DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the claims
Claim set received 15 September 2025 has been entered into the application.
Claims 2, 6-7, 10-11, 13-16, 27-42, 46-47, 49-54, 56-100, 102-108, and 110-117 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 12, 17-21, 26, 43, 45, 48, and 55 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 101 and 109 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 15 September 2025.
Applicant has elected Group I.
Applicant elected cancer as a species, and elected ten microsatellite species from Table 5 [Specification 0041].
Thus, claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 12, 17-21, 26, 43, 45, 48, and 55 are pending.
Priority
This Application is a 371 of PCT/US2021/038672 filed 23 June 2021 which claims benefit to U.S Provisional Application 63/044,029 filed 25 June 2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 20 December 2022, 07 January 2025, and 07 January 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
It is noted that copies of NPL Citation No’s. 6-7 from the IDS filed 07 January 2025 (9 pages) were not provided.
The listing of references in the specification [pages 187-190] is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 20 December 2022. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The specification filed 20 December 2022 has been entered into the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
35 USC § 112(b)
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 1, 3-5, 8-9, 12, 17-21, 26, 43, 45, 48, and 55 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.
Claim 1 step (b) recites the phrase “less likely to response to the checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy” The phrase renders claim 1 indefinite because it is vague and not clear as what “less likely” is referencing or what the comparison is to. Here, it is recommended to amend to the claimed step to clarify what “less likely” is being compared to or referred to. For example, claim 1 step (b) could be amended to recite “when the subject’s cancer is determined to exhibit MSS, it is predicted that the cancer is likely to have a decreased response and/or is not responsive to the checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy as compared to a subject with MSI-H.”
Claims 3-5, 8-9, 12, 17-21, 26, 43, 45, 48, and 55 are also rejected because they fail to provide limitations to overcome the deficiencies of their base claim(s).
Claim 9 and 55 recite using information from tables. Claims 9 and 55 both recite using data set out in tables 1-13, 14A, and 21. With respect to using tables in the claims, it renders the claims indefinite because claims are to be complete in themselves. Incorporation by reference to a specific figure or table "is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim. Incorporation by reference is a necessity doctrine, not for applicant’s convenience." Ex parte Fressola, 27 USPQ2d 1608, 1609 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (citations omitted). Therefore, the tables in the claims render the claims indefinite because it is not clear what information from the tables is used to limit the claimed steps. For example, Table 11 discloses genes, p-values, start and stop positions of the gene, and that chromosome the microsatellite is located on. Therefore, since the Applicant elected the first 10 biomarkers of Table, the claims should be amended to recite what data is utilized. To exemplify, since Applicant elected Table 5 in claims 9 and 55, the Applicant should amend the claims to recite “…the microsatellite repeat marker sequence comprise a plurality of microsatellite repeat markers comprising UQCRC1, TSPYL2, EPAS, PIK3Rl, LOC654841, MEISl, DNAJB11, ABCA10, TTN, or PIBFJ”. Here, the Applicants is instructed to copy the table contents into the claim itself. There is no limit to the length of a claim. As such, if the subject matter can be listed in the specification, that list can be copied and pasted into a claim. See MPEP 2173.05(s)
Claim 12 recites wherein the set of microsatellite repeat marker sequences comprises a plurality up to the first 100 of the sequences set out in the respective Table for the subject's cancer type. The limitation “set out in the respective Table” renders the claim indefinite because the claim recites using data from a table but it is not clear which table or table data is utilized as for microsatellite repeat marker sequences. Here, for example, it is recommended to amend the claims to recite “ wherein the set of microsatellite repeat marker sequences comprise up to ten of the lung cancer associated microsatellite repeat markers UQCRC1, TSPYL2, EPAS, PIK3Rl, LOC654841, MEISl, DNAJB11, ABCA10, TTN, or PIBFJ.” instead of “comprises a plurality up to the first 100 of the sequences set out in the respective Table for the subject's cancer type.”
Claims 45 and 48 contains trademark/trade names, including Keytruda®, Tecentriq®, and GazyvaTM, for example. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name.
