DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/30/2025 has been entered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims Status
3. Applicant’s amendments and remarks, filed 12/30/2025, are acknowledged. Claims 1-3 are amended. Claims 1-3, 6-7 and 12-15 are [ending. As such, claims 1-3, 6-7, and 12-15 are pending examination and currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Maintained Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The rejection is maintained for reasons set forth at pp. 5-7 of the previous Office action (mailed 30 April 2025) and for the reasons discussed below.
Applicant argues (pp. 1-2, remarks received 30 December 2025) that the claims have been amended to recite treatment for bone metastasis of cancer selected from the group consisting of surgical treatment, drug treatment and radiation therapy. Applicant stresses that the claims further recite measuring various GDF15 related peptides having specific sequences. Applicant urges that such does not constitute a judicial exception and are not well understood, routine or conventional.
This has been fully considered but is not found to be persuasive. The added phrase regarding treatment of cancer selected from the group consisting of surgical treatment, drug treatment and radiation therapy is recited at such a high degree of generality, that it amounts to no more than the judicial exception and a direction to “apply it.” See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2), wherein it is stated that:
“A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional element(s) demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the additional elements apply or use the recited judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition.” (emphasis added)
MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2) indicates the following regarding a particular treatment:
“When determining whether a claim applies or uses a recited judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the following factors are relevant.
a. The Particularity Or Generality Of The Treatment Or Prophylaxis
The treatment or prophylaxis limitation must be “particular,” i.e., specifically identified so that it does not encompass all applications of the judicial exception(s). For example, consider a claim that recites mentally analyzing information to identify if a patient has a genotype associated with poor metabolism of beta blocker medications. This falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a). The claim also recites “administering a lower than normal dosage of a beta blocker medication to a patient identified as having the poor metabolizer genotype.” This administration step is particular, and it integrates the mental analysis step into a practical application. Conversely, consider a claim that recites the same abstract idea and “administering a suitable medication to a patient.” This administration step is not particular, and is instead merely instructions to “apply” the exception in a generic way. Thus, the administration step does not integrate the mental analysis step into a practical application.”
In the instant case, the claims set forth a judicial exception regarding determining a level of GDF15 propeptide in a sample and diagnosing a patient as having bone metastasis of cancer when the level is higher than a reference value, and administering a treatment for bone metastasis of cancer to the diagnosed patient and said treatment is selected from the group consisting of surgical treatment, drug treatment and radiation therapy. The state of the art regarding drug treatment for bone metastasis of prostate cancer is discussed by Hahn, et al (Failure to Suppress Markers of Bone Turnover on First-Line Hormone Therapy for Metastatic Prostate Cancer Is Associated With Shorter Time to Skeletal-Related Event Clinical Genitourinary Cancer, 2013; 12, 33-40.e4). Hahn, et al. discussed the use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to treat metastatic prostate cancer that was not successful. Thus, not all drug treatments are capable to treat bone metastatic cancer as claimed by Applicant. The treatment is not particular enough to overcome the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims amount to no more than a judicial exception and an instruction to “apply it.”
New rejections/objections
Specification
5. The use of the term AIA -600II (page 39), BioreclamationIVT (page 41), which is a trade name or a mark 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following rejection is a written description rejection. This written description rejection has two issues. One issue regarding written description with regard to the claimed method using “fragment” language and the other issue is regarding the claimed invention lacking structure for the antibody used for the antigen-antibody reaction
6. Firstly, claims 2-3 and 12-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The MPEP states that the purpose of the written description requirement is to ensure
that the inventor had possession, as of the filing date of the application, of the specific subject matter later claimed. The MPEP lists factors that can be used to determine if sufficient evidence of possession has been furnished in the disclosure of the application. These include “level of skill and knowledge in the art, partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics alone or coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between structure and function, and the method of making the claimed invention.”
The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, disclosure of drawings, or by disclosure of relevant identifying characteristics, for example, structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the Applicants were in possession of the claimed genus.
