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
Claim Status
Claims 1-3 and 17-32 are pending. Claims 1, 18-20 and 28-32 have been amended. Claims 1-3, 17-28 and 31-32 are being examined in this application. In the response to the restriction requirement, Applicants elected Group I; SEQ ID NO: 3, wherein the peptide is acetylated, and wherein the peptide is oxidized; donepezil (the acetylcholinesterase inhibitor); intravenous administration; and Alzheimer’s disease. Claims 29-30 are withdrawn as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejection of claims 1-3, 17-26 and 31-32 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bridon et al. is withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection of claims 1-3, 17-28 and 31-32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bridon et al. in view of Griswold-Prenner et al. is withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
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.
This is a new rejection.
Claims 1-3, 17-26 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bridon et al. (US 2018/0265549) in view of AmbioPharm (downloaded from URL:<https://www.ambiopharm.com/faq/advantage-of-capping-n-and-c-termini/>, May 14, 2019).
With respect to claims 1, 3, 23-24 and 32, Bridon et al. teach a method of treatment of Alzheimer’s disease comprising administering SEQ ID NO: 59 (claim 25; paras [0121] and [0123]), which corresponds to instantly claimed SEQ ID NO: 1.
Bridon et al. also teach that the peptide is administered through a systemic route (paras [0007], [0013]; passim).
Bridon et al. further teach that the peptide is linear or cyclic (paras [0170], [0187], [0189]).
Bridon et al. do not teach that the N-terminal amino acid is acetylated, the C-terminal amino acid is amidated, or both.
AmbioPharm teaches that “[A]cetylation or capping of the N-terminus will make a peptide appear more like native protein. It also helps to minimize amino peptidase degradation of the peptide. Amidation of the C terminus also helps to stabilize the peptide from carboxypeptidase degradation” (page 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the peptide of Bridon et al. wherein the N-terminal amino acid is acetylated and the C-terminal amino acid is amidated in order to make the peptide appear more like native protein.
The skilled artisan would have reasonably expected to minimize amino peptidase degradation and to stabilize the peptide from carboxypeptidase degradation.
With respect to claims 2 and 17-22, Bridon et al. teach that the peptide is SEQ ID NO: 2 (claim 3), which corresponds to instantly claimed SEQ ID NOs: 2-3.
With respect to claim 25, as discussed above, the peptide of Bridon et al. is used for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease (which is characterized by increased tau protein level, tau protein aggregation, and tau protein hyperphosphorylation), thus, it would inherently reduce tau protein level, tau protein aggregation, and tau protein hyperphosphorylation. Therefore, the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected the acetylated and amidated peptide obvious over the references to reduce tau protein level, tau protein aggregation, and tau protein hyperphosphorylation.
With respect to claim 26, Bridon et al. teach intravenous administration (paras [0011], [0119]-[0120]).
With respect to claim 31, Bridon et al. teach administering the peptide and a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient (claims 13 and 23; paras [0117]-[0118]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The MPEP 2123 states that “[D]isclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (The invention was directed to an epoxy impregnated fiber-reinforced printed circuit material. The applied prior art reference taught a printed circuit material similar to that of the claims but impregnated with polyester-imide resin instead of epoxy. The reference, however, disclosed that epoxy was known for this use, but that epoxy impregnated circuit boards have "relatively acceptable dimensional stability" and "some degree of flexibility," but are inferior to circuit boards impregnated with polyester-imide resins. The court upheld the rejection concluding that applicant’s argument that the reference teaches away from using epoxy was insufficient to overcome the rejection since "Gurley asserted no discovery beyond what was known in the art." Id. at 554, 31 USPQ2d at 1132.). Furthermore, "[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004)”.
In the instant case, contrary to Applicant’s arguments, Bridon et al. clearly teach systemic administration (paras [0007], [0013]; passim).
With respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding Bridon et al. not teaching that the subject is suffering from an increased or pathological tau protein level, and/or tau protein aggregation, and/or tau protein hyper- and/or abnormal phosphorylation, it is noted that Alzheimer’s disease (taught by Bridon et al.) is characterized by an increased or pathological tau protein level, and/or tau protein aggregation, and/or tau protein hyper- and/or abnormal phosphorylation.
