DETAILED ACTION
Examiner acknowledges receipt of applicant’s reply filed 1/28/2026, in response to the restriction requirement mailed 7/30/2025.
Claims 20-22, 24-29, 36, and 37 are pending. Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17-19, 30, 31, 33, and 35 have been cancelled.
Claims 20-22, 24-29, 36, and 37 are being examined on the merits in this office 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group VI (claims 20-22, 24-29, 36, and 37) without traverse in the reply filed on 1/28/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant cancelled the remaining pending claims, rendering the restriction moot.
Applicant’s election of the following species in the reply filed on 1/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Peptide: SEQ ID NO:19
HLA superfamily: A24 superfamily
Presence/absence: nanoparticles comprising gold are present
Claims 20-22, 24-29, 36, and 37 read on the elected species.
Priority
The filing receipt date 5/31/2023 has the following priority information:
PNG
media_image1.png
98
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Please note, the specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible error. Applicant's cooperation is required in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The invention relates,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 specification at p. 43.
Sequence Interpretation/Claim Interpretation
The Office interprets claims comprising SEQ ID NOs: in the following manner: “comprising an amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1” requires only a dipeptide or more within SEQ ID NO: 1, “comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1” requires the full-length sequence with 100% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 with or without additional amino acids at any N-/C-terminal ends or additional nucleotides at 5' /3' ends, “consisting of an amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1” would encompass any sequence of two or more consecutive amino acids (dipeptide or more) fully contained within SEQ ID NO: 1, and “consisting of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1” would be limited to the sequence of the amino acids as specified by SEQ ID NO: 1, and nothing more or less; "an amino acid selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NOs: 1, 2 and 3” is any sequence of two or more consecutive amino acids (dipeptide or more) fully contained within SEQ ID NO: 1, 2 or 3; and “the amino acid selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NOs: 1, 2, and 3” requires the full-length sequence with 100% identity to SEQ ID NOs: 1, 2, or 3 and the same length as SEQ ID NOs: 1, 2, or 3.
Claim Objections
Claims 20-22, 24, 15, 28, 36, and 37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 20, line 2 should be moved up one line for continuous text on line 1.
Regarding claim 21, line3 should be moved up one line for continuous text on line 2.
Claim 22 should be amended to recite “SEQ ID NOs: 21”. Line 2 should be moved up one line for continuous text on line 1.
Claim 24 recites the acronym HLA which should be written out in full name followed by (HLA) in the first order of appearance in the claims.
As written, claim 24 depends from claim 20. Claim 24 recites claim 20 twice in the claim. This is redundant claim language. Claim 24 should be amended to not recite claim 20 twice in the claim.
Claim 25 should be amended to improve clarification. As presently written, the claim could be construed as requiring all variables i)-xvii). The claim recites “the vaccine composition according to claim 22, wherein the at least two different HLA supertypes are: (i) … and (xviii). If the intended claim scope of instant claim 25 is a Markush grouping of alternatives selected from the groups consisting of (i)-(xviii), then the claim should be amended accordingly.
Claim 28 should be amended to correct a typographical error- the claim should period at the end of the sentence, instead of a comma.
Claim 36 should be amended to recite “coated with alpha-galactose, , or a combination thereof”.
Claim 37 should be amended to recite “wherein the vaccine composition comprises”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 37 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 37 recites the limitation "the composition". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
To overcome this rejection, claim 37 should be amended to recite “wherein the vaccine composition”.
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 20-22, 24-27, 29, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to natural phenomenon without significantly more.
Claims 20-22, 24-27, 29, and 37 are directed to a vaccine composition comprising a peptide which comprises any one of SEQ ID NOs: 9, 1 to 8, 10 to 34 or a variant thereof.
The claims recite fragments of natural products. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the following reasons. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the peptide being claimed is naturally occurring. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because for the following reasons.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? The instant claims are directed to a statutory patent-eligible subject matter category, a composition of matter.
Step 2a Prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (Product of nature), or an abstract idea? The claims are directed to a natural phenomenon, specifically a natural-based product limitation.
As evidenced by the SARS coronavirus 2 isolate (Genbank Accession No NC_045512, accessed 3/14 at URL www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/all/?term=NC_045512), at least instant SEQ ID NOs: 19, 21, 27, and 28 are found in the naturally occurring virus.