The instant claims are drawn method for detecting bone metastasis of cancer, the method comprising: measuring a GDF 15 propeptide fragment level in a sample from a patient; identifying a patient having bone metastasis of cancer when a measured GDF15 propeptide fragment level in the sample from the patient is higher than a reference value; and treating the identified patient by administering to said patient a treatment for bone metastasis of cancer selected from the group consisting of surgical treatment, drug treatment, and radiation therapy, wherein the cancer is selected from the group consisting of prostate cancer other than castration resistant prostate cancer, renal cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, thyroid cancer, pancreatic cancer, bladder cancer, colon cancer, melanoma, myeloma, and lymphoma, and wherein the GDF15 propeptide fragment comprises the following GDF15 propeptide fragment (A) and/or (B):(A) a GDF 15 propeptide fragment comprising the amino acid sequence from lysine at the 58th residue to at least aspartic acid at the 167th residue in the GDF15 amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:2; and(B) a GDF15 propeptide fragment comprising the amino acid sequence from glutamic acid at the 74th residue to at least aspartic acid at the 167th residue in the GDF15 amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:2; wherein the intact GDF15 propeptide comprises the amino acid sequence from leucine at the 30th residue to arginine at the 194th residue in the GDF15 amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:2, and wherein the GDF15 propeptide fragment comprise the following GDF15 propeptide fragment (A) and/or (B):(A) a GDF 15 propeptide fragment comprising the amino acid sequence from lysine at the 58th residue to at least aspartic acid at the 167th residue in the GDF15 amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:2; and(B) a GDF15 propeptide fragment comprising the amino acid sequence from glutamic acid at the 74th residue to at least aspartic acid at the 167th residue in the GDF15 amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:2.
The specification teaches that the (A) a GDF15 propeptide fragment having the following properties: contains an amino acid sequence from the lysine at the 58th residue to at least the aspartic acid at the 167th residue in the GDF15 amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:2, or a sequence having an identity of not less than 80% thereto; and (B) a GDF15 propeptide fragment having the following properties: contains an amino acid sequence from the glutamic acid at the 74th residue to at least the aspartic acid at the 167th residue in the GDF15 amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:2, or a sequence having an identity of not less than 80% thereto. The specification teaches the other peptide fragments are not particularly limited as long as being peptide fragments formed after processing of GDF15 propeptide, and are preferably peptide including a sequence partly included in the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:2, or an amino acid sequence having an identity of not less than80% to the sequence described above (page 13).
The issue with regard to the written description provision is that the genus of fragment is not adequately described. The claims also broadly encompass fragment. The specification provides no guidance regarding which amino acids can be modified in the fragment, while maintaining any given function. Therefore, these structures (i.e., different forms) are claimed only be their functional characteristics and the specification fails to provide sufficient correlation between the claimed functional characteristics and the necessary structural components (i.e., critical domains within the sequences).
Furthermore, Applicants have not shown possession of a representative number of species that have the claimed function(s). While the specification clearly sets forth a correlation between the claimed fragment, and the claimed functions, this correlation does not appear to be clearly present in the breadth of the claims. As noted above, the claims are not limited to the disclosed fragment. Thus, the genus has substantial variation because of the numerous alternatives and combinations permitted. There is no description of the structure common to the members of the genus such that one of skill in the art can visualize or recognize the members of the genus. Therefore, only one species has been described and this is not considered to be representative of the breadth of the genus. Therefore, given the lack of structure function correlation and the lack of a representative number of species, the specification provides insufficient written description to support the genus encompassed by the claim.
Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 19 USPQ2d 1111, makes clear that "applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the 'written description' inquiry, whatever is now claimed." (See page 1117.) The specification does not "clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed." (See Vas-Cath at page 1116.)
The skilled artisan cannot envision the detailed chemical structure of the encompassed fragment, regardless of the complexity or simplicity of the method of isolation. Adequate written description requires more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method for isolating it. The nucleic acid and/or protein itself is required. 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 USPQ2d 1966.