With respect to Applicant’s alleged unexpected results, the MPEP 716.02(e) states that “[e]vidence of unexpected results must compare the claimed invention with the closest prior art”.
In the instant case, to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness, Applicant should compare the instantly claimed peptide with the peptide of Bridon et al.
For the reasons stated above the rejection is maintained.
This is a new rejection.
Claims 1-3, 17-28 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bridon et al. (US 2018/0265549) in view AmbioPharm (downloaded from URL:<https://www.ambiopharm.com/faq/advantage-of-capping-n-and-c-termini/>, May 14, 2019), as applied to claims 1-3, 17-26 and 31-32 above, and further in view of Griswold-Prenner et al. (WO 2014/028777).
The teachings of Bridon et al. and AmbioPharm with respect to claims 1-3, 17-26 and 31-32, have been discussed above.
Bridon et al. and AmbioPharm do not teach administering an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor.
Griswold-Prenner et al. teach that acetylcholinesterase inhibitors such as donezepil are used for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease (paras [00157] and [00376]).
The MPEP 2144.06 states that "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from them having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Susi, 58 CCPA 1074, 1079-80, 440 F.2d 442, 445, 169 USPQ 423, 426 (1971); In re Crockett, 47 CCPA 1018, 1020-21, 279 F.2d 274, 276-77, 126 USPQ 186, 188 (1960). As the court explained in Crockett, the idea of combining them flows logically from them having been individually taught in prior art.
Therefore, since the references teach that instantly claimed SEQ ID NO: 1 and acetylcholinesterase inhibitors are effective in treating Alzheimer’s disease, it would have been obvious to combine the two compounds with the expectation that such a combination would be effective in treating Alzheimer’s disease. Thus, combining them flows logically from them having been individually taught in prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that there is no disclosure or suggestion in the cited Griswold-Penner reference that could be combined with Bridon to make the present claims obvious.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the references clearly teach that instantly claimed SEQ ID NO: 1 and acetylcholinesterase inhibitors are effective in treating Alzheimer’s disease. Therefore, according to MPEP 2144.06, it would have been obvious to combine the two compounds with the expectation that such a combination would be effective in treating Alzheimer’s disease.
For the reasons stated above the rejection is maintained.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
This rejection is maintained.
Claims 1-3, 17-26 and 31-32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15-34 of copending Application No. 18/576443 in view of Hanson et al. (Cell Rep. 2020 Jan 14;30(2):381-396.e4).
With respect to claims 1 and 23-24, ‘443 teaches a method of treating a subject in need thereof to enhance or restore GluN2A-NMDAr-mediated glutamatergic neurotransmission, the method comprising administering to the subject a therapeutic amount of a peptide and a pharmaceutically acceptable vehicle or excipient, wherein said peptide has the following amino acid sequence X1-W-S-Al-W-S-A2-C-S-A3-A4-C-G-X2 in which :- Al, A2, A3 and A4 consists of amino acid sequences consisting of 1 to 5 amino acids, - X1 and X2 consists of amino acid sequences consisting of 1 to 6 amino acids; or X1 and X2 are absent; it being possible for the N-terminal amino acid to be acetylated, for the C-terminal amino acid to be amidated, or the N-terminal amino acid to be acetylated and the C- terminal amino acid to be amidated (claim 15).
‘443 also teaches that the peptide is administered through a systemic route (see specification at page 18, line 22). Please note that it is proper to turn to and rely on the disclosure of a patent application to ascertain what constitutes an obvious modification. This position is supported by the courts. See In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970).
‘443 does not specifically teach that the disease is Alzheimer’s disease (i.e. a tauopathy).
Hanson et al. teach that GluN2A NMDA Receptor Enhancement Improves Brain Oscillations, Synchrony, and Cognitive Functions in Dravet Syndrome and Alzheimer’s Disease Models (title; passim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method of ‘443 to treat Alzheimer’s disease because Hanson et al. teach that GluN2A NMDA Receptor Enhancement Improves Brain Oscillations, Synchrony, and Cognitive Functions in Alzheimer’s Disease Models.