Fragmentation of a protein does not constitute a feature that renders the recited products markedly different from what exists in nature. Even though fragmentation or truncation structurally changes a protein from its natural state, the resultant difference (e.g., “broken” bonds) is not significant enough to render the isolated protein markedly different, because the sequence of the protein has not been altered. See, e.g., Myriad, 133 S. Ct. at 2116-18. Myriad clarified that not every change to a product will result in a marked difference, and that the mere recitation of particular words in the claims does not automatically confer eligibility. Id. at 2119. See also Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (eligibility does not “depend simply on the draftsman's art”).
Accordingly, the claims encompass a naturally occurring peptide which is not markedly different from the naturally occurring counterpart because it conveys the same proteomic information.
Step 2a Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because only a composition comprising naturally occurring components is claimed. The term “vaccine” is not specifically defined in the specification. The term does not render the claim markedly different or impart any meaning limitation from what exists in nature.
Step 2b: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? The claims, as a whole, do not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the claim 20 does not include any elements in addition to the natural product.
Claim 20 does not recite any elements that amount to anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claims 21, 22, and 37, the claims recite two or more peptides that are also encompassed within the naturally occurring SARS-CoV-2 virus. See Genbank Accession No NC_045512.
Regarding claims 24 and 25, the claim recites an inherent property of the peptide [interaction with HLA supertypes]. Claims 24 and 25 do not recite any elements that amount to anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 26, 27, and 29 recite a nanoparticle. As a “nanoparticle” is not specifically defined by the specification, one reasonable interpretation is that of coronavirus virus particles/virions are construed as nanoparticles. Thus, claims 26, 27, and 29 encompasses a naturally occurring product which is not markedly different from the naturally occurring counterpart because it conveys the same proteomic information. Claims 26, 27, and 29 do not recite any elements that amount to anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
that amount to anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
In sum, when the relevant steps are analyzed, they weigh against a significant difference. Accordingly, claims 20-22, 24-27, 29, and 37 do not qualify as eligible subject matter.
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 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(s) 20-22, 24, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kelvin et al (WO 2005/103259).
Kelvin et al teach polypeptides, nucleic acids, antibodies, compositions, vaccines, microarrays and uses thereof for the treatment of SARS and SARS-CoV infection (abstract). Kelvin et al teach an immunogenic polypeptide comprising an epitope of at least eight contiguous amino acids, wherein the polypeptide comprises an amino acid sequence selected from a recited Markush grouping (claim 6). Kelvin et al teach a pharmaceutical composition, such as a vaccine or immunogenic composition, comprising the polypeptide and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier. “Vaccine" as used herein refers to a composition or formulation comprising one or more polypeptides of the invention (p. 36, ll. 11-16, claims 6, 22, 29, 30, 51).
SEQ ID NOs:43[and 44] MASGGGGETALALLLL comprise instant SEQ ID NO:29. See also SEQ ID NO:296 of Kelvin.
SEQ ID NO:45 ALLLLDRLNQLESKV comprises instant SEQ ID NO:14. See also SEQ ID NO:303 of Kelvin.
SEQ ID NO:61 HWPQIAQFAPSASAF comprises instant SEQ ID NOs:3-4, 18, 20. See also SEQ ID NO:386, 387, 384 of Kelvin.
SEQ ID NO:62 AQFAPSASAFFGMSR comprises instant SEQ ID NOs: 3-5, 7, 18,19, 23. See also SEQ ID NO:386, 392, 388, 387 of Kelvin.
SEQ ID NO:66 TPSGTQLTYHGAIKL comprises instant SEQ ID NO:27. See also SEQ ID NO:406 of Kelvin.
SEQ ID NO:65: IGMEVTPSGTQLTYHGAIKL comprises instant SEQ ID NOs:16, 28. See also SEQ ID NO:403 of Kelvin.
SEQ ID NO:71 VILLNKHIDAYKTFP comprises instant SEQ ID NO:1.
SEQ ID NO:73 YKTFPPTEPKKDKKK comprises instant SEQ ID NOs:11-12. See also SEQ ID NO:442 of Kelvin.
Accordingly, instant claims 20-22 are satisfied.