Protein chemistry is probably one of the most unpredictable areas of biotechnology. Consequently, the effects of sequence dissimilarities upon protein structure and function cannot be predicted. Punta et al. (PLoS Comput Biol 4(10): e1000160, 2008) teach that homology (both orthology and paralogy) does not guarantee conservation of function (See page 2). Punta et al. teach that relatively small difference in sequence can sometimes cause quite radical changes in functional properties, such as a change of enzymatic action, or even loss or acquisition of enzymatic activity itself (See page 2). Punta et al. teach that it is also apparent that there is no sequence similarity threshold that guarantees that two proteins share the same function (see page 2). Punta et al. teach that homology between two proteins does not guarantee that they have the same function, not even when sequence similarity is very high (including 100% sequence identity) (See page 2 and table 2). Punta et al. teach that proteins live and function in 3D, and therefore structural information is very helpful for predicating function (See page 4). However, as with sequence, two proteins having the same overall architecture, and even conserved functional residues, can have unrelated functions (See page 4). Punta et al. teach that still; structural knowledge is an extremely powerful tool for computational function prediction (See page 5).
Similarly, Whisstock et al. (Quarterly Reviews in Biophysics. 36(3):307-340, 2007) teach that the prediction of protein function from sequence and structure is a difficult problem (See abstract). Although many families of proteins contain homologues with the same function, homologous proteins often have different functions as the sequences progressively diverge (See page 309). Whisstock et al. teach that moreover, even closely related proteins can change function, either through divergence to a related function or by recruitment for a very different function (See page 309). Further, Whisstock et al. note that in some instances, even sequences that are the same can have different functions. For example, eye lens proteins in the suck are identical in sequence to active lactate dehydrogenase and enolase in other tissues, although they do not encounter the substrates in the eye (See page 310). Whisstock et al. teach that assigning a function to an amino acid sequence based upon similarity becomes significantly more complex as the similarity between the sequence and a putative homologue fall (See page 321). Whisstock et al. teach that while it is hopeful that similar proteins will share similar functions, substitution of a single, critically placed amino acid in an active-site may be sufficient to alter a protein’s role fundamentally (See pages 321-323).
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 Song et al. (Molecular Biology of the Cell, 15:1287–1296, March 2004) who teach that substitution of alanine for aspartate in surviving results in the conversion of surviving’ apoptotic function from anti-apoptotic to proapoptotic and changes in its subcellular localization (See page 1287-1289). Moreover, Defeo-Jones et al. (Molecular and Cellular Biology, Sept. 1989, p. 4083-4086) teach that the conservative substitution of lysine for arginine at position 42 completely eliminated biological activity (See abstract and pages 4084-4085). These references demonstrate that even a single amino acid substitution will often dramatically affect the biological activity and characteristics of a protein.
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).
Given not only the teachings of Punta et al., Whisstock et al., Song et al., Burgess et al., and Defeo-Jones et al., but also the limitations and pitfalls of using computational sequence analysis and the unknown effects of alternative splicing, post translational modification and cellular context on protein function as taught by Bork, the claimed proteins having the required function(s) could not be predicted based on sequence identity. Clearly, it could not be predicted that polypeptide or a variant that shares only partial homology with a disclosed protein will function in a given manner. Therefore, the state of the art supports that even the skilled artisan requires guidance on the critical structures of the proteins per se and thereby does not provide adequate written description support for which structural features of any given polypeptide would predictably retain their functional activities.
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).
Adequate written description requires more than a mere statement that is part of the invention. See Fiers v. Revel, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (CAFC 1993) and Amgen Inc. v. Chungai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., 18 USPQ2d 1016. In Fiddes v. Baird, 30 USPQ2d 1481, 1483, claims directed to mammalian FGF's were found unpatentable due to lack of written description for the broad class. The specification provided only the bovine sequence.
The University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1404, 1405 held that: ...To fulfill the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe an invention and does so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that “the inventor invented the claimed invention.” Lockwood v. American Airlines Inc. 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (1997); In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("[T]he description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed."). Thus an Applicant complies with the written description requirement "by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious," and by using "such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that set forth the claimed invention." Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2dat1966.
MPEP § 2163.02 states, “[a]n objective standard for determining compliance with the written description requirement is, ‘does the description clearly allow person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that he or she invented what is claimed’”. The courts have decided: the purpose of the “written description" requirement is broader than to merely explain how to "make and use"; the Applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art, that as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is for purposes of the “written description” inquiry, whatever is now claimed. See Vas-Cath, Inc v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Federal Circuit, 1991).
