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 without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-11, 13, 15, 17-18, 20-22, 24, and 31-32; drawn to a method for culturing genetically modified cells) in the reply filed on September 22, 2025, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 33 and 35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (Group II), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant further elected the following species:
a. microbead diameter from about 1 μm to about 10 μm
b. microbead cell ratio from about 0.5 to about 5
c. Activating agent of anti-CD3 antibodies or fragments thereof
In light of the Applicant’s elected species, claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The species election requirement for the activating agent has been reconsidered in view of the prior art. Anti-CD28 antibodies are rejoined.
DETAILED ACTION
The amended claims filed on March 20, 2026, have been acknowledged. Claims 3-4, 7, 10, 12-14, 16, 19, 23, 25-30, and 34 were cancelled. Claim 1 was amended. In light of the Applicant’s elected invention and species, claims 5, 33, and 35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, 11, 15, 17-18, 20-22, 24, and 31-32 are pending and examined on the merits.
Priority
The applicant claims foreign priority from CN2020105366876 filed on June 12, 2020. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, received March 20, 2026. Claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, 11, 15, 17-18, 20-22, 24, and 31-32 find support in foreign application CN2020105366876 filed on June 12, 2020.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The prior rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 to make steps b-f no longer optional.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The prior rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a natural process without significantly more is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 to make steps b-f no longer optional.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The prior rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application No. 2019/0367876 (Frost) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 to make steps b-f no longer optional.
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 8-9, 11, 15, 17-18, 20-22, 24, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application No. 2019/0367876 (Frost). This is a new rejection made in response to Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 that is substantially similar to a previous rejection. Any aspect of Applicant’s traversal that is relevant to the rejection as newly written is addressed below.
Regarding claim 1, Frost teaches a method of culturing genetically modified immune cells comprising:
Collecting blood containing peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from a subject (paragraphs 0053 and 0058, Figure 1, and claims 1 and 49);
Washing the blood sample before enriched PBMCs are isolated as part of the enrichment process (paragraphs 0059-0061);
Sorting the blood to isolate PBMCs to obtain an enriched PBMC population. Furthermore, the enriched PBMC population can be undergo magnetic sorting for purifying T cells and/or NK cells through positive selection or monocytes and/or macrophages can be removed using magnetic bead activated cell sorting through negative selection. Although Frost does not specifically identify the exact markers for use in positive selection, they do identify that "T cells" include all types of immune cells expressing CD3 including T-helper cells (CD4+ cells), cytotoxic T-cells (CD8+ cells), T-regulatory cells (Treg) and gamma-delta T cells, and NK T cells (CD3+ and CD56+). (paragraphs 0021, 0059-0060, and claim 1). Therefore, it would be well understood that one can isolate T cells and/or NK cells based on the markers identified by Frost (CD3, CD4, CD8, and CD56). Furthermore, MPEP 2131.02 (III) states that a reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination.";
Activating the enriched T cells and/or NK cells by adding anti-CD3 and/or anti-CD28 immobilized on a bead to the media comprising the enriched T cells and/or NK cells. Frost teaches that the T cells and/or NK cells can be incubated with the one or more activating agents for 16 hours (paragraphs 0064-0070 and claims 1 and 18);
Genetically modifying the T cells and/or NK cells by contacting the cells ex vivo with replication incompetent recombinant retroviral particles (paragraphs 0071-0076 and claim 1); and
Expanding the genetically modified T cells and/or NK cells (paragraphs 0077-0088 and claim 1).
Regarding the length of time associated with performing steps (a)-(f) or (a) and (c)-(f), Applicant does not define about. A reasonable interpretation of about is ± 20%. As can be seen in figure 1, the steps of blood collection to cell activation can all occur within the same 24 hour period before transducing the activated cells the next day. Furthermore, Frost teaches that the transduction step can last 12 hours and the expansion step can last 4 days (paragraphs 0073 and 0088). As such, this would equate to steps (a)-(d) lasting for 24 hours, step (e) lasting 12 hours, and step (f) lasting 4 days which is 5.5 days and would be within the about 5 days (up to 6 days) of claim 1.
Regarding claims 8-9, Frost teaches that the activating agent can be anti-CD3 and/or anti-CD28 immobilized on beads.
