Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/11/2026 has been entered.
2. Claims 1-24 are canceled. Claims 25, 26 are amended. Claims 30, 31, 40-44 are withdrawn. Claims 25-29, 32-39, 45 are under consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 2/11/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
4. (previous rejection, withdrawn) Claims 25, 26, 33-35, 37-39 were rejected on the
ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5-14, 16 of U.S.
Patent No. 11338029.
Applicant contends: claim 25 has been amended.
In view of applicant’s amendments, the rejection is withdrawn.
5. (previous rejection, withdrawn) Claims 28, 29, 32 were rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5-14, 16 of U.S. Patent No.
11338029 as applied to claims 25, 26, 33-35, 37-39 above and further in view of Casetti et al.
(CN1720060B; previously cited)(See also the WIPO English translation of CN1720060B;
previously cited) and Carmon et al. (WO2004016643; previously cited).
In view of the withdrawal of the rejection over claims 1, 2, 5-14, 16 of U.S. Patent No.
11338029 on which the instant rejection depends, the instant rejection is also withdrawn.
6. (previous rejection, withdrawn) Claim 36 was rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5-14, 16 of U.S. Patent No.
11338029 as applied to claims 25, 26, 33-35, 37-39 above and further in view of Ha et al.
("Enhancing therapeutic vaccination by blocking PD-1-mediated inhibitory signals during
chronic infection," The Journal of Experimental Medicine, Vol. 205, No. 3: 543-555
(2008)(cited in applicant's IDS submitted 7/2 1/2022).
In view of the withdrawal of the rejection over claims 1, 2, 5-14, 16 of U.S. Patent No.
11338029 on which the instant rejection depends, the instant rejection is also withdrawn.
7. (previous rejection, withdrawn) Claim 45 was rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5-14, 16 of U.S. Patent No.
11338029 as applied to claims 25, 26, 33-35, 37-39 above and further in view of Weiner et al.
(WO2008014521A2)(cited in applicants IDS submitted 7/21/2022).
In view of the withdrawal of the rejection over claims 1, 2, 5-14, 16 of U.S. Patent No.
11338029 on which the instant rejection depends, the instant rejection is also withdrawn.
8. In view of applicant's amendments, the search is extended to additional species (See
MPEP 803.02).
SEQ ID NOs: 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 15, 17, 23 are free of the prior art of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
9. (new rejection) Claims 25-27, 33-35, 37-39 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Yan et al. (WO2014093897)(See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the reference, it constitutes prior art. This rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) might be overcome either by a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that any invention disclosed but not claimed in the reference was derived from the inventor or joint inventors (i.e., the inventive entity) of this application and is thus not the invention “by another,” or if the same invention is not being claimed, by an appropriate showing under 37 CFR 1.131(a).
See claims 25-27, 33-35, 37-39 as submitted 2/11/2026.
Yan et al. teaches: treating individual with a WT1 expressing tumor; mutated WT1 antigen (abstract); including WT1 DNA, SEQ ID NO: 1, which has 100% identity with instant SEQ ID NO: 19 (See Result 1 of STIC Sequence Search Result 20240724_205309_us-17-813-762-19.rng in Supplemental Content Tab)(as recited in claims 25-27); vaccines including WT1 immunogens and/or nucleic acid molecules [0002]; inducing immune responses and preventing and/or treating subjects having tumors that express WT1 [0002]; plasmid [0012](as recited in claims 33, 34); composition [0012](as recited in claim 35); adjuvant [0017](as recited in claim 37); IL-12 [0087](as recited in claim 38); pharmaceutical composition [00145](as recited in claim 39).
Thus, Yan et al. anticipates the instant claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
10. (new rejection) Claims 28, 29, 32 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yan et al. as applied to claims 25-27, 33-35, 37-39 above, and further in view of Casetti et al. (CN1720060B; previously cited)(See also the WIPO English translation of CN1720060B; previously cited) and Carmon et al. (WO2004016643; previously cited).
See claims 28, 29, 32 as submitted 2/11/2026.
See the teachings of Yan et al. above. It is noted that Yan et al. teaches treating, protecting against, preventing cancer [00189].