Regarding claims 24 and 25, the claims describe inherent properties of the claimed comprising the recited peptides; therefore, art that anticipates claim 1 necessarily anticipates claims 24-25, drawn to HLA supertypes that interact with the claimed peptides. M.P.E.P. § 2112.01 recites, "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.” See In re Spada (citations omitted). The claimed composition appears to be the same as the prior art, absent a showing of unobvious differences. The office does not have the facilities and resources to provide the factual evidence needed in order to establish that the composition of the prior art does not possess the same material, structural and steps-like characteristics of the claimed composition. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the burden is on applicant to prove that the claimed composition is different from that taught by the prior art and to establish patentable differences. See In re Best 562F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and Ex parte Gray 10 USPQ 2nd 1992 (PTO Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1989). Accordingly, the limitations of claims 24 and 25 are satisfied.
Claim(s) 20-22, 24, 25, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akeefe et al (U.S. 20090017069).
Akeefe et al teach delipidated viral vaccine compositions for treatment of infectious diseases such as SARS (abstract). Compositions comprise delipidated viral particle of a coronavirus (e.g., claim 1; Example 1). By dissolving the lipid envelope surrounding the viral particle, the resultant modified viral particle has exposed antigens (or epitopes) (para. [0003]). Akeefe et al teach the following sequences of nucleocapsid and spike protein of a coronavirus (tables 3-4).
SEQ ID NO:48 LLNKHIDAYKTFPPTEPK comprises instant SEQ ID NO:1.
SEQ ID NO:42 QFAPSASAFFGMSRIGM comprises instant SEQ ID NO:2
SEQ ID NO:30 ALALLLLDRLNQLESKV comprises instant SEQ ID NO:14
SEQ ID NO:44 GMEVTPSGTWLTYHGAIK comprises instant SEQ ID NO:16
SEQ ID NO:42 QFAPSASAFFGMSRIGM comprises instant SEQ ID NO:19
SEQ ID NO:189 QKEIDRLNEVAKNLNESL comprises instant SEQ ID NO:21
SEQ ID NO:44 GMEVTPSGTWLTYHGAIK comprises instant SEQ ID NOS:27-28
Thus, the dilapidated coronavirus particles of Akeefe et al comprise SEQ ID NOs: 1, 2, 14, 16, 21, 27, and 28 and read on a vaccine composition. The limitations of instant claims 20-22 and 37 are satisfied.
Regarding claims 24 and 25, the claims describe inherent properties of the claimed comprising the recited peptides; therefore, art that anticipates claim 1 necessarily anticipates claims 24-25, drawn to HLA supertypes that interact with the claimed peptides. M.P.E.P. § 2112.01 recites, "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.” See In re Spada (citations omitted). The claimed composition appears to be the same as the prior art, absent a showing of unobvious differences. The office does not have the facilities and resources to provide the factual evidence needed in order to establish that the composition of the prior art does not possess the same material, structural and steps-like characteristics of the claimed composition. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the burden is on applicant to prove that the claimed composition is different from that taught by the prior art and to establish patentable differences. See In re Best 562F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and Ex parte Gray 10 USPQ 2nd 1992 (PTO Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1989). Accordingly, the limitations of claims 24 and 25 are satisfied.
Pursuant to MPEP 2121(I), when the reference relied on expressly anticipates or makes obvious all the elements of the claimed invention, the reference is presumed to be operable. Once such a reference is found, the burden is on applicant to rebut the presumption of operability. In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980). Moreover, MPEP 2121(III) states that a prior art reference provides an enabling disclosure and thus anticipates a claimed invention if the reference describes the claimed invention in sufficient detail to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the claimed invention; "proof of efficacy is not required for a prior art reference to be enabling for purposes of anticipation." Impax Labs. Inc. v. Aventis Pharm. Inc., 468 F.3d 1366, 1383, 81 USPQ2d 1001, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2006). MPEP 716.07 states that since in a patent it is presumed that a process if used by one skilled in the art will produce the product or result described therein, such presumption is not overcome by a mere showing that it is possible to operate within the disclosure without obtaining the alleged product. In re Weber, 405 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1969).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 20-22, 24-29 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelvin et al (WO 2005/103259), and further in view of Rademacher et al. (WO 2007/122388 -cited in the IDS filed 5/21/2023).
Kelvin et al teach polypeptides, nucleic acids, antibodies, compositions, vaccines, microarrays and uses thereof for the treatment of SARS and SARS-CoV infection (abstract). Kelvin et al teach an immunogenic polypeptide comprising an epitope of at least eight contiguous amino acids, wherein the polypeptide comprises an amino acid sequence selected from a recited Markush grouping (claim 6). Kelvin et al teach a pharmaceutical composition, such as a vaccine or immunogenic composition, comprising the polypeptide and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier. “Vaccine" as used herein refers to a composition or formulation comprising one or more polypeptides (p. 36, ll. 11-16, claims 22, 29, 30, 51). The denoted sequences comprising peptides of instant SEQ ID NOs:1-5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18-20, 23, and 27-29 are set forth above.