Regarding claim 11, Frost teaches that the activating step can last 16 hours, the transduction step can last 12 hours, and the expansion step can last 4 days (paragraphs 0070, 0073, and 0088). This equates to 5 days and 4 hours which falls within the about 5 days (up to 6 days) of claim 11.
Regarding claim 15, Frost teaches that a single reactor, fed-batch process can be used for the enrichment, activation, transduction, and expansion of T cells and/or NK cells in a closed system (paragraphs 0048-0057).
Regarding claim 17, as stated supra, Frost teaches that blood contains T cells (paragraphs 0058-0060).
Regarding claim 18, Frost teaches that as part of their activation method, PBMCs can be seeded at a density of 4 x106 cells/mL (paragraph 0065 and claim 6).
Regarding claim 20, Frost, as stated supra, teaches that they transduced the activated T cells and/or NK cells (claim 1).
Regarding claim 21, Frost teaches that the T cells and/or NK cells can be genetically modified with retroviral particle comprising a retroviral genome comprising a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) (claim 14).
Regarding claim 22, Frost teaches that the retroviral particle can be a lentivirus (paragraph 0071).
Regarding claim 24, Frost teaches that the washing step can comprise using a washing solution comprising human serum albumin with a final concentration of 0.25-10% (paragraph 0061).
Regarding claim 32, Frost teaches that they collected peripheral blood (paragraph 0058).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 20, 2026, are acknowledged.
Applicant argues Frost does not disclose each and every element of claim 1. Frost fails to disclose "wherein the sorting is (i) positive sorting, (ii) negative sorting, or (iii) positive sorting plus negative sorting; wherein the positive sorting uses one or more markers selected from the group consisting of CD4+, CD8+, CD62L+, CD3+, CD56+, and combinations thereof, wherein the negative sorting uses one or more markers selected from the group consisting of CD 14+, CD 19+, CD269+, and combination thereof' recited in amended claim 1. Frost also fails to disclose "wherein steps (a)-(f), or steps (a) and (c)-(f), are performed in about 2 days to about 5 days" recited in amended claim 1. Applicant argues that Frost’s method requires 10-14 days and cites to paragraph 0058 of Frost and Figure 1 (page 6, paragraph 7-page 8, paragraph 3)
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As stated in the rejection above, Frost teaches that the enriched PBMC population can be undergo magnetic sorting for purifying T cells and/or NK cells through positive selection or monocytes and/or macrophages can be removed using magnetic bead activated cell sorting through negative selection. Although Frost does not specifically identify the exact markers for use in positive selection, they do identify that "T cells" include all types of immune cells expressing CD3 including T-helper cells (CD4+ cells), cytotoxic T-cells (CD8+ cells), T-regulatory cells (Treg) and gamma-delta T cells, and NK T cells (CD3+ and CD56+). (paragraphs 0021, 0059-0060, and claim 1). Therefore, it would be well understood that one can isolate T cells and/or NK cells based on the markers identified by Frost (CD3, CD4, CD8, and CD56). Furthermore, MPEP 2131.02 (III) states that a reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination."
Therefore, Frost does anticipate the positive selection limitation of claim 1.
Furthermore, regarding the length of time associated with performing steps (a)-(f) or (a) and (c)-(f), Frost specifically teaches a timeframe for their method that falls within the time frame of claim 1. Applicant does not define about. A reasonable interpretation of about is ± 20%. As can be seen in figure 1, the steps of blood collection to cell activation can all occur within the same 24 hour period before transducing the activated cells the next day. Furthermore, Frost teaches that the transduction step can last 12 hours and the expansion step can last 4 days (paragraphs 0073 and 0088). As such, this would equate to steps (a)-(d) lasting for 24 hours, step (e) lasting 12 hours, and step (f) lasting 4 days which is 5.5 days and would be within the about 5 days (up to 6 days) of claim 1.
