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 .
Examiner’s Note
Examination of the instant application has been transferred to Examiner Jeffrey Sifford of Art Unit 1671. The examiner may be contacted at 571-272-7289 or jeffrey.sifford@uspto.gov.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 11-21, and the required species in the reply filed on 2/20/2026 is acknowledged.
The elected species are: 1) A specific ribonuclease: ranpirnase
2) A specific immune cell: neutrophil. Upon further consideration, the examiner has rejoined the species of “T cells” from group 2).
Claims 22-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/20/2026.
Amended claims 11-21 are under examination on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 3/5/2026 is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code on pp. 60-62. 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://, www., or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Objections
Claims 11are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 11 recites “a composition comprising a ribonuclease and immunoglobulins, fragments thereof, antibodies, or combinations thereof”. However, the specification indicates that “immunoglobulins used in the [..] compositions of the invention are antibodies, IgG, IgM or a combination thereof” (para. [92]) and “the term ‘antibody’ includes complete antibodies [..] or fragments of antibodies which contain an antigen binding site” (para. [93]). Accordingly, the terms appear to be equivalent, and to put the claims in better form, the examiner suggests removing one of the seemingly redundant terms “immunoglobulins” or “antibodies”; claim 14 uses the subpart designators “a.”, “b.”, “c.”, “d.”, and “e.”, which is improper format, “[e]ach claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995). MPEP §608.01(m). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11, 14-16, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a natural product without significantly more.
“Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) [..] does not end the eligibility analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than [..] natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection.” MPEP §2106.04(I).
In the instant case, the claims are directed to a category of patentable subject matter (a composition) recited in 35 U.S.C. §101, because they recite “a composition comprising a ribonuclease and immunoglobulins[..]” (independent claim 11); or “[a] composition comprising a ribonuclease and immune cells” (independent claim 16). However, these compositions are naturally occurring in the blood of a subject. For example, RNase 1 is expressed and released by endothelial cells, and consequently circulates in blood (Martin, et al. Int J Mol Sci. 2016 Feb 26;17(3):294. PMID: 26927088; p. 3 of printout). Additionally, neutrophils are the most abundant cell type in human blood (Rosales, et al. Front Physiol. 2018 Feb 20;9:113. PMID: 29515456; p. 1 printout), and antibodies circulate in sera of blood (Palermo, et al. Int J Mol Sci. 2019 Jan 30;20(3):604. PMID: 30704134; p. 1, printout). Therefore, the combination of an RNase and an antibody or an RNase and an immune cell such as a neutrophil naturally occurs in the blood of a subject. Along those lines, because circulating antibodies specific for SARS-CoV-2 would be present in the blood of those exposed to SARS-CoV-2, a composition comprising RNase and such antibodies would naturally occur in a subject exposed to SARS-CoV-2.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims 11-12, 14-17, and 19-21 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements besides an exception. Since all claims read on blood from specific patients with natural immune reactions, any function of the claims would be found in the natural composition as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 11-15 and 20-21 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.
Claims 11 and 20 recite the limitation “a subject immune to a viral disease” on lines 2-3 and 2, respectively. The term “immune” in claims 11 and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “immune” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what type or degree of immunity is sufficient such that the composition components are from a subject immune to a viral disease. The specification does not define “immune to a viral disease”, and the metes and bounds of the claim limitation are unclear. For instance, “immune to a viral disease”, could mean capable of mounting an adaptive immune response, or it could mean immunity to the point such that a single virion could not infect a single cell.
See Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (BPAI 2008) ("[R]ather than requiring that the claims are insolubly ambiguous, we hold that if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, as indefinite.").
Claims 12-15 and 21 depend on claims 11 and 20, respectively, and do not resolve this lack of clarity, and are thus also indefinite.
Claim Rejections – Improper Markush Grouping
Claims 12 and 17 are rejected on the judicially-created basis that they contain an improper Markush grouping of alternatives.
See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984).
