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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-33 and 35-38, and species: S as X1, G as X2, A as X3, F as X4, S as X5, SEQ ID NO: 15, SEQ ID NO: 17, SEQ ID NO: 15, SEQ ID NO: 6, SEQ ID NO: 3, SEQ ID NO: 8, SEQ ID NO: 9, SEQ ID NO: 10, SEQ ID NOs: 21 and 13, an antibody, chemotherapeutic agent and cytotoxic agent, alpha emitter, auristatins, 135-235 mg, CTLA4, WNT protein, and a method of treating cancer comprising a step of administering the antibody to a patient with cancer in the reply filed 10/23/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Liu et al. does not suggest or contemplate anti-CD46 antibodies that exhibit pH-dependent binding or disclose how to make such antibodies. This is not found persuasive because as recited, the instant claims do not fully define the antibody by sequence or by targeted antigen. There are substitutions to be made within the CDR sequences, which broadens the scope of the claim greatly to a number of CDRs, preferably to the same target, that are encompassed under such a wide scope that share similarity with the partial sequences of the claims. A such, the teachings of Liu et al. fit into this broad scope as comprising antibodies that can bind to CD46, and thus were used to break unity.
Claims 1-6, 10, 18-24, 34-36, 38-40 are withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claims. Election was made in the reply filed 10/23/2025.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-9, 11-17, 25-33, 37 are now under consideration in the instant Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figure 17 list sequences without the proper sequence identifiers. See MPEP § 2422.02 which states “where a sequence is presented in a drawing, the sequence must still be included in the sequence listing if the sequence falls within the definition set forth in 37 CFR 1.821(a), and the sequence identifier (“SEQ ID NO:”) must be used, either in the drawing or in the Brief Description of the Drawings.”
Specific deficiency – Nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences appearing in the drawings are not identified by sequence identifiers in accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(d). Sequence identifiers for nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences must appear either in the drawings or in the Brief Description of the Drawings.
Required response – Applicant must provide:
Replacement and annotated drawings in accordance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) inserting the required sequence identifiers;
AND/OR
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers into the Brief Description of the Drawings, consisting of:
A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
Claim Objections
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is a typo in the instant claim when reciting what is presumed to be “group” as “grou0p” 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.
Claims 7-9, 11-17, 25-33, and 37 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 7-9, 11-17, 25-33, and 37 use the transitional term “having sequences L1, L2, L3”. This term is problematic because the recitation of these terms in instant claims 7-9, 11-17, 25-33, and 37 renders the claim unclear by what not defining what is encompassed by “having” the sequences. Applicant has not conveyed that they are in possession of all the antibodies that are included in the broad term “having sequences L1, L2, L3”. It is not immediately clear whether open or closed claim language is intended, Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. Trilech Microelectronics Int’l Inc., 246 F.3d 1336, 1348, 57 USPQ2d 1953, 1959 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (term “having” in transitional phrase "does not create a presumption that the body of the claim is open"); Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1573, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1410 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (in the context of a cDNA having a sequence coding for human PI, the term “having” still permitted inclusion of other moieties), see MPEP 2111.03. Applicant is encouraged to use transitional phrases “comprising of” or “consisting of” to define the scope of a claim with respect to what unrecited additional components, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claims.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7-9, 11-17, 25-33, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 7-9, 11-17, 25-33, and 37 are directed to an antibody that binds to CD46. The instantly claimed antibody for CD46 suffers from written description issues due to the combinatorial language of the sequences as well as the breadth of amino acid substitutions to sequences encompassed within the claims. See MPEP §2163(I)(A) which states:
"The claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described where an invention is described solely in terms of a method of its making coupled with its function and there is no described or art recognized correlation or relationship between the structure of the invention and its function. A biomolecule sequence described only by a functional characteristic, without any known or disclosed correlation between that function and the structure of the sequence, normally is not a sufficient identifying characteristic for written description purposes, even when accompanied by a method of obtaining the claimed sequence.”
In this case, antibodies generally share certain characteristics such as Fc regions or hinge regions. However, these structures are not correlated with the binding function of the antibody. The hyper variable regions (HVRs), i.e., complementarity determining regions (CDRs) of an antibody, are well established in the art as the portion of the binding region which imparts the specificity of an antibody. However, there is no way to a priori look at an antigen sequence (CD46) and envisage the combination of six CDRs that will bind that antigen. First, even highly related CDRs may not bind the same target. See for example Kussie (instant PTO-892) who demonstrates that a single amino acid change in the heavy chain of an antibody which binds p-axophenylarsonate (Ars) completely abrogates the ability of the antibody to bind Ars but adds the functionality of binding the structurally related p-azophenylsulfonate (e.g., abstract). Second, even when provided with several related antibodies that bind the desired target, this does not represent the astronomical and potentially unknowable breadth of all possible amino acid sequences which will result in the desired binding properties. This is exemplified by the Court decision in Abbvie (Abbvie v Janssen 759 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2014)), where Abbvie developed over 200 antibodies that shared 99.5% identity in the variable regions (p.7) and which bound the target, but in no way allowed one to envisage the unique structure of Centocor’s antibodies which bound the same target but shared only 50% sequence similarity (see table on page 11).