MPEP 2143.01(I) states that the court stated that "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." Id. In affirming the Board’s obviousness rejection, the court held that the prior art as a whole suggested the desirability of the combination of shoe sole limitations claimed, thus providing a motivation to combine, which need not be supported by a finding that the prior art suggested that the combination claimed by the applicant was the preferred, or most desirable combination over the other alternatives. Id. See also In re Urbanski, 809 F.3d 1237, 1244, 117 USPQ2d 1499, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Therefore, Frost does anticipate the time frame limitation of claim 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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2019/0367876 (Frost) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kalamasz et al. (J Immunother 27: 405-418. 2004). This rejection is repeated with regards to the rejection in the Non-final Office action mailed on December 22, 2025. Applicant’s traversal is addressed below.
Regarding claim 2, the teachings of Frost are as discussed above.
Frost is silent as to which beads with anti-CD3 and/or anti-CD28 are used as part of their method.
However, Kalamasz teaches that Xcyte Dynabeads can be used to attach anti-CD3 and anti-CD28 for activation of T cells. Kalamasz teaches that these beads have a diameter of 4.5 μm. Kalamasz teaches that T cells produced from activation with Xcyte Dynabeads have been shown to have a strong safety record (abstract and page 406, column 1, paragraph 1-page 408, column 1, paragraph 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the Xcyte Dynabeads attached with anti-CD3 and anti-CD28 for activation of T cells, as identified by Kalamasz, in the activation method of Frost to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reason to use the Xcyte Dynabeads attached with anti-CD3 and anti-CD28 for activation of T cells with a reasonable expectation of success because Kalamasz teaches that these were a known set a beads that can successfully activate T cells and that activating T cells with these beads has already been shown to be safe for later use with humans. Therefore, it would have been obvious that the Dynabeads of Kalamaz could be used for activating the T cells of Frost as they had previously been used for this function and are considered safe. Because the prior art teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention, there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6, the teachings of Frost are as discussed above.
Frost is silent as to the ratio of beads-to-cell as part of their activation method.
However, Kalamasz teaches that Xcyte Dynabeads can be used to attach anti-CD3 and anti-CD28 for activation of T cells. Kalamasz teaches that T cell expansion was maximal when the number of beads and T cells were equal (i.e. 1:1). Furthermore, Kalamasz teaches that T cells produced from activation with Xcyte Dynabeads have been shown to have a strong safety record (abstract, page 406, column 1, paragraph 1-page 408, column 1, paragraph 1, page 411, column 2, paragraph 2, and Figure 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the Xcyte Dynabeads attached with anti-CD3 and anti-CD28 at a ratio of 1:1 for activation of T cells, as identified by Kalamasz, in the activation method of Frost to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reason to use the Xcyte Dynabeads attached with anti-CD3 and anti-CD28 for activation of T cells at a ratio of 1:1 with a reasonable expectation of success because Kalamasz teaches that these were a known set a beads that can successfully activate T cells and that activating T cells with a bead-to-cell ratio of 1:1 led to the most T cell expansion. As the goal of the method of Frost is to genetically modify T cells, it would have been obvious that increasing the expansion of the T cells during activation would increase the number of T cells that can be genetically modified, improving the number of genetically modified cells that can achieved from the method of Frost. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use the Dynabeads of Kalamasz as they had previously been used for this function and are considered safe, and it would have been obvious to use a 1:1 bead-to-cell ratio to achieve a higher output of genetically modified T cells. Because the prior art teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention, there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 20, 2026, are acknowledged.
As an initial matter, Applicant’s arguments regarding the failure of the cited references to teach each element claimed is addressed above and was found unpersuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s unexpected results argument, Applicant argues the conventional methods for immune cell preparation usually necessitate 10 to 14 days, as taught by Frost. Importantly, the time period for the claimed methods is shortened from the conventional 10-14 days to 2-5 days. Compared to the standard method, the present method can greatly increase the sample quality. A sufficient amount of cell products with a high proportion of Tnaive and Tern can be obtained within only 2-5 days. The amount of positive cells and the Tnaive/Tcm ratio at harvest are significantly greater than those obtained by the conventional method (page 9, paragraphs 1-6)
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Although Applicant argues unexpected results, the claims are not commensurate in scope with the experimental results cited by the Applicant. MPEP 716.02(d) discloses that whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980) (Claims were directed to a process for removing corrosion at "elevated temperatures" using a certain ion exchange resin (with the exception of claim 8 which recited a temperature in excess of 100°C). Appellant demonstrated unexpected results via comparative tests with the prior art ion exchange resin at 110°C and 130°C. The court affirmed the rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-10 because the term "elevated temperatures" encompassed temperatures as low as 60°C where the prior art ion exchange resin was known to perform well. The rejection of claim 8, directed to a temperature in excess of 100°C, was reversed.). See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329-31, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-85 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (data showing improved alloy strength with the addition of 2% rhenium did not evidence unexpected results for the entire claimed range of about 1-3% rhenium); In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to certain catalysts containing an alkali metal. Evidence presented to rebut an obviousness rejection compared catalysts containing sodium with the prior art. The court held this evidence insufficient to rebut the prima facie case because experiments limited to sodium were not commensurate in scope with the claims.).
