 conservative amino acid substitutions of SEQ ID NO:501, and VL region comprising 1, 2, 3, or 4 conservative amino acid substitutions of SEQ ID NO:503.
The specification teaches an anti-HIV antibody comprises VH region of SEQ ID NO:501, and VL region of SEQ ID NO:503; see page 92 of the published application.
Thus, the claim is drawn to a genus of anti-HIV antibodies comprising 1, 2, 3, or 4 conservative amino acid substitutions of SEQ ID NOs: 501 and 503.
Although the specification teaches SEQ ID NOs: 501 and 503; however, the specification does not teach that an anti-HIV antibody comprises VH region comprising 1, 2, 3, or 4 conservative amino acid substitutions of SEQ ID NO: 501, and VL region comprising 1, 2, 3, or 4 conservative amino acid substitutions of SEQ ID NO: 503 would have or retain the activity or function of SEQ ID NOs: 501 and 503.
Given the fact that the claim is drawn to a genus of anti-HIV antibodies comprising 1, 2, 3, or 4 conservative amino acid substitutions of SEQ ID NOs: 501 and 503, which have no particular function or activity, there is no correlation between any one particularly identifying structural feature and any one particularly identifying functional feature. Consequently, it is submitted that the skilled artisan could not immediately envision, recognize or distinguish at least a substantial number of anti-HIV antibodies comprising 1, 2, 3, or 4 conservative amino acid substitutions of SEQ ID NOs: 501 and 503, to which the claim is directed.
Although the specification teaches SEQ ID NOs: 501 and 503, SEQ ID NOs: 501 and 503 are not reasonably representative of the plurality of anti-HIV antibodies comprising 1, 2, 3, or 4 conservative amino acid substitutions of SEQ ID NOs: 501 and 503. This is largely because each anti-HIV antibody comprising 1, 2, 3, or 4 conservative amino acid substitutions of SEQ ID NOs: 501 and 503 has substantially varying structure and need not have any particular function or activity.
Guidelines states, “[p]ossession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing the invention was ‘ready for patenting’ such as by disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention” (Id. at 1104). “Guidelines” further states, “[f]or inventions 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” (Id. at 1106); accordingly, it follows that an adequate written description of a genus cannot be achieved in the absence of a disclosure of at least one species within the genus. Moreover, because the claim encompass a genus of anti-HIV antibodies comprising 1, 2, 3, or 4 conservative amino acid substitutions of SEQ ID NOs: 501 and 503, which vary both structurally and functionally, 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. In this instance, factual evidence of an actual reduction to practice has not been disclosed by Applicant in the specification; Applicant has not shown the invention was “ready for patenting” by disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete; and Applicant has not described distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Thus, it is submitted that the instant claims, and the disclosure describing the claimed subject matter, fails to satisfy the written description requirement set forth under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
11. 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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
12. 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.
13. Claims 1-3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mascola et al. (US 20120244166, published on 09/27/2012).
Claims 1-3 and 15 are herein drawn to an isolated anti-HIV antibody that is capable of neutralizing at least 90% of the HIV pseudoviruses listed in Table 4 with an IC50 value of less than 1 g/mL.
Mascola et al. teach an anti-HIV antibody; see entire document, e.g., abstract, [0005-0006], claims 1-11 and 15. Mascola et al. teach IC50<1000µg/ml of the antibody; see [0026].
For claim 3, Mascola et al. teach SEQ ID NO: 27; see [0005].
SEQ ID NO: 27 of Mascola et al. is 100% identical with the instant claimed SEQ ID NO: 541; see below sequence alignment 1.
For claim 15, Mascola et al. teach a composition comprising the antibody and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier; see claim 11.
Double Patenting
14. 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
15. Claims 1-3, 5 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6 and 10-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,760,789. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because for the following reasons:
Claims 1-3, 5 and 15 are herein drawn to an isolated anti-HIV antibody that is capable of neutralizing at least 90% of the HIV pseudoviruses listed in Table 4 with an IC50 value of less than 1 g/mL, wherein the anti-HIV antibody comprises a heavy chain (VH) and light chain (VL), the VH comprising 1, 2, 3, or 4 conservative amino acid substitutions of 1-134 of SEQ ID NO:501, and the VL comprising 1, 2, 3, or 4 conservative amino acid substitutions of 1-99 of SEQ ID NO:503.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 10-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,760,789 are drawn to an isolated anti-HIV antibody comprises a heavy chain comprising SEQ ID NO:161 and a light chain comprising SEQ ID NO:163.
The U.S. Patent No. 11,760,789 teaches the anti-HIV antibody with an IC50 value of less than 50 μg/mL; see col. 2 lines 59-62.