Thus, the art recognizes that the CDRs define the binding properties of an antibody and that even single amino acid changes to this region can completely abrogate the binding specificity of an antibody. As a further example, see Chen et al., 1995 (instant PTO-892) which demonstrates single amino acid changes in the VH CDR2 sequence can increase binding, decrease binding, destroy binding, or have no effect on binding when compared to the wild-type antibody.
The instant specification discloses 9 heavy and light chain variable region sequences and 13 heavy and light chain CDR sequences that make up an anti-CD46 antibody on pages 88-90. However, as discussed above, without any way to determine how broad the genus of such antibodies are, there is no way to determine if these antibodies represent the full breadth of what is claimed. The disclosure of these specific antibodies would not convey to the artisan that Applicant was in possession of the full genus of all antibodies which possess the required functions nor does it allow the skilled artisan to envisage the specific structure of such antibodies. For example, the instant claim 7 recites two CDR sequences that contain substitutions at multiple points, with the substitutions being listed as “X₁ is S or L; X₂ is G or W; X3 is S or A; X4 is H or F, X5 is S or E; with the proviso that X₁, X₂, X₃, X₄ and X₅ cannot be S, G, S, H and S, respectively, at the same time”. In addition to the substitutions that can occur in the sequences for L1 and L2, the claims set up conditions for a listed of the combinations of substitutions that are permissible, but does not provide sequences for each potential combination of substitutions that can arise from the claim language, e.g. there is no sequence containing a substitution for X₁ as L. These substituted CDRs can be placed in the context of other CDRs that are substituted in a variety of ways, without properly defining the combination of six that comprise an antibody. The specification does not convey to the skilled artisan that Applicant was in possession of the large, immeasurable number of potentially unique CDRs, let alone combinations of six CDRs that form complete antibodies, that can arise from this level of substitution.
Additionally, the instant claims refer to the six CDRs that comprise the antibody in a combinatorial fashion wherein one CDR sequence is selected and can be placed in the context of any other CDR(s). Applicant has not provided sufficient disclosure and identities of all the CDRs of the antibodies that can arise from the combinatorial and substitutional language that is encompassed by the claims. Applicant has not demonstrated that they are in possession of all the molecules that fall within the immense scope of the claim that are able to achieve the claimed function.
Instant claims 11 and 12 recite pairs of heavy and light chain variable region sequences with 80% and 90% identity to the claimed sequences. There is no limitation or exclusion in the claim language that prevents the modifications from occurring within the CDR region due to the claim language of “having at least 80% sequence identity” and/or “having at least 80% sequence identity”, which widens the scope of the claim to encompass an immense number of unknown molecules that share 80% or 90% identity to the claimed sequence and can bind to the claimed receptor. Additionally, the preceding claims have not fully defined what the CDRs are, which further broadens the scope of the claim. Applicant has not demonstrated that they are in possession of all the molecules that fall within the immense scope of the claim that are able to achieve the claimed function.
Further, it is well-known in the art that specificity of an antibody stems from the interaction of six CDRs. Moreover, CDRs are not generally recognized as interchangeable, such that using one CDR from one antibody would not be reasonably expected to confer the same binding properties or even the same binding target when combined with two to five CDRs from other antibodies. For example, WO 2008068048 (instant PTO-892) discloses an antibody with a heavy chain comprising three CDRs (SEQ ID NO: 2) that binds secreted aspartyl protease from Candida sp. US 20170355756 (instant PTO-892) describes the same three CDRs in the heavy chain (C10-VH3) combined with a different light chain that binds human TDP-43. The instant claims fail to specify what the specific sequences, substitutions included as part of such, constitute the six CDRs of the antibody capable of binding to the target antigen.
As such, the disclosure of a large list of unknown, potential CDRs dependent upon substitutions does not convey possession of all the potential antibodies that would arise from this combination as claimed and have the same binding properties; possession of the precisely defined sequences of the three CDRs per specificity is required. As written, the instant claims recite a number of unknown CDRs that can be substituted with a combination of five other unknown CDRs, replete with their own combinations of substitutions, to construct an undefined antibody. There is no evidence in the instant specification that a single CDR placed in the context of two to five other CDRs, regardless of what those other CDRs are, would result in the required function, nor that a single chain is correlated to the required function when combined with any other chain. As such, the specification fails to set forth a structure-function correlation sufficient to claim all possible antibodies defined by function and one-three CDRs or alterations thereof.