Regarding the claims at issue in the instant application, the unexpected results cited by the Applicant in Table A are related to the results associated with examples 1-2 which used a specific protocol for generating the identified results whereas the claimed methods encompass more than just this specific protocol. As such, the claims as written are not commensurate in scope with alleged unexpected results. Furthermore, as shown by the teachings of Frost, it would not have been unexpected to produce genetically modified immune cells by performing steps (a)-(f) or (a) and (c)-(f) within about 5 days as Frost already teaches that their method can do this.
Note that unexpected results must be “really unexpected” in view of the prior art. “Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected.” (emphasis added). See MPEP §716.02.
In view of the foregoing, applicant’s arguments pertaining to unexpected results are not found persuasive.
Claims 1 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2019/0367876 (Frost) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application No. 2019/0247433 (Kalra). This rejection is repeated with regards to the rejection in the Non-final Office action mailed on December 22, 2025. Applicant’s traversal has been addressed above.
The teachings of Frost are as discussed above.
Although Frost teaches that the enriched PBMC population can undergo magnetic sorting for purifying T cells (which Frost acknowledges are CD4 and/or CD8+ and directly identifies that they want CD4 and CD8 positive T cells in as part of their population of genetically engineered T cells (paragraphs 0020 and 0162)) through positive selection (paragraphs 0059-0060), Frost is silent as to using anti-CD4 or anti-CD8 antibodies.
However, Kalra teaches that T cells can be selected for using MACS-CD4 and CD8-Microbeads (i.e. CD4 antibody and CD8 antibody bound to a microbead) to enrich for CD4+ and CD8+ T cells (paragraph 0289)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used MACS-CD4 and CD8-Microbeads for magnetic sorting of CD4+ and/or CD8+ T cells, as identified by Kalra, in the sorting method of Frost to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reason to use the MACS-CD4 and CD8-Microbeads with a reasonable expectation of success because Kalra teaches that these were known to be used for magnetic sorting of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells. As Frost already identifies that T cells can be magnetically sorted and Kalra teaches that the MACS-CD4 and CD8-Microbeads can be used for magnetic sorting, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably envision using the MACS-CD4 and CD8-Microbeads for magnetic sorting and enrichment of T cells. Because the prior art teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention, there is a reasonable expectation of success.
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 1, 6, 8-9, 11, 15, 17-18, 20-22, 24, and 32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 10-18 and 20 of copending Application No. 18/251,469 in view of United States Patent Application No. 2019/0367876 (Frost). This is a new rejection made in response to Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 that is substantially similar to a previous rejection. Applicant’s traversal has been addressed above.
Regarding claim 1, ‘469 claims a method of preparing genetically modifying immune cells comprising:
(a) providing a sample containing immune cells;
(b) sorting the sample to obtain a first immune cell population enriched in immune cells, wherein the sorting comprises positive sorting using anti-CD4 and/or anti-CD8 antibodies or fragments thereof;
(c) activating the first immune cell population to obtain a second immune cell population (wherein the first immune cell population is activated with microbeads coated with activating agents.);
(d) culturing the second immune cell population to obtain a third immune cell population;
(e) genetically modifying the third immune cell population to obtain a fourth immune cell population; and
(f) culturing the fourth immune cell population to reach a cell density ranging from about 2x106 cells/ml to about 20x106 cells/ml (as step f is culturing the genetically modified cells from step (e), this would also result in expansion of the genetically modified cells) (claims 1 and 2);
wherein step (b) to step (f) are performed within 5 days.