In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe medications and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite because the products/goods (i.e. medications) registered under the trademarks/tradenames can change overtime. See MPEP 2173.05(u). Therefore, the trademarks/tradenames should be amended from the claims.
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 1, 3-5, 8-9, 12, 17-21, 26, 43, 45, 48, and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Following the flowchart of the MPEP 210
Step 1 - Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 12, 17-21, 26, 43, 45, 48, and 55 are directed to a method, so a process.
Step 2A Prong One - Identification of an Abstract Idea
Claim 1 recites:
(b) processing the microsatellite instability data to output a categorical measure of microsatellite instability high (MSI-H) or microsatellite stable (MSS)
This step can be performed in the human mind by organizing information (i.e., microsatellite instability data) to output measure of microsatellite instability high (MSI-H) or microsatellite stable (MSS) and is therefore an abstract idea.
wherein when the subject's cancer is determined to exhibit MSI-H, it is predicted that the cancer will respond to checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy
This step can be performed in the human mind by observing and evaluating a subject’s cancer MSI-H status for predicting whether the cancer will respond to checkpoint inhibitor and is therefore an abstract idea.
when the subject's cancer is determined to exhibit MSS, it is predicted that the cancer is less likely to respond to checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy
This step can be performed in the human mind by observing and evaluating a subject’s cancer MSS status for predicting whether the cancer will less likely respond to checkpoint inhibitor and is therefore an abstract idea.
Claim 43 recites:
when the microsatellite instability status is determined to be MSI-H, administering a checkpoint inhibitor
This step can be performed in the human mind by observing and evaluating the MSI-H status to administer a checkpoint inhibitor and is therefore an abstract idea.
when the microsatellite instability status is determined to be MSS, administering a non-checkpoint inhibitor cancer therapeutic
This step can be performed in the human mind by observing and evaluating the MSS status to administer a non-checkpoint inhibitor and is therefore an abstract idea.
Claims 3-5, 8-9, 12, 17-21, 26, 44, and 55 are further drawn to limitations that describe the abstract ideas of claim 1 and are therefore also abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two - Consideration of Practical Application
Claims 1 does not recite any additional element which integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. It is noted that under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), the recitation of the checkpoint and non-checkpoint inhibitors is interpreted as a prediction response to a specific medication and not administering steps, for example. Here, in the instant case, claim 1 merely set forth a method of data analysis for processing microsatellite instability data to output categorical measures (i.e., MSI-H and MSS) for predicting whether a subject’s cancer exhibits MSI-H and responds to checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy and predicting whether subject’s cancer exhibits MSS and is less likely to respond to check point inhibitor therapy. As such, practicing the claims merely results processing information (i.e., microsatellite instability data) to output categorical measures (MSI-H and MSS). Such a result only produces information and does not provide for a practical application in the physical-world realm of physical things and acts, i.e., the claims do not utilize the data generated by the judicial exception to affect any type of change. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A)(iv). Therefore, the claim does not utilize the categorized information (i.e., microsatellite instability data) and the abstract ideas to construct a practical application such as treating a subject, transforming matter, or improving upon an existing technology.
Claim 43 recites a method for treating cancer in a subject comprising determining microsatellite instability in cells of a subject’s cancer by method of claim 1. Additionally, claim 43 recites when the microsatellite instability status is MSI-H administer a checkpoint inhibitor and when the microsatellite instability status is MSS administer a non-checkpoint inhibitor. However, the particular treatments (i.e., checkpoint inhibitors of claim 45 and non-checkpoint inhibitors of claim 48) of claim 43 are not integrated into a practical application because the limitation of claim 43 is conditional. The claim recites administering only “when” MSI-H or MSS is determined. See MPEP 2111.04 Contingent Limitations. The clam does not recite concretely determining either MSI-H or MSS and then administering a treatment. The claim currently encompasses an embodiment where neither MSI-H or MSS are determined which would result in no treatment being administered. Therefore, this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See MPEP 2106.05(f).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not meet any of the following criteria:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B - Consideration of Additional Elements and Significantly More
The claimed method also recites "additional elements" that are not limitations drawn to an abstract idea.