With respect to claim 2, ‘443 teaches that the peptide is SEQ ID NO: 2 (claim 21).
With respect to claims 3 and 17, ‘443 teaches that the peptide is linear or cyclic (claim 25).
With respect to claim 18, ‘443 teaches that A1 is chosen from G, V, S, P and A, A2 is chosen from G, V, S, P and A, A3 is chosen from R, A and V, and/or A4 is chosen from S, T, P and A (claim 22).
With respect to claims 19, 21-22 and 32, ‘443 teaches that the peptide is of a sequence selected from the group consisting of sequences SEQ ID NO: 3- 63 (claim 24).
With respect to claim 20, ‘443 teaches that A1 and A2 are independently chosen from G and S, and/or A3-A4 is chosen from R-S or V-S or V-T or R-T (claim 23).
With respect to claim 25, the MPEP 2112.01 states that “'Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.’ A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In the instant case, the peptide of ‘443 is the same peptide instantly claimed; thus, it would inherently have the same properties (i.e. inducing the reduction or disruption of tau aggregation, reducing tau protein, and reducing the level of phosphorylated tau protein).
With respect to claim 26, ‘443 teach intravenous administration (page 19, line 6).
With respect to claim 31, ‘443 teaches administering the peptide and a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient (claim 15).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “[H]anson does not disclose or remotely suggest treating a subject suffering from an increased or pathological tau protein level, and/or tau protein aggregation, and/or tau protein hyper- and/or abnormal phosphorylation as set forth in Applicant's present claims. In view of Hanson, the skilled artisan would not have reasonably consider that GluN2A NMDA Receptor enhancement would have any specific effect on tau protein level, aggregation of phosphorylation”.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because, ‘443 clearly teaches enhancing or restoring GluN2A-NMDAr-mediated glutamatergic neurotransmission, and Hanson et al. teach that GluN2A NMDA Receptor Enhancement Improves Brain Oscillations, Synchrony, and Cognitive Functions in Dravet Syndrome and Alzheimer’s Disease Models (title; passim).
Therefore, the skilled artisan would have been motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use the method of ‘443 to treat Alzheimer’s disease.
For the reasons stated above the rejection is maintained.
This rejection is maintained.
Claims 1-3, 17-28 and 31-32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15-34 of copending Application No. 18/576443 in view of Hanson et al. (Cell Rep. 2020 Jan 14;30(2):381-396.e4) and Griswold-Prenner et al. (WO 2014/028777).
The teachings of ‘443 and Hanson et al. with respect to claims 1-3, 17-26 and 31-32, have been discussed above.
‘443 and Hanson et al. do not teach administering an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor.
Griswold-Prenner et al. teach that acetylcholinesterase inhibitors such as donezepil are used for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease (paras [00157] and [00376]).
The MPEP 2144.06 states that "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from them having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Susi, 58 CCPA 1074, 1079-80, 440 F.2d 442, 445, 169 USPQ 423, 426 (1971); In re Crockett, 47 CCPA 1018, 1020-21, 279 F.2d 274, 276-77, 126 USPQ 186, 188 (1960). As the court explained in Crockett, the idea of combining them flows logically from them having been individually taught in prior art.
Therefore, since the references teach that instantly claimed SEQ ID NO: 1 and acetylcholinesterase inhibitors are effective in treating Alzheimer’s disease, it would have been obvious to combine the two compounds with the expectation that such a combination would be effective in treating Alzheimer’s disease. Thus, combining them flows logically from them having been individually taught in prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “[G]riswold-Prenner at most only teaches that acetylcholinesterase inhibitors are used for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease but does not have any disclosure or suggestion that would cure the deficiencies of '443 and Hanson”.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the references clearly teach that instantly claimed SEQ ID NO: 1 and acetylcholinesterase inhibitors are effective in treating Alzheimer’s disease. Therefore, according to MPEP 2144.06, it would have been obvious to combine the two compounds with the expectation that such a combination would be effective in treating Alzheimer’s disease.
For the reasons stated above the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SERGIO COFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-3022. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 6AM-4PM.
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, MELISSA FISHER can be reached at 571-270-7430. 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.
/SERGIO COFFA Ph.D./
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1658
/SERGIO COFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1658