DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-47 were originally filed June 10, 2022.
The amendment received February 27, 2023 canceled claims 1-47 and added new claims 48-67.
The amendment received September 4, 2025 canceled claims 48 and 64-67 and amended claims 49, 50, and 56-63.
Claims 49-63 are currently pending.
Claims 49-51, 53, 54, 58, and 60-63 are currently under consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 49-66) in the reply filed on September 4, 2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s election of PEP000116 (i.e. HaloTago2-LTF(R8)AYWAQ(Cba)(S5)SAA-NH2) as RB-L-FG2/agent wherein RB is LTF(R8)AYWAQ(Cba)(S5)SAA-NH2, L is –(CH2)6O(CH2)2O(CH2)2NHC(O)(CH2)2C(O)-, and FG2 being -Cl; PEP000116 (i.e. HaloTago2-LTF(R8)AYWAQ(Cba)(S5)SAA-NH2) as RB-L-FG2/product agent wherein RB is LTF(R8)AYWAQ(Cba)(S5)SAA-NH2, L is –(CH2)6O(CH2)2O(CH2)2NHC(O)(CH2)2C(O)-, and FG2 being -OH; contacting and detection utilizing mass spectrometry; and no additional reagents as the species in the reply filed on September 4, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Please note: it appears that the election for A (i.e. RB-L-FG2/agent) is incorrect. The election appears to be for a structure of FG2-L-RB which is not present in the claims. In addition, R8 and S5 are not defined. It is unclear from the claims and the originally filed specification if R8 is eight arginines, a variable that was not defined, etc. It is unclear from the claims and the originally filed specification if S5 is five serines, a variable that was not defined, etc.
Please note: it appears that the election for B (i.e. RB-L-FG2/product agent) is incorrect. The election appears to be for a structure of FG2-L-RB which is not present in the claims. In addition, R8 and S5 are not defined. It is unclear from the claims and the originally filed specification if R8 is eight arginines, a variable that was not defined, etc. It is unclear from the claims and the originally filed specification if S5 is five serines, a variable that was not defined, etc. Furthermore, it appears that this election does not correspond to present claims 49 and 50-60 since RP-L-FG3 was not elected. However, in order to advance prosecution and due to the myriad of other issues with independent claims 49 and 50, the claims have been examined.
Please note: LTF(R8)AYWAQ(Cba)(S5)SAA-NH2 is not required in the claims, therefore, the rejections of record do not require the sequence.
Please note: mass spectrometry is not required in the claims, therefore, the rejections of record do not require the species.
Please note: the method steps for present claims 61-63 were not elected. However, in order to advance prosecution and due to the myriad of issues with claims 61-63, the claims have been examined.
Claims 52, 55-57, and 59 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 4, 2025.
Priority
The present application is a 371 (National Stage) of PCT/US2020/064685 filed December 11, 2020 and claims the benefit of 62/946,736 filed December 11, 2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on March 1, 2023 and September 4, 2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures
REQUIREMENTS FOR PATENT APPLICATIONS CONTAINING NUCLEOTIDE AND/OR AMINO ACID SEQUENCE DISCLOSURES
Items 1) and 2) provide general guidance related to requirements for sequence disclosures.
37 CFR 1.821(c) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.821(a) must contain a "Sequence Listing," as a separate part of the disclosure, which presents the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences and associated information using the symbols and format in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825. This "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure may be submitted:
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (see Section I.1 of the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (https://www.uspto.gov/PatentLegalFramework), hereinafter "Legal Framework") as an ASCII text file, together with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file in a separate paragraph of the specification as required by 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
ii) the date of creation; and
iii) the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) on read-only optical disc(s) as permitted by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(1)(ii), labeled according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5), with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8) and 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) in a separate paragraph of the specification identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
the date of creation; and
the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(2) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF file (not recommended); or
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(3) on physical sheets of paper (not recommended).
When a “Sequence Listing” has been submitted as a PDF file as in 1(c) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(2)) or on physical sheets of paper as in 1(d) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(3)), 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1) requires a computer readable form (CRF) of the “Sequence Listing” in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.824.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the PDF copy and the CRF copy (the ASCII text file copy) are identical.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed on paper or read-only optical disc, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the paper or read-only optical disc copy and the CRF are identical.
Specific deficiencies and the required response to this Office Action are as follows:
Specific deficiency - This application fails to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 because it does not contain a "Sequence Listing" as a separate part of the disclosure or a CRF of the “Sequence Listing.”.
Required response - Applicant must provide:
A "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure; together with
An amendment specifically directing its entry into the application in accordance with 37 CFR 1.825(a)(2);
A statement that the "Sequence Listing" includes no new matter as required by 37 CFR 1.821(a)(4); and
A statement that indicates support for the amendment in the application, as filed, as required by 37 CFR 1.825(a)(3).
If the "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure is submitted according to item 1) a) or b) above, Applicant must also provide:
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required incorporation-by-reference paragraph, consisting of:
A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
If the "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure is submitted according to item 1) c) or d) above, applicant must also provide:
A CRF in accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1) or 1.821(e)(2) as required by 1.825(a)(5); and
A statement according to item 2) a) or b) above.