Yan et al. docs not teach: PSA, PSMA, STEAP, PSCA, MAGE A1, gp 100, viral
antigen (HPV type 16 E6 E7).
Casetti et al. teaches: HPV E6 E7 antigens [0009]; vaccines [0008]; treatment of cancer
[0011].
Carmon et al. teaches: anti-tumor vaccines (title); including use of tumor associated
antigens (abstract); PSA, PSMA (p. 8); STEAP (p. 8); PSCA (p. 64); MAGE A1 (p. 21), gp100
(p. 21); generation of anti-tumor T-cell responses (p. 6).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine antigens as taught
by Casetti et al. and Carmon et al. with the composition as taught by Yan et al. Yan et al. teaches treatment against cancer and Casetti et al. and Carmon et al. also teaches treatment of cancer (See MPEP 2144.06: Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same Purpose: I. COMBINING EQUIVALENTS KNOWN FOR THE SAME PURPOSE: "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 their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980)).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success for
combining antigens as taught by Casetti et al. and Carmon et al. with the composition as taught
by Yan et al. above. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the underlying materials and methods (treating cancer as taught by Casetti et al. and
Carmon et al. and Yan et al.) are known, successfully demonstrated, and commonly used as
evidenced by the applied prior art.
Therefore the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
11. (new rejection) Claim 36 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yan et al. as applied to claims 25-27, 33-35, 37-39 above, and further in view of Ha et al. ("Enhancing therapeutic vaccination by blocking PD-1-mediated inhibitory signals during chronic infection," The Journal of Experimental Medicine, Vol. 205, No. 3: 543-555 (2008)( in applicant's IDS submitted 7/21/2022).
See claim 36 as submitted 2/11/2026.
See the teachings of Yan et al. above. It is noted Yan et al. also teaches
inducing T cell response [00198].
Yan et al. does not teach the anti-PD-L1 antibody.
Ha et al. teaches augmenting therapeutic vaccination by blocking negative signals (p.
543); including vaccination with epitope and treating with anti-PD-L1 blocking antibody,
wherein combinatorial vaccination enhanced T cell response (p. 544).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use anti-PD-LI antibody as
taught by Ha et al. with the vaccine as taught by Yan et al. Yan et al. teaches vaccine
compositions for providing therapeutic immune response, and Ha et al., which also teaches
therapeutic vaccination, teaches the advantage of using anti-PD-L1 antibody to augment
vaccination by blocking negative signals and enhancing immune response.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success for
using anti-PD-L1 antibody as taught by Ha et al. with the vaccine as taught by Yan et al.
There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the underlying materials and
methods (enhancing immune response as taught by Ha et al. and Yan et al.) are known,
successfully demonstrated, and commonly used as evidenced by the applied prior art.
Therefore the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the lime the invention was made.
12. (new rejection) Claim 45 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yan et al. as applied to claims 25-27, 33-35, 37-39 above, and further in view of Weiner et al. (WO2008014521A2)(cited in applicant’s IDS submitted 7/21/2022).
See claim 45 as submitted 2/11/2026.
See the teachings of Yan et al. above.
Yan et al. does not teach hTERT.
Weiner et al. teaches: nucleic acids encoding immunogens (abstract); pharmaceutical
compositions (abstract); nucleic acid coding hTERT(abstract); SEQ ID NO: 34 which has 100% identity with instant SEQ ID NO: 23 (See Result 1 of STIC Sequence Search Result 20240724_205329_us-17-813-762-23 .rng in Supplemental Content Tab); use of hTERT in combination immunotherapy (p. 4); and vaccination (p. 10).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine antigen as taught
by Weiner et al. with the composition as taught by Yan et al. Yan et al. teaches immunizing against cancer and Weiner also teaches the advantage of using TERT in combination immunotherapy and vaccination.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success for
combining antigen as taught by Weiner et al. with the composition as taught by Yan et al. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the underlying materials and methods (vaccination as taught by Weiner et al. and Yan et al.) are known, successfully demonstrated, and commonly used as evidenced by the applied prior art.
Therefore the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
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.