The improper Markush grouping includes species of the claimed invention that do not share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. The members of the improper Markush grouping do not share a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature for the following reasons:
MPEP 803.02 provides guidance on the analysis of a proper Markush group. Members of a proper Markush group are disclosed in the specification to possess at least one property in common which is mainly responsible for their function in the claimed relationship, and it is clear from their very nature or from the prior art that all of them possess this property. The MPEP further provides that in the members of a proper Markush group there should be (1) a common utility, and (2) a substantial structural feature essential to that utility.
In the instant case, claims 12 and 17 include the group of ribonucleases, but they do not appear to share a substantial structural feature. Thus, a common use cannot flow from a shared substantial structural feature in these claims. Since the instant claims contain Markush groups with members of ribonucleases that possess differing sequences lacking shared, discernable, discrete domains associated with the claimed function of ribonuclease activity, the claims contain an improper Markush group and are rejected here.
In response to this rejection, Applicant should either amend the claim(s) to recite only individual species or grouping of species that share a substantial structural feature as well as a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature, or present a sufficient showing that the species recited in the alternative of the claims(s) in fact share a substantial structural feature as well as a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. This is a rejection on the merits and may be appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §134 and 37 CFR 41.31(a)(1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodge (EP3122372B1, published 11/28/2018) in view of Casadevall, et al. (J Clin Invest. 2020 Apr 1;130(4):1545-1548. doi: 10.1172/JCI138003. PMID: 32167489, published online 3/13/2020)
The claimed invention encompasses a composition comprising a ribonuclease and immunoglobulins, fragments thereof, antibodies, or combinations thereof obtained from a plasma of a subject immune to a viral disease (representative claim 11).
The Prior Art
Hodge discloses compositions and methods related to the use of an RNase of the RNase A superfamily, and in particular of ranpirnase, for the treatment or prevention of viral infection by various viruses, including the coronavirus MERS-CoV (Abstract; Fig. 2; paras. [0085-0090]). Hodge teaches that RNases of the RNase A superfamily may be used to inhibit the growth or replication of a virus, or for reducing the ability of a virus to infect cells, comprising contacting cells or tissues with said RNase (para. [0052]). Hodge further discloses that, when compared to the anti-viral activity of ranpirnase against two known anti-viral agents SARS protease inhibitor and Infergen, ranpirnase was far more active against MERS-CoV virus than either of the other agents (para. [0089]). Furthermore, Hodge teaches that ranpirnase also showed activity against SARS virus (para. [0005]).
However, Hodge does not disclose a composition comprising a ribonuclease and immunoglobulins, fragments thereof, antibodies, or combinations thereof obtained from a plasma of a subject immune to a viral disease, nor does it disclose wherein said viral disease comprises Covid-19 and said plasma is collected from a healthy subject or pool of subjects who have been previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2, naturally or by deliberate immunization, and who have IgG or IgM antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 virus in their plasma, or a subject or pool of subjects who have a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the past.
Casadevall teaches that the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 caused a pandemic, the disease abbreviated COVID-19 (p. 1545, para. 1). Casadevall argues that human convalescent serum may be used for prevention and treatment of COVID-19 disease that could be rapidly available when there are sufficient numbers of people who have recovered and can donate immunoglobulin-containing serum (Id.). Casadevall further discloses that such passive antibody therapy involves the administration of antibodies against a given agent to a susceptible individual for the purpose of preventing or treating an infectious disease due to that agent, whereas active vaccination requires the induction of an immune response that takes time to develop and varies depending on the vaccine recipient (p. 1545, col. 1, para. 2). Casadevall explains that passive antibody administration is the only means of providing immediate immunity to susceptible persons, and has a history going back to the 1890s (Id.). Additionally, convalescent serum has been used to treat infection of two other coronaviruses, SARS1 and MERS. (p. 1546, cols. 1-2). Casadevall teaches that in the case of SARS-CoV-2, the anticipated mechanism of action by which passive antibody therapy would mediate protection is viral neutralization, though other mechanisms, such as antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity and/or phagocytosis may also be possible (p. 1545, cols. 1-2, bridging para.), and sources of antibody for SARS-CoV-2 are human convalescent sera from individuals who have recovered from COVID-19 (Id.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the compositions comprising an RNase, or rapirnase specifically, to further comprise antibodies specific for a viral pathogen such as SARS-CoV-2. Hodge discloses methods of treating or preventing viral diseases with compositions comprising rapirnase, and that rapirnase treatment is effective for treating infection by coronaviruses SARS or MERS. Casadevall passive antibody therapy, involving the administration of antibodies against a given agent to a susceptible individual for the purpose of preventing or treating an infectious disease due to that agent, that human convalescent serum may be used for prevention and treatment of COVID-19 disease, and the serum may be obtained from subjects who have recovered from the disease.