The recited additional element of data gathering (i.e., receiving microsatellite instability data) of claim 1 step (a) does not add significantly more than the recited judicial exception because receiving data that is subsequently analyzed by the abstract ideas is deemed an extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The recited additional element of administering medications of claim 43 does not add significantly more than the recited judicial exception because administering medications is deemed routine and conventional.
The recited additional element of medications of checkpoint inhibitors of claims 45 and non-checkpoint inhibitors of 48 does not add significantly more to the recited judicial exception because using medications to prevent and/or treat disease/conditions is deemed routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). To provide evidence of conventionality of using checkpoint inhibitors Xiao et al. (Xiao) disclose using immune checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and avelumab [Xiao, claim 50]. To provide conventionality of using non-checkpoint inhibitors, Xiao discloses using the non-checkpoint inhibitor therapies oxaliplatin [page 120 table 11] and trametinib and dabrafenib [page 121 00335]. (WO 2018/175501, Pub Date: 27 September 2018).
In conclusion, and when viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea recited in the instantly presented claims into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 12, 26, 43-45, 48, and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al. (WO 2018/175501, Pub Date: 27 September 2018) in view of Van Velzen et al. (Cancer treatment reviews, 2020-06, Vol.86, p.102024, Article 102024).
Claim 1 recites (a) receiving microsatellite instability data for a defined set of microsatellite repeat marker sequences in cells of the subject's cancer.
Claim 1 recites (b) processing the microsatellite instability data to output a categorical measure of microsatellite instability high (MSI-H) or microsatellite stable (MSS).
Claim 1 recites when the subject's cancer is determined to exhibit MSI-H, it is predicted that the cancer will respond to checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy.
Claim 1 recites when the subject's cancer is determined to exhibit MSS, it is predicted that the cancer is less likely to respond to checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy.
Xiao et al. (Xiao) disclose using sample from cancer patients [Xiao, claim 21]. Xiao discloses the cancer can be Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) [Xiao, claims 23 and 61]. Xiao discloses using 11,348 patients sequenced tumor data [Xiao, page 158 para 00457]. Xiao teaches determining profiles using an immunoassay [Xiao, claim 43] [Instant Specification top of page 4 para 0016]. Xiao discloses using a 592-gene sequencing panel of the genes of tables 7-10 [Xiao, page 158 para 00457; Tables 7-10 pages 112-119]. Xiao discloses using a MISA algorithm to identify 8,921 microsatellite locations by analyzing 592 microsatellite loci target NGS panel and finding 7,317 target microsatellite loci [Xiao, page 159 para 00463]. Xiao discloses examining the 7,317 target microsatellite loci and comparing them to reference genome hg19 [Xiao, page 220 para 00464], as in instant claim 1 step (a). Here, although Xiao does not explicitly disclose “receiving” microsatellite instability data, Xiao discloses examining the microsatellite data from patient tumor samples and analyzing the data with a MSIA algorithm which suggests that microsatellite data of a patient’s cancer was received/inputted into a system for subsequent analysis.
Xiao discloses a process for using NGS for the 592-gene panels and examining and comparing the 7,317 target microsatellite loci to human reference genome hg19. Xiao discloses examining microsatellite loci data and comparing the data to thresholds and calibrating the data based on comparison of total number of altered loci per patient to MSI-F for maximizing sensitivity while maintaining an appropriately high specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). [Xiao, page 220 para 00464]. Xiao discloses classifying cancers as MSS, MSI-Low, or MSI-H based on the calibrated thresholds of altered microsatellite loci [Xiao, page 220 para 00465], as in instant claim 1 (b) processing the microsatellite instability data to output a categorical measure of microsatellite instability high (MSI-H) or microsatellite stable (MSS).
Xiao discloses identifying a potential benefit from an immune checkpoint when the biological sample is MSI-High [Xiao, claim 47], as instant claim 1 step (b) when the subject's cancer is determined to exhibit MSI-H, it is predicted that the cancer will respond to checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy.
