Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant's election without traverse of Group I, claims 13-18, in the reply filed on 25 September 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 19-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 25 September 2025.
3. The restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Status of Application, Amendments, and/or Claims
4. The response filed 25 September 2025 has been received and entered in full. Claims 19-24 have been withdrawn as indicated supra. Therefore, claims 13-24 are pending, and claims 13-18 are the subject of this Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 26 August 2022 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
7. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Modjtahedi et al. (Wo 2014/118296; published 07 August 2014; cited by Applicant).
9. Modjtahedi et al. discloses that AIF interacts with CHCHD4 (MIA40), and discloses methods for screening compounds which inhibit the interaction between the two proteins (See pg. 16, lines 7-20), said method including immunoprecipitation (See pg. 17; Figure 1E). Pham also discloses the VEGF composition comprises a cream for the application to the skin in a human (See Column 4, lines 23-29; Column 10, lines 20-22; and Column 12, lines 54-61). It is noted that the limitation “wherein said compound is identified as potentially useful for the treatment of cancer if it inhibits the interaction between the AIF protein and the CHCHD4 protein by at least 50%” does not have any additional method steps, thus the method of Modjtahedi et al. would inherently identify compounds having any percentage of inhibition. It is further noted that the recitation of “potentially useful for the treatment of cancer” in the claims has been interpreted as an intended use and has not been given patentable weight in this art rejection. Applicant is reminded that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Therefore, the reference of Modjtahedi et al. meets all the limitations of claims 13-16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
12. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
13. Claims 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modjtahedi et al. as applied to claims 13-16 above, and further in view of Thomas et al. (Cancer and Metabolism. 16:7:7 (17 pages), published 2019); Johnston et al. (US 2019/0330364; published 31 October 2019); and Cekanova et al. (Drug Design, Development and Therapy. 8:1911-1922, published 2014).
14. The teachings of Modjtahedi et al. are summarized above. Modjtahedi et al. does not teach the particular assays of amplified luminescent proximity homogeneous assay or surface plasmon resonance to determine the interaction between AIF and CHCHD4. However, these assays were well known in the art at the time the application was filed as evidenced by Johnson et al., who discloses methods for identifying antagonists of protein-protein interactions using amplified luminescent proximity homogeneous assay or surface plasmon resonance (See pg. 1 paragraph [0005].
15. Furthermore, Modjtahedi et al. does not teach wherein the method comprises confirmation, in a nonhuman animal model of cancer, the anticancer properties of the compound identified.
16. However, Thomas et al. discloses that CHCHD4 regulates the growth of tumor in vivo, driving tumor cell proliferation and growth (See Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to screen for compounds which inhibit the interaction of AIF with CHCHD4, since CHCHD4 was known to be important for tumor cell proliferation and growth, and animal models for testing anticancer properties of candidate compounds were well known, as evidenced by Cekanova et al. (See Abstract).
17. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to screen for compounds which inhibit the interaction between AIF and CHCHD4 as taught by Modjtahedi et al., and further screen those compounds found to inhibit said interaction in an animal model of cancer.
18. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so since Thomas et al. discloses that CHCHD4 drives tumor cell proliferation and growth. The expectation of success is high since a variety of assays for measuring protein-protein interaction were well known, as evidenced by Johnston et al., as were as animal models for testing the anticancer effects of candidate compounds as evidenced by Cekanova et al.
19. Thus, the claimed invention as a whole was prima facie obvious over the combined teachings of the prior art.
Summary
20. No claim is allowed.
Advisory Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jon M. Lockard whose telephone number is (571) 272-2717. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joanne Hama, can be reached on (571) 272-2911. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JON M LOCKARD/
Examiner, Art Unit 1647
January 5, 2026