Kelvin et al do not expressly teach nanoparticles.
Rademacher et al. disclose nanoparticles for providing immune responses for the treatment or prophylaxis of infection by infectious agents such as viruses (abstract). The nanoparticles comprise a core including metal and/or semiconductor atoms, wherein the core is covalently linked to a plurality of ligands, the ligands including a carbohydrate residue capable of stimulating an innate immune response, and a T cell helper peptide. The nanoparticles can further be adapted by including one or more further ligands capable of producing a specific response to a target infectious agent. Id. The nanoparticles can be used as vaccines (p. 27, ll. 20-31). The nanoparticles may have more than one species of ligand immobilized thereon, e.g. 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 20 or 100 different ligands (p. 8, l. 33 – p. 9, l. 8). The core can be gold (pp. 9-11, 14-15, 28-29, claim 19, Fig 1). Rademacher et al teach that the nanoparticles can have antigenic ligands from viral infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) (pp. 18-19).
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have prepared a vaccine composition comprising at least one epitope peptides of SEQ ID NOs:1-5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18-20, 23, and 27-29 attached to a nanoparticle. Kelvin et al expressly taught peptides that could be used in vaccines for the treatment of SARS. The skilled artisan further would have recognized that Rademacher et al. taught nanoparticles for improving immune responses for the treatment viral infections. Rademacher discloses gold nanoparticles as an alternative to liposomes for peptide vaccines with advantages of being synthetic and having increased stability (e.g., p. 1, ll. 11-26, and p. 3, ll. 8-34). Thus the skilled artisan would have been motivated to increase the immunogenicity of the epitope peptides taught by Kelvin et al, with the gold nanoparticles taught by Rademacher. The skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both Kelvin and Rademacher taught vaccines for treatment of viral infections, e.g., SARS. Rademacher further taught methods for preparing gold nanoparticles comprising epitope peptides.
Accordingly, claim 26 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 27, the nanoparticles may have more than one species of ligand immobilized thereon, e.g. 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 20 or 100 different ligands (Rademacher at p. 8, l. 33 – p. 9, l. 8).
Regarding claim 28, Rademacher discloses gold nanoparticles (e.g., pp. 9-11, 14-15, 28-29, claim 19, Fig 1).
Regarding claim 29, Rademacher et al teach that the peptides can be attached to nanoparticles via a linker (p. 10, l. 13- p. 11, l. 6).
Regarding claim 36, Rademacher et al teach a gold nanoparticles coated with beta-GlcNAc (pp. 4, 28-29, claim 5, Fig 1).
Claims 20-22, 24-29, and 36 are rendered obvious in view of the teachings of the cited references.
Claim(s) 20-22, 24-29, 36, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akeefe et al (U.S. 20090017069), and further in view of Rademacher et al. (WO 2007/122388 -cited in the IDS filed 5/21/2023).
Akeefe et al teach delipidated viral vaccine compositions for treatment of infectious diseases such as SARS (abstract). Compositions comprise delipidated viral particle of a coronavirus (e.g., claim 1). By dissolving the lipid envelope surrounding the viral particle, the resultant modified viral particle has exposed antigens (or epitopes) (para. [0003]). Akeefe et al teach the following sequences of nucleocapsid and spike protein of a coronavirus (tables 3-4). The denoted sequences comprising peptides of instant SEQ ID NOs:1, 2, 14, 16, 19, 21, 27, and 28 are set forth above.
Although Akeefe et al teach generally nanoparticles [0129], the reference does not teach specific nanoparticles, e.g., gold nanoparticles.
Rademacher et al. disclose nanoparticles for providing immune responses for the treatment or prophylaxis of infection by infectious agents such as viruses (abstract). The nanoparticles comprise a core including metal atoms, wherein the core is covalently linked to a plurality of ligands, the ligands including a carbohydrate residue capable of stimulating an innate immune response, and a T cell helper peptide. The nanoparticles can further be adapted by including one or more further ligands capable of producing a specific response to a target infectious agent. Id. The nanoparticles can be used as vaccines (p. 27, ll. 20-31). The nanoparticles may have more than one species of ligand immobilized thereon, e.g. 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 20 or 100 different ligands (p. 8, l. 33 – p. 9, l. 8). The core can be gold (pp. 9-11, 14-15, 28-29, claim 19, Fig 1). Rademacher et al teach that the nanoparticles can have antigenic ligands from viral infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) (pp. 18-19).
