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 .
Claims 15 and 17-23 are pending and currently under consideration.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This Office Action contains rejections necessitated by New Considerations.
Objections and Rejections Withdrawn
All previous objections and rejections are withdrawn.
New Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 15 and 17-23 are under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In the instant case, the claims are inclusive of a genus of antibodies that (i) target CCL28, (ii) inhibit CCL28, and (iii) inhibit or treat gastric cancer when administered to subjects. However, the written description in this case only indicates a monoclonal antibody was purchased from Roche (at [0127]) that inhibited CCL28. The specification does not disclose, and the art does not teach, the genus as broadly encompassed in the claims.
The specification discloses a monoclonal antibody was purchased from Roche (at [0127]) that inhibited CCL28. However, said antibody is not adequately described is a single antibody is not representative of the claimed genus of antibodies. Further, the Reply of 11/5/25 lists numerous anti-CCL28 antibodies that are commercially available; however, the claims are not limited to an antibody just being able to target CCL28. The claims recite antibodies that target CCL28, inhibit CCL28, and inhibit or treat gastric cancer when administered to subjects. The list of antibodies found in the Reply of 11/5/25 have not been shown to inhibit CCL28 and inhibit or treat gastric cancer when administered to subjects.
A description of a genus may be achieved by means of a recitation of a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or by describing structural features common to that genus that “constitute a substantial portion of the genus.” See University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997): “A description of a genus of cDNAs may be achieved by means of a recitation of a representative number of cDNA, defined by nucleotide sequence, falling within the scope of the genus or of a recitation of structural features common to the members of the genus, which features constitute a substantial portion of the genus.”
The inventions at issue in Lilly were DNA constructs per se, the holdings of that case is also applicable to claims such as those at issue here. Further, disclosure that does not adequately describe a product itself logically cannot adequately describe a method of using that product. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1354-55 (“Regardless whether the asserted claims recite a compound, Ariad still must describe some way of performing the claimed methods... the specification must demonstrate that Ariad possessed the claimed methods by sufficiently disclosing molecules capable of reducing NF-kB activity so as to ‘satisfy the inventor’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee was in possession of the invention that is claimed.’”) (internal citation omitted); see also Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle& Co., Inc., 358 F.3d916,918 (Fed.Cir.2004) (applying the same analysis to assess written description for claims to a “method for selectively inhibiting” a particular enzyme by administering a functionally defined compound, i.e., a “non-steroidal compound that selectively inhibits activity” of the gene product for that enzyme).
In regards to claims to a product defined by function, without a correlation between structure and function, the claim does little more than define the claimed invention by function. That is not sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement. See Eli Lilly, 119 at1568 USPQ2d at 1406 (“definition by function…does not suffice to define the genus because it is only an indication of what the gene does, rather than what it is”).
The instant specification fails to provide sufficient descriptive information, such as definitive structural features that are common to the genus. That is, the specification provides neither a representative number of antibodies that encompass the genus nor does it provide a description of structural features that are common to the genus so that one of skill in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus. “[A] sufficient description of a genus . . . requires the disclosure of either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350 (quoting Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568-69). A “representative number of species” means that those species that are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. AbbVie Deutschland GMBH v. Janssen Biotech, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The ’128 and ’485 patents, however, only describe species of structurally similar antibodies that were derived from Joe-9. Although the number of the described species appears high quantitatively, the described species are all of the similar type and do not qualitatively represent other types of antibodies encompassed by the genus.”). Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus to provide a "representative number” of species. Further, in view of Amgen v. Sanofi, 872 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) and the Office’s February 2018 memo clarifying written description guidance for claims drawn to antibodies, the 2008 Written Description Training Materials are outdated and should not be relied upon as reflecting the current state of law regarding 35 U.S.C. 112. Further, a “newly characterized antigen” test flouts basic legal principles of the written description requirement (Amgen v. Sanofi, 872 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Adequate written description of a newly characterized antigen alone is not considered adequate written description of a claimed antibody to that newly characterized antigen. Where an antibody binds to an antigen tells one nothing about the structure of any other antibody. Also, see the Board’s decision in Appeal 2017-010877 (claims to “A monoclonal antibody that binds a conformational epitope formed by amino acids 42-66 of SEQ ID NO:1”).
The functional requirements of the claimed antibodies is the sort of wish list of properties which fails to satisfy the written description requirement because “antibodies with those properties have not been adequately described.” Centocor, 636 F.3d at 1352. The “claims merely recite a description of the problem to be solved while claiming all solutions to it and . . . cover any compound later actually invented and determined to fall within the claim’s functional boundaries— leaving it to the pharmaceutical industry to complete an unfinished invention.”Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. EliLilly and Co.,598 F.3d 1336, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Since the disclosure fails to describe common attributes or characteristics that adequately identify members of the genus, and because the genus is highly variant, the disclosure is insufficient to describe the genus. Thus, one of skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the disclosure fails to provide a representative number of species to describe the genus as broadly claimed.
Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 19USPQ2d 1111, clearly states “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). As discussed above, even though Applicant may propose methods of screening for possible members of the genus, the skilled artisan cannot envision the detailed chemical structure of the encompassed genus, and therefore conception is not achieved until reduction to practice has occurred, 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 of isolation. The compound itself is required. See Fiers v. Revel, 25 USPQ2d 1601 at 1606 (CAFC 1993) and Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., 18 USPQ2d 1016. See Ariad, 94 USPQ2d at 1161; Centocor at 1876 (“The fact that a fully-human antibody could be made does not suffice to show that the inventors of the '775 patent possessed such an antibody.”)
One cannot describe what one has not conceived. See Fiddes v. Baird, 30 USPQ2d 1481 at 1483. In Fiddes, claims directed to mammalian FGF’s were found to be unpatentable due to lack of written description for that broad class. The specification provided only the bovine sequence. Applicant is reminded that Vas-Cath makes clear that the written description provision of 35 U.S.C. §112 is severable from its enablement provision (see page 1115).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 15 and 17-23 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Factors to be considered in determining whether undue experimentation is required, are summarized in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to: the breadth of the claims, the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the level of one of ordinary skill, the level of predictability in the art, the amount of direction provided by the inventor, the existence of working examples, and the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. See also Ex parte Forman, 230 USPQ 546 (BPAI 1986).
The claims are broadly drawn to methods of inhibiting or treating gastric cancer comprising administering to a subject an antibody that target CCL28 and inhibits CCL28.
This invention is in a class of invention which the CAFC has characterized as "the unpredictable arts such as chemistry and biology". Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 243 F.3d 1316, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
The specification discloses a method of inhibiting gastric cancer comprising administering an anti-CCL28 antibody purchased from Roche (Example 6, in particular). However, the anti-CDL28 antibody is not adequately described. Further, no other antibody that (i) target CCL28, (ii) inhibit CCL28, and (iii) inhibit or treat gastric cancer when administered to subjects is adequately described.
In view of the teachings above and the lack of guidance, workable examples and or exemplification in the specification, it would require undue experimentation by one of skill in the art to identify antibodies encompassed by the claims in order to perform the method as claimed.
Further, similar to claims at issue in Amgen Inc. v Sanofi, the instant specification does not enable the full scope of the claims. The instant specification, in view of the prior art, does not teach one of skill the recited genus of antibodies recited by the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN E AEDER whose telephone number is (571)272-8787. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samira Jean-Louis can be reached at (571)270-3503. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEAN E AEDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1642