The SEQ ID NO: 161 of U.S. Patent No. 11,760,789 is 97.6% identical with the instant claimed SEQ ID NO: 501, the SEQ ID NO: 163 of U.S. Patent No. 11,760,789 is 100% identical with the instant claimed SEQ ID NO: 503; see below sequence alignment 2.
16. Claims 1-3 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,760,790. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because for the following reasons:
Claims 1-3 and 15 are herein drawn to an isolated anti-HIV antibody that is capable of neutralizing at least 90% of the HIV pseudoviruses listed in Table 4 with an IC50 value of less than 1 g/mL.
Claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,760,790 are drawn to an anti-HIV antibody comprising: a heavy chain variable region (VH) comprising a heavy chain complementarity determining region (HCDR) 1, a HCDR2, and a HCDR3 of a parent VRC01-class antibody; a light chain variable region (VL) comprising a light chain complementarity determining region (LCDR) 1, a LCDR2, and a LCDR3 of the parent VRC01-class antibody, wherein the antibody neutralizes HIV-1 Env with an IC50 of less than 0.4 μg/ml.
17. Claims 1-3, 5 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-37 of U.S. Patent No. 12,331,105. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because for the following reasons:
Claims 1-3, 5 and 15 are herein drawn to an isolated anti-HIV antibody that is capable of neutralizing at least 90% of the HIV pseudoviruses listed in Table 4 with an IC50 value of less than 1 g/mL.
Claims 1-37 of U.S. Patent No. 12,331,105 are drawn to a non-naturally occurring anti-HIV antibody, wherein the anti-HIV antibody is selected from the group consisting of: set forth in claim 1.
U.S. Patent No. 12,331,105 teaches the anti-HIV antibody with an IC50 value of less than 50 μg/mL; see col. 2 lines 57-60.
Conclusion
18. No claim is allowed.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAN XIAO whose telephone number is (571)270-3578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Samira Jean-Louis can be reached on 571-270-3503. 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.
/YAN XIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1642
Sequence alignment 1
US-13-429-279-27
(NOTE: this sequence has 2 duplicates in the database searched.
See complete list at the end of this report)
Sequence 27, US/13429279
Publication No. US20120244166A1
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: The Government of the United States of America as
APPLICANT: represented by the Secretary of the Department of Health
APPLICANT: and Human Services
APPLICANT: University of Washington
APPLICANT: Mascola, John R.
APPLICANT: WYATT, Richard
APPLICANT: WU, Xueling
APPLICANT: LI, Yuxing
APPLICANT: HOGERKORP, Carl-Magnus
APPLICANT: ROEDERER, Mario
APPLICANT: YANG, Zhi-yong
APPLICANT: NABEL, Gary
APPLICANT: KWONG, Peter
APPLICANT: ZHOU, Tongqing
APPLICANT: ZHU, Jiang
APPLICANT: OFEK, Gilad
APPLICANT: CONNORS, Mark
APPLICANT: SHAPIRO, Lawrence
APPLICANT: SCHIEF, William
TITLE OF INVENTION: NEUTRALIZING ANTIBODIES TO HIV-1 AND THEIR USE
FILE REFERENCE: 4239-83948-16
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/13/429,279
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2012-04-02
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: PCT/US/2010/050295
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2010-09-24
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US 61/246,039
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2009-09-25
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US 61/252,613
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2009-10-16
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US 61/290,135
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2009-12-24
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US 61/346,808
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2010-05-20
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US 61/402,314
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2010-08-27
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US 61/385,531
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2010-09-22
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 1505
SEQ ID NO 27
LENGTH: 130
TYPE: PRT
ORGANISM: Homo sapiens
Query Match 100.0%; Score 73; Length 130;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 12; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 QLSQDPDDPDWG 12
||||||||||||
Db 73 QLSQDPDDPDWG 84
Sequence alignment 2
US-16-725-596-161
Filing date in PALM: 2019-12-23
Sequence 161, US/16725596
Publication No. US20200239551A1
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: University of Maryland, Baltimore
APPLICANT: The United States Government as represented by the
APPLICANT: Department of Veterans Affairs
APPLICANT: Cavet, Guy
APPLICANT: Kim, Dongkyoon
TITLE OF INVENTION: Broadly Neutralizing Antibodies Against HIV