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have prepared a vaccine composition comprising a delipidated coronavirus particle of Akeefe et al (comprising SEQ ID NOs: SEQ ID NOs:1, 2, 14, 16, 19, 21, 27, and 28) attached to a nanoparticle. Akeefe et al expressly taught that the delipidated viral particles could be used in vaccines for the treatment of SARS. The skilled artisan further would have recognized that Rademacher et al. taught nanoparticles for improving immune responses for the treatment viral infections. Rademacher discloses gold nanoparticles as an alternative to liposomes for peptide vaccines with advantages of being synthetic and having increased stability (e.g., p. 1, ll. 11-26, and p. 3, ll. 8-34). Thus the skilled artisan would have been motivated to increase the immunogenicity of the delipidated coronavirus particles taught by Akeefe et al, with the gold nanoparticles taught by Rademacher. The skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both Akeefe and Rademacher taught vaccines for treatment of viral infections, e.g., SARS. Rademacher further taught methods for preparing gold nanoparticles.
Accordingly, claim 26 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 27, the nanoparticles may have more than one species of ligand immobilized thereon, e.g. 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 20 or 100 different ligands (Rademacher at p. 8, l. 33 – p. 9, l. 8).
Regarding claim 28, Rademacher discloses gold nanoparticles (e.g., pp. 9-11, 14-15, 28-29, claim 19, Fig 1).
Regarding claim 29, Rademacher et al teach that the peptides can be attached to nanoparticles via a linker (p. 10, l. 13- p. 11, l. 6).
Regarding claim 36, Rademacher et al teach a gold nanoparticles coated with beta-GlcNAc (pp. 4, 28-29, claim 5, Fig 1).
Claims 20-22, 24-29, 36, and 37 are rendered obvious in view of the teachings of the cited references.
Relevant Art Not Relied Upon
Chang et al (Eur. J. Immunol. 43: 1109–1120 (2013)) teach seven T-cell epitopes from severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus (Fig 5). Epitope peptides included instant SEQ ID NOs: 6, 16, 17, and 27-29 (Fig 5, Table 5). The peptides interacted with HLA supertypes including, but not limited to, A2, A24, A33, B15, B40, B46, and B58 (pp. 1110-1117).
Zhou et al (J Immunol 177: 2138–2145 (2006)) teach cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) epitopes from severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus. Epitope peptides included instant SEQ ID NOs: 8, 14 (Table 1). The peptides interacted with HLA supertypes including A*0201 (Fig 1).
Wang et al ((Blood 104:200-206 (2004)) teach identification of an HLA-A*0201–restricted CD8 T-cell epitope SSp-1 of SARS-CoVspike protein, RLNEVAKNL (instant SEQ ID NO:21).
Rappuoli (U.S. 2006/0257852- previously cited) teaches nucleic acids and proteins from the SARS coronavirus. These nucleic acids and proteins can be used in the preparation and manufacture of vaccine formulations, diagnostic reagents, and kits (abstract). Instant SEQ ID NOs: 1, 2, 14, 16, 19, 27 and 28 are encompassed within protein of SEQ ID NO:6052 of Rappuoli. Instant SEQ ID NO:21 is encompassed within protein of SEQ ID NO:6042 of Rappuoli. The denoted page indicates the sequence and HLA interaction.
Rappuoli SEQ ID NO: 100% identity instant SEQ ID NO
9557 SEQ ID NO:5
9567 p. 469 SEQ ID NOs: 27-28
8138 p.421 SEQ ID NO:21
8173 p. 422
9640 p. 471 SEQ ID NO:19
9690 p. 473 SEQ ID NO:16
9590 p. 470 SEQ ID NO:14
9737 p. 474 SEQ ID NO:2
9601 p. 470 SEQ ID NO:1
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Claims 20-22, 24-29, 36, and 37 are pending and are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTINA M HELLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2836. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:30 pm.
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, LIANKO GARYU can be reached at 571-270-7367. 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.
/KRISTINA M HELLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1654