Furthermore, the written description provision of 35 USC §112 is severable from its enablement provision; and adequate written description requires more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method for isolating it. Fiers v. Revel, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (CAFC 1993). And Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., 18 USPQ2d 1016. Moreover, an adequate written description of the claimed invention must include sufficient description of at least a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, reduction to drawings, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. However, factual evidence of an actual reduction to practice has not been disclosed by Applicant in the specification; nor has Applicant shown the invention was “ready for patenting” by disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete; nor has the Applicant described distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that Applicant were in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed. Therefore, for all these reasons the specification lacks adequate written description, and one of skill in the art cannot reasonably conclude that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the instant application was filed.
Secondly, claims 1-3, 6, 12 and 13 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. Please note that claims 1-3 are rejected in this rejection because they are claims that claim 6, 12 and 13 depend on. The issue is specifically regarding the lack of antibody structure. 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 instant claims are the method according to claim 1, wherein the measurement is carried out by an antigen-antibody reaction using an antibody that recognizes GDF15 propeptide; the method according to claim 2, wherein the measurement is carried out by an antigen-antibody reaction using an antibody that recognizes GDF15 propeptide; the method according to claim 3, wherein the measurement is carried out by an antigen-antibody reaction using an antibody that recognizes GDF15 propeptide.
The specification teaches (a) A competition method in which a labeled measuring object
and an antibody that specifically recognizes the measuring object are used, and which utilizes the competitive binding of the labeled measuring object and the measuring object contained in the sample to the antibody. (b) A method using surface plasmon resonance, in which the sample is brought into contact with a chip on which an antibody that specifically recognizes the measuring object is immobilized, and a signal dependent on the binding of the antibody to the measuring object is detected. (c) A fluorescence polarization immunoassay in which an antibody that specifically recognizes a fluorescently-labeled measuring object is used, and which utilizes the phenomenon that the binding of the antibody to the measuring object causes an increase in the degree of fluorescence polarization. (d) A sandwich method in which two types of antibodies (one of which is a labeled antibody) that specifically recognize different epitopes on the measuring object are used, so as to allow the formation of a complex of three
molecules, namely, a complex of the two antibodies and the measuring object. (e) A method in which the measuring object in the sample is concentrated by an antibody that specifically recognizes the measuring object, as a pretreatment, and then the polypeptide in the bound protein is detected using a mass spectrometer
or the like.
The claims state that the antibody recognizes the GDF15 propeptide. However, the specification provides no guidance regarding any antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof that specifically binds GDF18 propeptide and does not define all six complementary domain regions (CDRs). The specification does not provide adequate written description to identify the broad genus of the claims because the specification does not disclose a correlation between the necessary structure of the antibody, and the claimed functions to be maintained (i.e. using an antibody that recognizes GDF15 propeptide). Thus, the specification does not distinguish the claimed genus from others, except by function. Although the term “antibody” does impart some structure, the structure that is common to antibodies is generally unrelated to its specific binding function; therefore, correlation is less likely for antibodies than for other molecules. Accordingly, the specification does not define any structural features commonly possessed by members of the genus because, while the description of an ability of a claimed antibody or antibody fragment thereof may generically describe that molecule’s function, it does not describe the molecule itself. A definition by function does not suffice to define the genus because it is only an indication of what the antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof does, rather than what it is; therefore it is only a definition of a useful result rather than a definition of what achieves that result. In addition, because the genus of antibodies, is highly variable (i.e. each different antibody capable of binding to GDF15 propeptide would necessarily have a unique sequence of amino acids; see MPEP 2434), the functional characteristic of binding to something specific, is insufficient to describe the genus. Further, given the highly diverse nature of antibodies, particularly in CDRs, even one of skill in the art cannot envision the structure of an antibody by only knowing its binding characteristics. Thus, the specification does not provide substantive evidence for possession of this large and variable genus, encompassing a potentially massive number of antibodies or antigen-binding fragments thereof claimed only by a partial structure and functional characteristics.