Xiao [disclosure page 132, para 00359 above para 00360] discloses “The indication whether each treatment is likely to benefit the patient, not benefit the patient, or has indeterminate benefit may be weighted. For example, a potential benefit may be a strong potential benefit or a lesser potential benefit. Such weighting can be based on any appropriate criteria, e.g., the strength of the evidence of the biomarker treatment association, or the results of the profiling, e.g., a degree of over- or under expression.” Here, under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), the term “potential benefit” is interpreted as a response or “therapy response” because, as noted in the example above, the treatment is likely to have benefit, have intermediate benefit, or have no benefit which reads on whether the patients’ cancer’s response to the therapy (i.e., checkpoint and/or non-checkpoint inhibitor) is objectively (i.e., use of clinical/laboratory methods) beneficial or not. Xiao discloses monitoring the effectiveness of treatment using complete response (CR), partial response, stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD) categories. Additionally, the specification discloses molecular profiling results in a complete or partial response [specification, page 76 0253].
Dependent claims 9, 12, 26, 43-45, 48, and 55.
Xiao discloses the cancer can be non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), lung small cell cancer (SCLC) [Xiao, claim 61]. Xiao discloses loci comprises 10 loci [Xiao, claim 9], as in instant claim 9. Xiao discloses molecular profile can contain the gene/loci for PIK3Rl [disclosure, page 125], as in instant claim 9. Here, it is noted the Applicant elected lung squamous cell carcinoma (LUSC) as the species of cancer [remarks, pages 14-15, filed 15 September 2024].
Xiao discloses the cancer can be non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), lung small cell cancer (SCLC) [Xiao, claim 61]. Xiao discloses loci comprises 100 loci [Xiao, claim 9], as in instant claim 12.
Xiao discloses examining the 7,317 target microsatellite loci and comparing them to reference genome hg19 [Xiao, page 220 para 00464], as in claim 26.
Xiao discloses identifying the biological sample status as MSI-H [Xiao, claim 1 step (d)]. Xiao discloses identifying at least one therapy based on the MSI status [Xiao, claim 81 steps (i-ii)]. Xiao discloses the therapy is an immune checkpoint inhibitor [Xiao, claim 52]. Xiao discloses identifying the biological sample as microsatellite stable (MSS) [Xiao, claim 30]. Xiao discloses using the non-checkpoint inhibitor therapies: oxaliplatin [page 120 table 11] and trametinib and dabrafenib [page 121 00335]. Xiao discloses administering at least one therapy [Xiao, claim 59], as in instant claim 43. Therefore, it is obvious that if MSI-H status was determined a checkpoint inhibitor would be administered. It is further obvious that if MSS status was determined a non-checkpoint inhibitor could be utilized.
Xiao discloses the molecular profile can comprise PD-L1 [Xiao, claim 42], as in instant claim 44.
Xiao discloses the immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy is selected from ipilimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and avelumab [Xiao, claim 50], as in instant claim 45.
Xiao discloses using the non-checkpoint inhibitor therapies: oxaliplatin [page 120 table 11] and trametinib and dabrafenib [page 121 00335], as in instant claim 48.
Xiao discloses the threshold level can optionally be 50 [Xiao, claim 28], as in claim 55.
Xiao does not explicitly teach claim 1 step (b) when the subject's cancer is determined to exhibit MSS, it is predicted that the cancer is less likely to respond to checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy.
Xiao discloses identifying the biological sample as microsatellite stable (MSS) if the number of altered microsatellite loci are below a threshold [Xiao, claim 30].
Van Velzen et al. (Van Velzen) teaches immune checkpoint blockades are therapeutic options for lung cancer [page 1 right col middle para]. Van Velzen teaches an MSI assessment of 171 patients showed that 4/7 (57.1%) of MSI-H patients responded to the checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab, whereas 15/167 (9.0%) of MSS/MSS-L patients responded to checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab [page 3 right col top para], as in claim 1 step (b) when the subject's cancer is determined to exhibit MSS, it is predicted that the cancer is less likely to respond to checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy. Here, because Van Velzen teaches 9.0% of patients with MSS/MSI-L statuses responded to the checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab while 57.1% of patients with MSI-H statuses responded to the checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab, it teaches that patients with MSS statuses were less likely to respond the checkpoint inhibitor(s) compared to MSI-H statuses.