‘469 does not teach a time frame for activating in step (c), washing the sample containing the immune cells, and the timeframe associated with performing steps (a)-(f) or (a) and (c)-(f).
However, Frost teaches a method of culturing genetically modified immune cells comprising:
Collecting blood containing peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from a subject (paragraphs 0053 and 0058, Figure 1, and claims 1 and 49);
Washing the blood sample before enriched PBMCs are isolated as part of the enrichment process (paragraphs 0059-0061);
Sorting the blood to isolate PBMCs to obtain an enriched PBMC population. Furthermore, the enriched PBMC population can be undergo magnetic sorting for purifying T cells and/or NK cells through positive selection or monocytes and/or macrophages can be removed using magnetic bead activated cell sorting through negative selection (paragraphs 0059-0060 and claim 1);
Activating the enriched T cells and/or NK cells by adding anti-CD3 and/or anti-CD28 immobilized on a bead to the media comprising the enriched T cells and/or NK cells (paragraphs 0064-0070 and claims 1 and 18);
Genetically modifying the T cells and/or NK cells by contacting the cells ex vivo with replication incompetent recombinant retroviral particles (paragraphs 0071-0076 and claim 1); and
Expanding the genetically modified T cells and/or NK cells (paragraphs 0077-0088 and claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of preparing genetically modified immune cells of ‘469 by including a washing step of the sample containing immune cells, as identified by Frost, to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reason to modify with a reasonable expectation of success because Frost successfully reduces to practice that a wash step for the blood sample can occur as part of a method of generating genetically modified immune cells. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily envision that a washing step could be added to the method of ‘469. Because the prior art teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention, there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the activation time frame, ‘469 is silent as to the length of time of the activation step.
However, Frost teaches that the T cells and/or NK cells can be incubated with the one or more activating agents for 16 hours (paragraph 0070).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a 16 hour activation step, as identified by Frost, in the sorting method of ‘469 to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reason to use a 16 hour activation step with a reasonable expectation of success because Frost identifies a similar method of generating genetically modified immune cells to ‘469 and teaches that a 16 hour incubation time for the activation step is reasonable. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily envision that a 16 hour activation step could be used in the method of ‘469. Because the prior art teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention, there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the overall timeframe of the method, ‘469 claims wherein step (b) to step (f) are performed in about 4 days to about 5 days (claim 11). ‘469 does not claim the timeframe associated with performing steps (a)-(f) or (a) and (c)-(f). However, Frost teaches that steps (a)-(d) can all occur within the same 24 hour period. Therefore, step (a) is considered to take less than 24 total hours and if step (b) to step (f) are performed in about 4 days, this would remain within the about 5 days of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, ‘469 claims that the activating is performed with a microbead- to-cell ratio ranging from about 0.5:1 to about 5:1 (claims 2-3).
Regarding claims 8-9, ‘469 claims that the activating agent can be anti-CD3 and/or anti-CD28 immobilized on beads (claims 2 and 4-5).
Regarding claim 11, ‘469 claims wherein step (b) to step (f) are performed in about 4 days to about 5 days (claim 11).
Regarding claim 15, ‘469 does not claim wherein steps (c)-(f) are performed in a closed and sterile system.
Frost teaches that a single reactor, fed-batch process can be used for the enrichment, activation, transduction, and expansion of T cells and/or NK cells in a closed system (paragraphs 0048-0057). As this would be more sterile than trying to perform this in an open system with multiple manipulation steps, it would have been obvious to perform these steps in a closed and sterile system.
Regarding claim 17, ’469 claims wherein the immune cells are T cells or T cell subsets (claim 15).
Regarding claim 18, ’469 claims wherein in step (c) the activating is performed with a density of the first immune cell population ranging from about 0.5x106 cells/ml to about 10x106 cells/ml (claim 6).
Regarding claims 20 and 22, ’469 claims wherein in step (e) the genetically modifying comprises transducing the third immune cell population with lentiviral vectors, gamma-retroviral vectors, alpha-retroviral vectors, or adenoviral vectors (claim 1).
Regarding claim 21, ’469 claims wherein in step (e) the genetically modifying comprises introducing into the third immune cell population a polynucleotide encoding a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) or a T cell receptor (TCR) (claim 17).