Additionally, the specification fails to disclose a representative number of species. Thus, the genus has substantial variation because of the numerous alternatives and combinations permitted. MPEP §2163 states that for a generic claim, the genus can be adequately described if the disclosure presents a sufficient number of representative species that encompass the genus. If the genus has a substantial variance (as in the instant case), the disclosure must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within that genus. Although the MPEP does not define what constitutes a sufficient number of representative species, the courts have indicated what does not constitute a representative number to adequately describe a broad genus. The courts determined that the disclosure of two chemical compounds within a subgenus did not describe that subgenus (e.g. see In re Gostelli, 872, F.2d at 1012, 10 USPQ2d at 1618).
Further, the disclosure of only one or two species encompassed within a genus adequately describes a claim directed to that genus only if the disclosure "indicates that the patentee has invented species sufficient to constitute the gen[us]; emphasis added. "See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 966, 63 USPQ2d at 1615; Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1508, 1514 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Fed. Cir. 2004) "[A] patentee of a biotechnological invention cannot necessarily claim a genus after only describing a limited number of species because there may be unpredictability in the results obtained from species other than those specifically enumerated."). "A patentee will not be deemed to have invented species sufficient to constitute the genus by virtue of having disclosed a single species when ... the evidence indicates ordinary artisans could not predict the operability in the invention of any species other than the one disclosed." In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1358, 69 USPQ2d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, the specification also does not provide adequate written description to identify the broad genus of the claims, claimed only by a partial structure and functional characteristics and not structures per se, because inter alia, it does not describe a sufficient number and/or a sufficient variety of representative species to reflect the breadth and variation within the claimed genus. Consequently, based on the lack of information within the specification, there is evidence that a representative number and a representative variety of the numerous antibodies had not yet been identified and thus the specification represents little more than a wish for possession; See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406 (written description requirement not satisfied by merely providing "a result that one might achieve if one made that invention"); In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516,1521,222 USPQ 369, 372-73 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (affirming a rejection for lack of written description because the specification does "little more than outline goals appellants hope the claimed invention achieves and the problems the invention will hopefully ameliorate"). Therefore, one of skill in the art would not conclude that Applicant was in possession of the broad and highly variable genus of antibodies claimed only by a partial structure and functional characteristics.
In Abbvie v. Centocor (Fed. Cir. 2014), the Court held that a disclosure of many different antibodies was not enough to support the genus of all neutralizing antibodies because the disclosed antibodies were very closely related to each other in structure and were not representative of the full diversity of the genus. The Court further noted that functionally defined genus claims can be inherently vulnerable to invalidity challenge for lack of written description support especially in technology fields that are highly unpredictable where it is difficult to establish a correlation between structure and function for the whole genus or to predict what would be covered by the functionally claimed genus. The instant case has many similarities to AbbVie above. First, the claims clearly attempt to define the genus of antibody by the functions of recognizing GDF15 propeptide. As noted by AbbVie above, functionally defined genus claims can be inherently vulnerable to invalidity challenge for lack of written description. Second, there is no information in the specification based upon which one of skill in the art would conclude that the disclosed species for which applicant has identified as having the recited functions would be representative of the entire genus. The specification discloses no structure to correlate with the function. 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.)
Antibody that recognized GDF15 propeptide comprising fewer than six CDRs do not meet the requirements under 35 U.S.C. 112 first paragraph because the skilled artisan cannot envision the detailed chemical structure of the encompassed antibody variants, regardless of the complexity or simplicity of the method of isolation. Adequate written description requires more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method for isolating it. The nucleic acid and/or protein itself is required. 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.
Finally, 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 USPQ2d 1966.