Specific deficiency – Nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences appearing in the specification are not identified by sequence identifiers in accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(d).
See paragraphs 98, 122, and 316.
Required response – Applicant must provide:
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers, consisting of:
A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the first line of the specification should include PCT/US2020/064685 filed December 11, 2020.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. See paragraph 212.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
It is respectfully noted that present claim 49 contains “and/or” between the method steps. Therefore, a single method step (e.g. contacting a plurality of agents with a barrier) reads on the claim.
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.
Claims 49-51, 53, 54, 58, and 60-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a written description rejection.
Independent claim 49 is drawn to a method for contacting a plurality of agents with a barrier and/or detecting a plurality of product agents that are formed from an agent which has crossed the barrier, wherein each agent before crossing the barrier is independently an agent having the structure RB-L-FG2 or a salt thereof and wherein each product agent independently has the structure of RP-L-FG3.
Independent claim 50 is drawn to a method of contacting an agent with a barrier wherein the agent is RB-L-FG2 or a salt thereof and detecting a product agent that is formed from an agent which has crossed the barrier wherein the product agent has the structure of RP-L-FG3 or a salt thereof.
Independent claim 61 is drawn to a method of providing a phospholipid bilayer comprising a first side and a second side, the first side defining a first region comprising one or more capture molecules; adding a plurality of distinct candidate compounds attached to a binding moiety and comprising a stapled peptide moiety to a second region defined by the second side of the phospholipid bilayer under conditions whereby each distinct candidate compound of the plurality traversing the phospholipid bilayer enters the first region and forms a complex with a capture molecule in the first region via a covalent bond between a portion of the binding moiety attached to the distinct candidate compound and the capture molecule wherein one or more complexes are formed; disrupting the one or more complexes to create one or more distinct candidate compounds each attached to a releasing moiety, said releasing moiety different from the binding moiety; and identifying the one or more distinct candidate compounds attached to the releasing moiety as being one or more candidate compounds that traverses an animal cell membrane.
Independent claim 62 is drawn to a method of providing a phospholipid bilayer comprising a first side and a second side, the first side defining a first region comprising one or more capture molecules; adding a candidate compound attached to a binding moiety to a second region defined by the second side of the phospholipid bilayer under conditions whereby the candidate compound traversing the phospholipid bilayer enters the first region and forms a complex with a capture molecule in the first region via a covalent bond between a portion of the binding moiety attached to the candidate compound and the capture molecule; disrupting the complex to create the candidate compound attached to a releasing moiety, said releasing moiety different from the binding moiety; and identifying the candidate compound attached to the releasing moiety as being a compound that traverses an animal cell membrane.
The invention as claimed encompasses all known agents, barriers, product agents, RB-L-FG2, RP-L-FG3, phospholipid bilayer, candidate compounds, binding moiety, stapled peptide moiety, capture molecule, and/or releasing moiety and all potential agents, barriers, product agents, RB-L-FG2, RP-L-FG3, phospholipid bilayer, candidate compounds, binding moiety, stapled peptide moiety, capture molecule, and/or releasing moiety since virtually anything can be an agent, barrier, product agent, candidate compound, binding moiety, stapled peptide moiety, capture molecule, and/or releasing moiety. In addition, the definitions for RB-L-FG2 and RP-L-FG3 are exceedingly broad and encompass millions or more potential compounds. The claimed invention defines the majority of the reagents via function (e.g. binding moiety, capture molecule, etc.) or generic terms (e.g. agent, barrier, candidate compound, etc.). The claimed invention does not include any structural information regarding the reagents except the exceedingly broad definitions for RB-L-FG2 and RP-L-FG3. In addition, the claimed invention does not include any structural information regarding how the stapled peptides and/or candidate compounds can traverse a barrier, animal cell, and/or phospholipid bilayer.
The specification only teaches the HaloTag® assay and 22 stapled peptides with a common core structure that act as RB, RP, and/or candidate compound (see paragraph 316 – PEP000116-PEP000137). The claimed methods do not include the structural limitations of the HaloTag® assay or the 22 stapled peptides with a common core structure that act as RB, RP, and/or candidate compound. Therefore, one skilled in the relevant art would not reasonably conclude that the applicants had possession of the invention as claimed since the structural limitations of the HaloTag® assay or the 22 stapled peptides with a common core structure that act as RB, RP, and/or candidate compound are not included in the claimed invention.
See 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 page 1116.).
With the exception of the HaloTag® assay and the 22 stapled peptides with a common core structure that act as RB, RP, and/or candidate compound as disclosed by the specification, the skilled artisan cannot envision the method of independent claims 49, 50, 61, or 62 and the dependent claims. Adequate written description requires more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method for isolating it. See Fiers v. Revel, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (CAFC 1993) and Amgen Inc. V. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., 18 USPQ2d 1016. In Fiddes v. Baird, 30 USPQ2d 1481, 1483, claims directed to mammalian FGF's were found unpatentable due to lack of written description for the broad class wherein the specification provided only the bovine sequence.