Regarding claim 22, Frost teaches that the retroviral particle can be a lentivirus (paragraph 0071).
Regarding claim 24, Frost teaches that the washing step can comprise using a washing solution comprising human serum albumin with a final concentration of 0.25-10% (paragraph 0061).
Regarding claim 32, ’469 claims wherein the sample is peripheral blood, cells, fresh apheresis, cryopreserved apheresis, monocyte collections, peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), or combinations thereof
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-2 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 10-18 and 20 of copending Application No. 18/251,469 in view of United States Patent Application No. 2019/0367876 (Frost) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kalamasz et al. (J Immunother 27: 405-418. 2004). This rejection is repeated with regards to the rejection in the Non-final Office action mailed on December 22, 2025. Applicant’s traversal has been addressed above.
Regarding claim 2, the teachings of ‘469 and Frost are as discussed above.
‘469 and Frost are silent as to which beads with anti-CD3 and/or anti-CD28 are used as part of their method.
However, Kalamasz teaches that Xcyte Dynabeads can be used to attach anti-CD3 and anti-CD28 for activation of T cells. Kalamasz teaches that these beads have a diameter of 4.5 μm. Kalamasz teaches that T cells produced from activation with Xcyte Dynabeads have been shown to have a strong safety record (abstract and page 406, column 1, paragraph 1-page 408, column 1, paragraph 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the Xcyte Dynabeads attached with anti-CD3 and anti-CD28 for activation of T cells, as identified by Kalamasz, in the activation method of ‘469 and Frost to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reason to use the Xcyte Dynabeads attached with anti-CD3 and anti-CD28 for activation of T cells with a reasonable expectation of success because Kalamasz teaches that these were a known set a beads that can successfully activate T cells and that activating T cells with these beads has already been shown to be safe for later use with humans. Therefore, it would have been obvious that the Dynabeads of Kalamaz could be used for activating the T cells of ‘469 and Frost as they had previously been used for this function and are considered safe. Because the prior art teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention, there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 1 and 31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 10-18 and 20 of copending Application No. 18/251,469 in view of United States Patent Application No. 2019/0367876 (Frost) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of United States Patent Application No. 2019/0247433 (Kalra). This rejection is repeated with regards to the rejection in the Non-final Office action mailed on December 22, 2025. Applicant’s traversal has been addressed above.
The teachings of ‘469 and Frost are as discussed above. ‘469 claims wherein in step (b) the sorting is performed by mixing the sample with sorting magnetic beads and wherein the sorting comprises positive sorting (claims 7-8).
Although ‘469 and Frost teaches that the enriched PBMC population can undergo magnetic sorting for purifying T cells (which Frost acknowledges are CD4 and/or CD8+ and directly identifies that they want CD4 and CD8 positive T cells in as part of their population of genetically engineered T cells (paragraphs 0020 and 0162)) through positive selection (paragraphs 0059-0060), ‘469 and Frost are silent as to using anti-CD4 or anti-CD8 antibodies.
However, Kalra teaches that T cells can be selected for using MACS-CD4 and CD8-Microbeads (i.e. CD4 antibody and CD8 antibody bound to a microbead) to enrich for CD4+ and CD8+ T cells (paragraph 0289)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used MACS-CD4 and CD8-Microbeads for magnetic sorting of CD4+ and/or CD8+ T cells, as identified by Kalra, in the sorting method of ‘469 and Frost to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reason to use the MACS-CD4 and CD8-Microbeads with a reasonable expectation of success because Kalra teaches that these were known to be used for magnetic sorting of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells. As ‘469 already claims that positive selection using magnetic beads can be used and Frost already identifies that T cells can be magnetically sorted and Kalra teaches that the MACS-CD4 and CD8-Microbeads can be used for magnetic sorting, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably envision using the MACS-CD4 and CD8-Microbeads for magnetic sorting and enrichment of T cells. Because the prior art teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention, there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEENAN A BATES whose telephone number is (571)270-0727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Doug Schultz can be reached at (571) 272-0763. 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.
/KEENAN A BATES/Examiner, Art Unit 1631
/PETER PARAS JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1632
Prosecution Insights