FILE REFERENCE: UMB_047PCT5
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/16/725,596
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2019-12-23
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US 62/523,437
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2017-06-22
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US 62/573,764
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2017-10-18
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US 62/589,614
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2017-11-22
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US 62/591,244
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2017-11-28
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US 62/673,607
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2018-05-18
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 500
SEQ ID NO 161
LENGTH: 457
TYPE: PRT
ORGANISM: Artificial Sequence
FEATURE:
OTHER INFORMATION: antibody variant
Query Match 96.6%; Score 2425.5; Length 457;
Best Local Similarity 97.6%;
Matches 453; Conservative 1; Mismatches 3; Indels 7; Gaps 1;
Qy 1 ADLVQSGAVVKKPGDSVRISCEAQGYRFPDYIIHWIRRAPGQGPEWMGWMNPMGGQVNIP 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 ADLVQSGAVVKKPGDSVRISCEAQGYRFPDYIIHWIRRAPGQGPEWMGWMNPMGGQVNIP 60
Qy 61 WKFQGRVSMTRQLSQDPDDPDWGTAFLDLRGLKSDDTAVYYCVRDRSNGSGKRFESSNWF 120
||||||||||| | : |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 WKFQGRVSMTRDTSIE-------TAFLDLRGLKSDDTAVYYCVRDRSNGSGKRFESSNWF 113
Qy 121 LDLWGRGTAVTIQSASTKGPSVFPLAPSSKSTSGGTAALGCLVKDYFPEPVTVSWNSGAL 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 114 LDLWGRGTAVTIQSASTKGPSVFPLAPSSKSTSGGTAALGCLVKDYFPEPVTVSWNSGAL 173
Qy 181 TSGVHTFPAVLQSSGLYSLSSVVTVPSSSLGTQTYICNVNHKPSNTKVDKRVEPKSCDKT 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 174 TSGVHTFPAVLQSSGLYSLSSVVTVPSSSLGTQTYICNVNHKPSNTKVDKRVEPKSCDKT 233
Qy 241 HTCPPCPAPELLGGPSVFLFPPKPKDTLMISRTPEVTCVVVDVSHEDPEVKFNWYVDGVE 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 234 HTCPPCPAPELLGGPSVFLFPPKPKDTLMISRTPEVTCVVVDVSHEDPEVKFNWYVDGVE 293
Qy 301 VHNAKTKPREEQYNSTYRVVSVLTVLHQDWLNGKEYKCKVSNKALPAPIEKTISKAKGQP 360
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 294 VHNAKTKPREEQYNSTYRVVSVLTVLHQDWLNGKEYKCKVSNKALPAPIEKTISKAKGQP 353
Qy 361 REPQVYTLPPSREEMTKNQVSLTCLVKGFYPSDIAVEWESNGQPENNYKTTPPVLDSDGS 420
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 354 REPQVYTLPPSREEMTKNQVSLTCLVKGFYPSDIAVEWESNGQPENNYKTTPPVLDSDGS 413
Qy 421 FFLYSKLTVDKSRWQQGNVFSCSVMHEALHNHYTQKSLSLSPGK 464
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 414 FFLYSKLTVDKSRWQQGNVFSCSVMHEALHNHYTQKSLSLSPGK 457
US-16-725-596-163
Filing date in PALM: 2019-12-23
Sequence 163, US/16725596
Publication No. US20200239551A1
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: University of Maryland, Baltimore
APPLICANT: The United States Government as represented by the
APPLICANT: Department of Veterans Affairs
APPLICANT: Cavet, Guy
APPLICANT: Kim, Dongkyoon
TITLE OF INVENTION: Broadly Neutralizing Antibodies Against HIV
FILE REFERENCE: UMB_047PCT5
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/16/725,596
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2019-12-23
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US 62/523,437
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2017-06-22
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US 62/573,764
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2017-10-18
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US 62/589,614
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2017-11-22
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US 62/591,244
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2017-11-28
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US 62/673,607
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2018-05-18
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 500
SEQ ID NO 163
LENGTH: 205
TYPE: PRT
ORGANISM: Artificial Sequence
FEATURE:
OTHER INFORMATION: antibody variant
Query Match 100.0%; Score 1077; Length 205;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 203; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 ALTQPRSVSASPGQSVTISCTGTHNLVSWCQHQPGRAPKLLIYDFNKRPSGVPDRFSGSG 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 3 ALTQPRSVSASPGQSVTISCTGTHNLVSWCQHQPGRAPKLLIYDFNKRPSGVPDRFSGSG 62
Qy 61 SGGTASLTITGLQDDDDAEYFCWAYEAFGGGTKLTVLGQPKAAPSVTLFPPSSEELQANK 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 63 SGGTASLTITGLQDDDDAEYFCWAYEAFGGGTKLTVLGQPKAAPSVTLFPPSSEELQANK 122
Qy 121 ATLVCLISDFYPGAVTVAWKADSSPVKAGVETTTPSKQSNNKYAASSYLSLTPEQWKSHR 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 123 ATLVCLISDFYPGAVTVAWKADSSPVKAGVETTTPSKQSNNKYAASSYLSLTPEQWKSHR 182
Qy 181 SYSCQVTHEGSTVEKTVAPTECS 203
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 183 SYSCQVTHEGSTVEKTVAPTECS 205