Additionally, Cf. University of Rochester v G.D. Searle & Co., Inc., Monsanto Company, Pharmacia Corporation, and Pfizer Inc., No. 03-1304, 2004 WL 260813 (Fed. Cir., Feb. 13, 2004) held that:
Regardless whether a compound is claimed per se or a method is claimed that entails the use of the compound, the inventor cannot lay claim to that subject matter unless he can provide a description of the compound sufficient to distinguish infringing compounds from non-infringing compounds, or infringing methods from non-infringing methods.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. One of skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the present claim. For example, it is unclear how the “plurality of agents” of line 2 correlates, if at all, to the “plurality of product agents” and “an agent” of line 3 and “each agent” and “an agent” of line 4.
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. One of skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the present claim. For example, it is unclear what “L” and “H” are since “L” and “H” are not defined in the claim. While “L” is defined for RB-L-FG2 and RP-L-FG3, this is not necessarily the “L” of LP-L-H or LP is L.
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. One of skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the present claim. For example, it is unclear what the “two or more R groups” is referring to since only a single R group is present (see R’ and L).
Claims 50, 51, 53, 54, 58, and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. One of skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the present claim. For example, it is unclear how “an agent” and “the agent” of line 2 correlates, if at all, to the “product agent” and “an agent” of line 3.
Claims 50, 51, 53, 54, 58, and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. One of skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the present claim. For example, it is unclear what “L” and “H” are since “L” and “H” are not defined in the claim. While “L” is defined for RB-L-FG2 and RP-L-FG3, this is not necessarily the “L” of LP-L-H or LP is L.
Claims 50, 51, 53, 54, 58, and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. One of skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the present claim. For example, it is unclear what the “two or more R groups” is referring to since only a single R group is present (see R’ and L).
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. One of skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the present claim. For example, it is unclear how the structure is -L-FG2 when the structure in the claim is actually FG2-L.
Claim 60 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. One of skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the present claim. For example, it is unclear how the structure is -L-FG3 when the structure in the claim is actually FG3-L.
Claim 61 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. One of skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the present claim. For example, it is unclear how the “animal cell membrane” of the preamble and the last line correlates to the “phospholipid bilayer”. If the providing step is an animal cell membrane, this should be incorporated into the body of the claim.
Claim 62 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. One of skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the present claim. For example, it is unclear how the “animal cell membrane” of the preamble and the last line correlates to the “phospholipid bilayer”. If the providing step is an animal cell membrane, this should be incorporated into the body of the claim.
Claim 62 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 62 recites the limitation "the complex" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 63 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. One of skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the present claim. For example, it is unclear how the “animal cell membrane” correlates to the “a cell membrane of an animal cell”. Utilization of “the animal cell membrane” is suggested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Walensky et al. WO 2019/157131 published August 15, 2019.
For present claim 49, Walensky et al. teach contacting a plurality of agents with a barrier wherein the agents are stapled peptides (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; pages 1-30, 36, 37).
Therefore, the present methods are anticipated by Walensky et al.
Claims 49, 50, and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Divita et al. WO 2013/150338 published October 10, 2013.
For present claims 49, 50, and 54, Divita et al. teach methods of contacting agents with a barrier and detecting the agents which cross the barrier wherein the agents are stapled peptides with N-terminal chemical entities and/or C-terminal groups (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; pages 1-11; Examples; Figures 1, 7; claims).
Claims 49, 62, and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by England et al., 2015, HaloTag® Technology: A Versatile Platform for Biomedical Applications, Bioconjugate Chem, 26: 975-986.
For present claims 49, 62, and 63, England et al. teach the HaloTag® assay comprising “contacting a plurality of agents with a barrier” (independent claim 49) and the method steps of present claims 62 and 63 (please refer to the entire reference particularly the abstract; Introduction; Figures 3, 4, 5, 6; In Vitro Cellular Imaging; In Vivo Molecular Imaging).
Therefore, the present methods are anticipated by England et al.
Claims 49, 62, and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peraro et al., 2018, Cell Penetration Profiling Using the Chloroalkane Penetration Assay, J Am Chem Soc, 140(36): 11360-11369.
For present claims 49, 62, and 63, Peraro et al. teach the HaloTag® assay comprising “contacting a plurality of agents with a barrier” (independent claim 49) and the method steps of present claims 62 and 63 (please refer to the entire reference particularly the abstract; Introduction; Results).
Therefore, the present methods are anticipated by Peraro et al.
Claims 49-51, 53, 54, 58, and 60-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kritzer et al. U.S. Patent Application 2018/0188260 published July 5, 2018.
For present claims 49-51, 53, 54, 58, and 60-63, Kritzer et al. teach the HaloTag® assay utilizing stapled peptides wherein the HaloTag® assay utilizes RB-L-FG2 and RP-L-FG3 as presently claimed and the presently claimed method steps (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; Figures 1A, 1B, 1D, 4, 6A, 6C, 7A; paragraphs 4-16, 23-26, 59-77; Examples; claims).
Therefore, the present methods are anticipated by Kritzer et al.
Future Communications
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMBER D STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-5538. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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.
/AMBER D STEELE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1658