With respect to product claims 7-9, 11-17, 25-33, and 37, it is recognized that information which is well known in the art need not be described in detail in the specification (MPEP §2163(II)(A)(2)). See, e.g., Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1379-80, 231 USPQ 81, 90 (Fed. Cir. 1986). However, sufficient information must be provided to show that the inventor had possession of the invention as claimed. MPEP §2163(II)(A)(3)(a) also discusses Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 927, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1894-95 (Fed. Cir. 2004), where a method of using a PGHS-2 inhibitor did not meet the written description as the inhibitor itself was not sufficiently described, clearly indicating that written description of the compound is still required in a method of using that compound. In this case, it is clear from the specification that the invention is in a new antibody, or at the least disclosure of a new antibody that could not have been envisaged from the prior art indicates that the prior art was not in possession of all “anti-CD46” antibodies. Thus, the prior art cannot provide sufficient written description of this genus of compounds and the specification as filed, does not sufficiently describe the genus either as there is an unknown amount of structurally distinct antibodies in this genus (see Amgen and Centocor decisions discussed above).
To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc., v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1116. The claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described where an invention is described solely in terms of a method of its making coupled with its function and there is no described or art-recognized correlation or relationship between the structure of the invention and its function. An antibody described only by functional characteristic, such as antibody that binds to CD46, without any known or disclosed correlation between that function and the structure of the sequence, is not a sufficient identifying characteristic for written description purposes, even when accompanied by a method of obtaining the biomolecule of interest. In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552, 34 U.S.P.Q.2d 1210 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In the instant case, the specification provides insufficient direction or guidance concerning the relationship between the structure of the possible antibody to demonstrate possession of the breadth of the genus of anti-CD46 antibodies encompassed by the instant claims, especially in view of the unpredictability of such an endeavor. The prior art as evidenced by Edwards et al., 2003 (instant PTO-892) teaches there is a substantially huge antibody diversity produced to one single antigen target. Edwards provides evidence that over 1000 antibodies, all different amino acid sequences, were generated towards one single protein antigen target (see abstract). Without a correlation between structure and function, the claims do little more than define the claimed invention by function. That is not sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406 (“definition by function … does not suffice to define the genus because it is only an indication of what the gene does, rather than what it is”).
Without this guidance or direction the skilled artisan would not consider applicant to be in possession of the claimed genus of antibodies because the skilled artisan recognizes that even seemingly minor changes made without guidance or direction as to the relationship between the particular amino acid sequence of the instantly claimed antibody and its ability to bind antigen, can dramatically affect antigen-antibody binding.
Applicant has not described the claimed invention sufficiently to show they had possession of the claimed genus of antibodies that binds to CD46. Possession may not be shown by merely describing how to obtain possession of members of the claimed genus or how to identify their common structural features. See University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 69 USPQ2d 1886 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, reduction to drawings, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. A “representative number of species” means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus.
What constitutes a "representative number" is an inverse function of the skill and knowledge in the art. Satisfactory disclosure of a "representative number" depends on whether one of skill in the art would recognize that the applicant was in possession of the necessary common attributes or features of the elements possessed by the members of the genus in view of the species disclosed. For inventions in an unpredictable art, adequate written description of a genus which embraces widely variant species cannot be achieved by disclosing only one species within the genus.
To provide adequate written description and evidence of possession of the claimed genus, the specification must provide sufficient distinguishing identifying characteristics of the genus. The factors to be considered include disclosure of complete or partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics, structure/function correlation, methods of making the claimed product, or any combination thereof. In the instant case, the only factors present in the claims are a recitation of one generic, broad genus that encompassed a diverse and huge number of possible antibodies that bind the disclosed epitope. The specification does not provide a consistent structure for all of the possible antibodies and fails to provide a representative number of species for the claimed genus. Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient recitation of distinguishing identifying characteristics, the specification does not provide adequate written description of the claimed genus.
Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 19USPQ2d 1111, clearly states that “applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the 'written description' inquiry, whatever is now claimed.” (See page 1117.) The specification does not “clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that they invented what is claimed.” (See Vas-Cath at page 1116).
With the exception of specifically disclosed antibodies with specific CDR sequences and heavy and light chain variable sequence pairs, the skilled artisan cannot envision the detailed chemical structure of all of the potential encompassed combination of antibodies, and therefore conception is not achieved until reduction to practice has occurred, regardless of the complexity or simplicity of the method of isolation. Adequate written description requires more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method of isolating it. The product itself is required. See Fiers v. Revel, 25 USPQ2d 1601 at 1606 (CAFC 1993) and Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., 18 USPQ2d 1016.
One cannot describe what one has not conceived. See Fiddes v. Baird, 30 USPQ2d 1481 at 1483. In Fiddes, claims directed to mammalian FGF's were found to be unpatentable due to lack of written description for that broad class. Applicant is reminded that Vas-Cath makes clear that the written description provision of 35 U.S.C. §112 is severable from its enablement provision (see page 1115).
Therefore, claims 7-9, 11-17, 25-33, and 37 do not meet the written description requirement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SELAM BERHANE whose telephone number is (571)272-6138. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9-5.
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, Jeffrey Stucker can be reached at 571-272-0911. 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.
/SELAM BERHANE/Examiner, Art Unit 1675
/AURORA M FONTAINHAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1675