13. (new rejection) Claims 25-27, 35, 37, 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12-14, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10220082.
See claims 25-27, 35, 37, 39 as submitted 2/11/2026.
Claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12-14, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10220082 recite an isolated nucleic acid molecule comprising one or more nucleic acid sequences selected from the group consisting of: (i) SEQ ID NO: 1; (ii) a fragment of SEQ ID NO:1 wherein the fragment comprises at least 90% of the entire length of SEQ ID NO:1; (iii) a nucleic acid sequence that is at least 98% identical to SEQ ID NO:1 over the entire length of SEQ ID NO:1; (iv) a fragment of a nucleic acid sequence that is at least 98% identical to SEQ ID NO:1 wherein the length of the fragment is at least 90% of the entire length of SEQ ID NO:1; (v) SEQ ID NO: 3; (vi) a fragment of SEQ ID NO:3 wherein the fragment comprises at least 90% of the entire length of SEQ ID NO:3; (vii) a nucleic acid sequence that is at least 98% identical to SEQ ID NO:3 over the entire length of SEQ ID NO:3; and (viii) a fragment of a nucleic acid sequence that is at least 98% identical to SEQ ID NO:3 wherein the length of the fragment is at least 90% of the entire length SEQ ID NO:3; adjuvant; an isolated nucleic acid molecule comprising the nucleic acid sequence set forth by SEQ ID NO:1.
It is noted that instant SEQ ID NO: 19 has 100% identity with SEQ ID NO: 1 of claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12-14, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10220082 (See Result 1 of STIC Sequence Search Result 20240724_205309_us-17-813-762-19.rapbm in Supplemental Content Tab).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both instant claims 25-27, 35, 37, 39 and claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12-14, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10220082 recite nucleic acid comprising SEQ ID NO: 19.
14. (new rejection) Claims 28, 29, 32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12-14, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10220082 as applied to claims 25-27, 35, 37, 39 above and further in view of Casetti et al. (CN1720060B; previously cited)(See also the WIPO English translation of CN1720060B; previously cited) and Carmon et al. (WO2004016643; previously cited).
See claims 28, 29, 32 as submitted 2/11/2026.
See the recitations of claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12-14, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10220082 above. It is noted that U.S. Patent No. 10220082 teaches treating cancer [00189].
Claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12-14, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10220082 do not teach: PSA, PSMA, STEAP, PSCA, MAGE A1, gp 100, viral antigen (HPV type 16 E6 E7).
Casetti et al. teaches: HPV E6 E7 antigens [0009]; vaccines [0008]; treatment of cancer
[0011].
Carmon et al. teaches: anti-tumor vaccines (title); including use of tumor associated
antigens (abstract); PSA, PSMA (p. 8); STEAP (p. 8); PSCA (p. 64); MAGE A1 (p. 21), gp100
(p. 21); generation of anti-tumor T-cell responses (p. 6).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine antigens as taught
by Casetti et al. and Carmon et al. with the composition as taught by claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12-14, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10220082. Claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12-14, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10220082
teaches immunizing against cancer and Casetti et al. and Carmon et al. also teaches
vaccinating against cancer (See MPEP 2144.06: Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same
Purpose: I. COMBINING EQUIVALENTS KNOWN FOR THE SAME PURPOSE: "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 their having been individually
taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA
1980)).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success for
combining antigens as taught by Casetti et al. and Carmon et al. with the composition as taught
by claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12-14, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10220082. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the underlying materials and methods (immunizing against cancer as taught by Casetti et al. and Carmon et al. and claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12-14, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10220082) are known, successfully demonstrated, and commonly used as
evidenced by the applied prior art.
Therefore the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
15. (new rejection) Claims 33, 34, 38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12-14, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10220082 as applied to claims 25-27, 35, 37, 39 above and further in view of Gaiger et al. (See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited).
See claims 33, 34, 38 as submitted 2/11/2026.
See the recitations of claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12-14, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10220082 above. It is noted U.S. Patent No. 10220082 teaches WT1 vaccine.
Claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12-14, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10220082 do not recite: plasmid; IL-12 adjuvant.