“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)(citations omitted).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to treat or prevent viral disease, such as COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2. There would be a reasonable expectation of success because Hodge discloses rapirnase compositions to treat or prevent viral infection, and Casadevall discloses passive antibody therapy to treat or prevent viral infection. Therefore, claims 11-14 were prima facie obvious before the priority date of the instant invention.
Claims 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodge and Casadevall (supra) as applied to claims 11-14 above, and further in view of McLaughlin, et al. (Cytotherapy, 2016; 18: 1515-1524) and Schmidt, et al. (Front Immunol. 2018 Apr 9;9:678. PMID: 29686673).
The Prior Art
The teachings of Hodge and Casadevall are described above and all the reasons they render obvious claims 11-14 are incorporated here.
However, they do not teach a composition with ranpirnase and immune cells or T-cells specifically.
Mclaughlin teaches that virus-specific T-cell therapy has been successful for the treatment or prevention of viral infections, particularly in immunocompromised patients (Abstract). McLaughlin further discloses a method of expanding human parainfluenza virus-3 (HPIV)-specific T cells from peripheral blood of healthy donors targeting four HPIV3 proteins (p. 1517; Abstract), which McLaughlin proposes can be adoptively transferred in T-cell therapies of immune-compromised patients (Abstract; Discussion p. 1522).
Schmidt teaches that the respiratory mucosa is highly susceptible to viral infection, including by coronaviruses (p. 1). Schmidt also discloses that CD8 T cells are critical for viral clearance following an acute respiratory virus infection in mice, and adoptive transfer of CD8 T cell clones resulted in significantly reduced viral titers in the lung during infection of a number of viruses, including RSV, IAV, and HMPV, and that transfer of RSV- or IAV-immune splenic CD8 T cells accelerated viral clearance in the lung following infection (p. 3, col. 2, last para.). In this context, adoptive transfer is the transfer of cells into a subject, the cells originating from the subject or another subject.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Hodge and Casadevall to incorporate virus-specific immune cells, such as T cells, in a comprising an Rnase such as ranpirnase and virus-specific antibodies.
“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)(citations omitted). All of the cells and antibodies are specific for SARS-CoV-2 and so In re Kerkhoven has true effect.
The cited references demonstrate that each of an RNase such as ranpirnase, virus-specific antibodies, and virus-specific T cells have an antiviral effect and may be used to treat or prevent viral infection. Thus, it would be obvious to combine the compositions which are known to be useful for the same purpose.