It would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods Xiao in view of Van Velzen because Van Velzen teaches processing microsatellite data for determining microsatellite instability statuses and administering checkpoint inhibitors. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Xiao in view of Van Velzen because Van Velzen teaches a study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of using checkpoint inhibitor (i.e, pembrolizumab) in cancer patients with MSI-H and MSS/MSS-L statuses that resulted in cancers that exhibited MSS status had a lesser or decreased response to pembrolizumab compared to MSI-H status patients. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a reasonable success combining the checkpoint inhibitor responses of Van Velzen with the microsatellite processing of Xiao to construct a claimed step for determining if MSS status cancer patients are less likely to respond to checkpoint inhibitors because Van Velzen provides studies that illustrate that using checkpoints inhibitor against MSS status patients is not an effective treatment which could lead to the administration of alternative immunotherapies in order to increase MSS/therapy response rate/percentage. Therefore, combining the microsatellite instability processing methods of Xiao in view of the checkpoint inhibitor responses of Van Velzen would yield a predictable method for predicting whether a subject’s cancer MSI status will respond and/or is less likely to respond to checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy.
Claim(s) 3-4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao in view of Van Velzen, as applied to claims 1, 9, 12, 26, 43-45, 48, and 55, and in further view of Johnson et al. (Patent Pub: US 2019/0108312, Pub Date: 11 April 2019).
Xiao in view of Van Velzen teach claims 1, 9, 12, 26, 43-45, 48, and 55.
Xiao discloses a method for identifying/predicting a subjects cancer response to checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy.
Xiao in view of Van Velzen does not teach claims 3-4.
Johnson et al. (Johnson) disclose using a background model for determining microsatellite instability that determines microsatellite instability characterization associated with at least one cancer condition for a user based on between the microsatellite instability parameter and the microsatellite instability threshold [Johnson, claim 1]. Johnson discloses background models can be based on neural network, regression, decision tree, random forest [Johnson, para 0034], as in claim 3.
Johnson discloses using machine learning algorithms, neural networks, random-forest, decision trees, and logistic regression as background models [disclosure, page 4 para 0034]. Xiao discloses distinct cancer lineages using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, or any combination thereof [Xiao, claim 24], as in instant claim 4. Therefore, it is obvious that Johnson and Xiao disclose a claimed step using a quantitative model that can comprise a regression model, decision-tree model, machine-learning algorithm, neural network and evaluate test characteristics such as sensitivity, accuracy, correlation, probability, specificity, false-positive rate, false negative rate, positive predictive value, negative predictive value.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods of Xiao in view of Van Velzen in further view of Johnson because Johnson also discloses methods detecting microsatellite instability associated with cancer [Johnson, claim 1]. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Xiao in view of Van Velzen in further view of Johnson because Johnson discloses utilizing different mathematical/statistical models (i.e., machine learning algorithms, neural networks, random-forest, decision trees, and logistic regression) for detecting microsatellite instability. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a reasonable success incorporating the quantitative models of Johnson with the processing microsatellite instability data categorical measures (i.e., microsatellite instability high (MSI-H) or microsatellite stable (MSS)) methods of Xiao and the efficacy and safety evaluations of Van Velzen to construct a method for determining if a subject’s cancer microsatellite instability status will respond to a immunotherapy (i.e., checkpoint inhibitors) because Johnson also discloses the microsatellite instability detection method can be used for facilitating in the treatment of a patient with at least one cancer [Johnson, claim 20]. Therefore, incorporating the MSI status identification and immunotherapy administration methods of Xiao in view of the response evaluations of Van Velzen in further view of the quantitative models of Johnson would yield a predictable method for evaluating test characteristics for predicting whether a subject's cancer MSI status will or is less likely to respond to checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 12, 17-21, 26, 43, 45, 48, and 55 are rejected.
No claims are allowed.
Finality
This Office action is a Non-Final action. A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C PULLIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8696. The examiner can normally be reached 0730-1700 M-F.
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, Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached at (571) 272-9047. 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.
/J.C.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 1687
/Anna Skibinsky/
Primary Examiner, AU 1635