It is well established in the art that the formation of an intact antigen-binding site generally requires the association of the complete heavy and light chain variable regions of a given antibody, each of which consists of three CDRs which provide the majority of the contact residues for the binding of the antibody to its target epitope. Paul (Fundamental Immunology, 3rd Edition, Raven Press, New York, Chapter 8, pages 292-295, 1993) teaches that the amino acid sequences and conformations 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. It is expected that all of the heavy and light chain CDRs in their proper order and in the context of framework sequences, which maintain their required conformation, are required in order to produce a protein having antigen-binding function and that proper association of heavy and light chain variable regions is required in order to form functional antigen binding sites (See pages 293-295). While some publications acknowledge that CDR3 is important for antigen binding, the conformations of other CDRs as well as the framework are equally important in antigen binding. For example, MacCallum et al. (Journal of Molecular Biology, 262:732-745, 1996) analyzed antigen-contacting residues and combining site shape of various antibodies and state that although CDR3 of the heavy chain and light chain dominate, a number of residues outside of the standard CDR definitions make antigen contacts (See page 733) . MacCallum et al. teach that antigens tend to bind to the antibody residues located at the center of the combining site where the six CDRs meet (See abstract and page 742) and less central CDR residues are only contacted by large antigens (See page 733 and 735). MacCallum et al. further teach that non-contacting residues are important in defining "canonical" backbone conformations.
The fact that not just one CDR is essential for antigen binding or maintaining the conformation of the antigen binding site, is further underscored by Casset et al. (Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 307:198-205, 2003), which discuss the importance of multiple CDRs in antigen contact. Casset et al. teach that all antibodies have six CDR residues, all of which are more or less involved in antigen recognition (See page 199). Casset et al. teach that peptide mimetics of antibody combining sites have previously only targeted CDR H3, since this CDR is typically at the center of most, if not all, antigen interactions; however this strategy is flawed since other CDRs play an important role in the recognition of antigen (See page 199). Casset et al. construct a peptide mimetic of an anti-CD4 monoclonal antibody, containing antigen contact residues from five CDR regions, except L2 and additionally using a framework residue located just before the H3 and show that the peptide has high binding to CD4, thus signifying the contribution of multiple CDRs, and not a single CDR, in antigen recognition (See page 202 and Figure 4). Vajdos et al. (Journal of Molecular Biology, 2002 Jul 5;320(2):415-28) additionally states 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.
Further, Sela-Culang et al. 2013 (The structural basis of antibody-antigen recognition; Frontiers in Immunology 4(302):1-13) teach the hypervariable loops within the variable domains of antibody polypeptides are widely assumed to be responsible for antigen recognition while the constant domains are believed to mediate effector activation, but that recent analysis indicates that their clear functional separation between the two regions is an over-simplification (see abstract). Sela-Culang et al. teach some residues within the CDRs may not participate in antigen binding and some residues outside the CDRs (e.g. in framework regions and in the constant domains) often contribute critically to the integration with the antigen (see abstract). Sela-Culang et al. teach understanding the role of each structural element is essential for successful engineering of binding polypeptides (e.g. page 2, left column). Sela-Culang et al. teach almost all of the residues predicted to be part of an epitope may be considered as correct predictors as they will bind to some antibodies but also are false predictors as they don’t bind to the others and accordingly that predicting that a residue is not in an epitope may be either a true negative or a false negative depending on the anybody considered (page 2, right column). Sela-Culang et al. teach each CDR has its own unique amino-acid composition different from the composition of the other CDRs and that each CDR has a unique set of contact preferences favoring certain amino acids over others (page 5-6, bridging). Sela-Culang et al. teach the combined action of all six CDRs is the evolutionary response of the immune system that enables the antibody polypeptide to recognize virtually any surface patch on the antigen (page 6). Therefore, the state of the art supports that even the skilled artisan requires guidance on the critical structures of the antibody per se and thereby does not provide adequate written description support for which structural features of any given polypeptide would predictably retain their functional activities.
Accordingly, one of skill in the art would conclude that the claimed invention encompasses a plurality of antibodies comprising fewer than six CDRs that may not have the biological functions recited in the claims. It should be noted that the claimed invention encompasses antibody that recognized GDF15 propeptide. Based on the teachings of the instant specification and the prior art, one of skill in the art would not conclude that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus of antibodies.
Therefore, the species specifically disclosed are not representative of the genus because the genus is highly variant. Applicant is reminded that Vas-Cath makes clear that the written description provision of 35 USC 112 is severable from its enablement provision. (See page 1115).
Conclusion
6. No claims are allowed
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Syed J Abbas whose telephone number is (571)272-0015. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9:00AM-4:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vanessa Ford can be reached at 571-272-0857. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SYED J ABBAS/Examiner, Art Unit 1674
/VANESSA L. FORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1674
Prosecution Insights