It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize T cells from a subject immune to a viral disease, such as Covid-19, because Schmidt discloses adoptive transfer of CD8 T cells from RSV- or IAV-immune mice. Similarly, it would have been obvious to utilize antibodies and CD8 T cells from subjects immune to SARS-CoV-2, who previously had Covid-19 disease, because McLaughlin discloses that adoptive transfer of CD8 T cells from animals immune following infection with other respiratory viruses, and Casadevall teaches passive transfer of antibodies from the serum of subjects who have recovered from COVID-19 disease. Notably, the specification indicates that in one embodiment, “subject” refers to a human or any other animal which has been exposed to and is now immune to CoV related disease or Covid-2019 (para. [169]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make a composition to treat or prevent viral infection, such as SARS-CoV-2 infection. There would be a reasonable expectation of success because ranpirnase showed activity against a SARS virus and is proposed to treat or prevent a number of viruses’ infection (Hodge), passive transfer of antibodies from convalescent serum has been performed for viral infections and proposed for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies (Casadevall), adoptive transfer of CD8 T cell clones resulted in significantly reduced viral titers in the lung during infection of a number of viruses, including RSV, IAV, and HMPV, and that transfer of RSV- or IAV-immune splenic CD8 T cells accelerated viral clearance in the lung following infection (McLaughlin). Therefore, claims 15-21 were prima facie obvious before the priority date of the instant invention.
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.
Claims 11-13 and 15-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 9,919,034 B2 in view of Goudsmit, et al. (J Infect Dis. 2006 Mar 15;193(6):796-801), McLaughlin, et al. (Cytotherapy, 2016; 18: 1515-1524) and Schmidt, et al. (Front Immunol. 2018 Apr 9;9:678. PMID: 29686673).
The instant claims are drawn to a composition comprising a ribonuclease, or specifically ranpirnase, and immunoglobulins, fragments thereof, antibodies, or combinations thereof obtained from a plasma of a subject immune to a viral disease (instant claims 11-13), whereas ‘034 is drawn to a method of prophylactically protecting a patient from rabies, comprising the step of administering a therapeutically effective dose of ranpirnase to the patient (claim 4). Notably, the patented claim is drawn to a method, rather than a composition. However, a composition used for the method is rendered obvious by its use in the method. The copending claims also do not encompass immunoglobulins, fragments thereof, antibodies, or combinations thereof obtained from a plasma of a subject immune to a viral disease.
Goudsmit discloses that rabies is a lethal disease in humans and other animals, but can be prevented by postexposure prophylaxis through the combined administration of rabies vaccine and anti-rabies immune globulin, which can be derived from pooled sera samples from rabies-vaccinated human donors (p. 796, col. 1, para. 1).
The teachings of McLaughlin and Schmidt are described above in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103, which describe how their teachings render obvious the instant claims.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of ‘034 to incorporate anti-rabies immune globulin from pooled sera samples from rabies-vaccinated human donors, because each composition is recognized as prophylactically protecting a patient from rabies. It also would have been obvious to incorporate rabies-specific immune cells, or T cells specifically, with the teachings of ‘034.
“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)(citations omitted).
US Patent No. 9,919,034 B2 and Goudsmit demonstrate that each of an RNase such as ranpirnase, and anti-rabies immune globulin from pooled sera samples from rabies-vaccinated human donors may be used to prophylactically protect a patient from rabies. McLaughlin and Schmidt teach that virus- specific T-cell therapy has been successful for the treatment or prevention of viral infections, particularly in immunocompromised patients and Schmidt also discloses that CD8 T cells are critical for viral clearance following an acute respiratory virus infection in mice, and adoptive transfer of CD8 T cell clones resulted in significantly reduced viral titers in the lung during infection of a number of viruses, respectively. Thus, it would be obvious to combine the compositions which are known to be useful for the same purpose.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make a composition to prophylactically protect a patient from rabies. There would be a reasonable expectation of success because US Patent No. 9,919,034 B2 and Goudsmit demonstrate that ranpirnase and anti-rabies immune globulin, which can be derived from pooled sera samples from rabies-vaccinated human donors can be used to protect a patient from rabies, and McLaughlin and Schmidt teach that virus- specific T-cell therapy has been successful for the treatment or prevention of viral infections. Therefore, claims 11-13 would have been prima facie obvious before the priority date of the instant invention.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY MARK SIFFORD whose telephone number is 571-272-7289. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. ET with alternating Fridays off.
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, Michael Allen can be reached at 571-270-3497. 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.
/JEFFREY MARK SIFFORD/Examiner, Art Unit 1671 /Michael Allen/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1671
Prosecution Insights