Gaiger et al. teaches: WT1 polynucleotide (abstract); plasmid (p. 31); IL-12 adjuvant (p. 55).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use components as taught
by Gaiger et al. with the composition as taught by claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12-14, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10220082. Claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12-14, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10220082 recite WT1 antigen and Gaiger et al., which also teaches WT1 antigen, teach the advantage of such components known and used in the art with WT1 antigen.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success for
using components as taught by Gaiger et al. with the composition as taught by claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12-14, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10220082. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the underlying materials (WT1 antigen as taught by Gaiger et al. and claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12-14, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10220082) and methods are known, successfully demonstrated, and commonly used as evidenced by the applied prior art.
Therefore the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
16. (new rejection) Claim 36 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12-14, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10220082 as applied to claims 25-27, 35, 37, 39 above and further in view of Ha et al. ("Enhancing therapeutic vaccination by blocking PD-1-mediated inhibitory signals during chronic infection," The Journal of Experimental Medicine, Vol. 205, No. 3: 543-555 (2008)(cited in applicant's IDS submitted 7/21/2022).
See claim 36 as submitted 2/11/2026.
See the recitations of claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12-14, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10220082 above. It is noted U.S. Patent No. 10220082 also teaches inducing T cell response (column 11, line 39).
Claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12-14, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10220082 do not recite the anti-PD-L1 antibody.
Ha et al. teaches augmenting therapeutic vaccination by blocking negative signals (p.
543); including vaccination with epitope and treating with anti-PD-L1 blocking antibody,
wherein combinatorial vaccination enhanced T cell response (p. 544).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use anti-PD-LI antibody as
taught by Ha et al. with the vaccine as taught by claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12-14, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10220082. Claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12-14, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10220082 recite vaccine
compositions for providing therapeutic immune response, and Ha et al., which also teaches
therapeutic vaccination, teaches the advantage of using anti-PD-L1 antibody to augment
vaccination by blocking negative signals and enhancing immune response.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success for
using anti-PD-L1 antibody as taught by Ha et al. with the vaccine as recited in claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12-14, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10220082. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the underlying materials and methods (enhancing immune response as taught by Ha et al. and claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12-14, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10220082) are known,
successfully demonstrated, and commonly used as evidenced by the applied prior art.
Therefore the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the lime the invention was made.
17. (new rejection) Claim 45 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12-14, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10220082 as applied to claims 25-27, 35, 37, 39 above and further in view of Weiner et al. (WO2008014521A2)(cited in applicant’s IDS submitted 7/21/2022).
See claim 45 as submitted 2/11/2026.
See the recitations of claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12-14, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10220082 above.
Claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12-14, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10220082 do not recite hTERT.
Weiner et al. teaches: nucleic acids encoding immunogens (abstract); pharmaceutical
compositions (abstract); nucleic acid coding hTERT (abstract); SEQ
ID NO: 34 which has 100% identity with instant SEQ ID NO: 23 (See Result 1 of STIC
Sequence Search Result 20240724_205329_us-17-813-762-23 .rng in Supplemental Content
Tab); use of hTERT in combination immunotherapy (p. 4); and vaccination (p. 10).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine antigen as taught
by Weiner et al. with the composition as taught by claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12-14, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10220082. Claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12-14, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10220082 recite immunizing against cancer and Weiner also teaches the advantage of using TERT in combination immunotherapy and vaccination.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success for
combining antigen as taught by Weiner et al. with the composition as taught by claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12-14, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10220082. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the underlying materials and methods are known, successfully demonstrated, and
commonly used as evidenced by the applied prior art.
Therefore the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Conclusion
18. As to 35 U.S.C. 101, SEQ ID NO: 19 is not considered to read upon naturally occurring nucleic acid sequence (See Yan et al. (above) teaching mutated WT1; 100% identity of SEQ ID NO: 1 with instant SEQ ID NO: 19).
19. No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M FRANCO G SALVOZA whose telephone number is (571)272-4468. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 to 5:00.
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, Thomas Visone can be reached at 571-270-0684. 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.
/M FRANCO G SALVOZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1672