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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of:
A. Group I (e.g. claims 1-2, 5-13, 15-18, 20-22 and 24) drawn to a saponin derivative or a pharmaceutical composition comprising said saponin derivative; and
B. The elected species of the saponin derivative as SO1861-Glu-AEM (molecule 18), see also Figure 11, which is depicted as,
PNG
media_image1.png
327
761
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
in the reply filed on December 09, 2025 is acknowledged.
The Examiner respectfully notes the elected species of SO1861-Glu-AEM as discussed above reads on instant claims 1-2, 5-13, 15-18, 20-21 and 24.
Claims 22 and 32-34 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species or invention(s), respectively, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 09, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 12/04/2023, 09/03/2024 and 06/18/2025 have been considered by the Examiner inasmuch as foreign documents have been submitted into the file wrapper in English.
Claim Status
The claim set filed December 09, 2025 has been entered. Claims 3-4, 14, 19, 23 and 25-31 are canceled. Claims 22 and 32-34 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected species or invention(s), respectively, as discussed in greater detail in the Election/Restrictions section above.
Thus, claims 1-2, 5-13, 15-18, 20-21 and 24 as amended are examined on the merits herein.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18, pg. 11, line 4, recites “represent aSO1861”, which is missing a blank space between “a” and “SO1861 as discussed above. Thus, to promote clarity the Examiner respectfully suggests inserting a blank space as discussed above.
The Examiner encourages the Applicant to review the entire claim set for additional instances where the text of the claim is missing a blank space between recited text.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-13, 15-18, 20-21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marciani (Published 02 November 1999, US-5977081-A, IDS filed 12/04/2023) in view of Weng et al. (Published 07 March 2015, Journal of Controlled Release, Vol. 206, pp. 75-90, PTO-892) and Hubbell et al. (Published 04 April 2017, WO-2017058996-A1, PTO-892).
Regarding claims 1-2, 5-13, 15-18, 20-21 and 24, Marciani teaches triterpene saponin analogs having adjuvant and immunostimulatory activity, see title.
Marciani teaches novel chemical compounds in which a lipophilic moiety such as and including a terpene is covalently attached to a non-acylated or deacylated triterpene saponin via a carboxyl group present on the 3-O-glucuronic acid of the triterpene saponin, see abstract.
Marciani teaches the attachment of a lipophilic moiety to the 3-O-glucuronic acid (e.g. 3-O-glcA) of a saponin such as and including a saponin from Saponaria enhances their adjuvant effects on humoral and cell mediated immunity, see abstract.
Marciani teaches the attachment of a lipophile moiety to the 3-O-glucuronic acid residue of a non- or des-acyl saponin yields a saponin analog that is easier to purify, less toxic, chemically more stable, and possess equal or better adjuvant properties than the original saponin, see abstract.
Marciani teaches a bifunctional linker can be employed to conjugate the lipophile to the 3-O-glcA residue of the saponin, see Col. 8, lines 4-6.
Marciani teaches pharmaceutical compositions comprising one or more of the saponin-lipophile conjugates and one or more pharmaceutically acceptable diluents, carriers, or excipients (e.g. the pharmaceutical composition, required in claim 24, see Col. 6, lines 8-11.
Marciani teaches vaccines comprising one or more antigens and a saponin-lipophile conjugate, see Col. 6, lines 13-15; and that said compositions are useful as vaccines to induce active immunity toward antigens in subjects, see Col. 22, lines 42-43.
Marciani exemplifies the antigen can be proteins, peptides and mixtures thereof, and may comprise a protein fragment comprising one or more immunogenic regions of the molecule, see Col. 23, lines 35-41.
Although, Marciani does not teach the elected compound SO1861-Glu-AEM as depicted in the Election/Restrictions section above, as required in claims 1-2, 5-13, 15-18 and 20-21.
However, in the same field of endeavor of Saponaria saponins, Weng teaches improved intracellular delivery of lipid nanoplexes by natural glycosides, see pg. 75, title.
Weng teaches that a natural, plant derived glycoside (SO1861) from Saponaria officinalis L. greatly improves the efficacy of lipid based targeted nanoplexes consisting of a targeted K16 peptide with a nucleic acid binding domain and plasmid-DNA, minicircle-DNA or small interfering RNA (siRNA), by demonstrating from confocal live cell imaging and single cell analyses that SO1861 augments the escape of the genetic cargo out of the intracellular compartments into the cytosol, see pg. 75, abstract.
Weng teaches SO1861 was integrated into the lipid matrix of the LPD, see pg. 75, abstract.
Weng teaches SO1861 (Fig. 1) consists of a hydrophobic triterpene core and two branched carbohydrate side chains attached to the triterpene backbone. Due to the presence of one glucuronic acid (one negative charge) SO1861 is moving within the electric field. See pg. 76, right column, paragraph 2 and Fig. 1.
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of bifunctional linkers, Hubbell exemplifies polymer conjugate vaccines, see title. Hubbell teaches a bifunctional linker can be used as a latent spacer between a therapeutic moiety and a polymer, see paragraph [0091].
Hubbell teaches exemplary compounds used as bifunctional linkers in the preparation of polymeric vaccines can include N-(2-aminoethyl)maleimide trifluoroacetate salt (e.g. the N-(2-aminoethyl)maleimide, required in claim 15, pg. 10, lines 6-7; claim 18, pg. 13, lines 3-5; claim 20, pg. 18, lines 9-10; and claim 21, lines 4-5), see paragraph [0091], pg. 30, line 5-10; which the Examiner respectfully notes is the identical compound as disclosed and evidenced by the specification to introduce a N-(2-aminoethyl)maleimide into the elected compound as discussed above (see pg. 120, line 21).
The Examiner respectfully notes when the teachings of both Weng and Hubbell are incorporated into the compounds as taught by Marciani above it will result in the creation of the elected species as discussed above, where SO1861 as taught by Weng; is modified with the bifunctional linker N-(2-aminoethyl)maleimide as taught by Hubbell; where said bifunctional linker is specifically incorporated at the 3-O-glcA residue of the saponin as taught by Marciani above.
The Examiner further respectfully notes Marciani teaches that by incorporating said bifunctional linker as discussed above, Marciani further derivatizes the bifunctional linker by connecting a lipophile; and therefore said lipophile is connected by way of the bifunctional linker to said 3-O-glcA residue of the saponin and thus results in the lipophile-saponin conjugate as taught by Marciani as discussed above.
With particular respect to the structural limitations as recited within claims 1-2, 5-13, 15-18 and 20-21, the Examiner reasonably interprets all of the required structural limitations of the claims listed above are taught by the combined teachings of Marciani, Weng and Hubbell; as Marciani teaches said 3-O-glcA residue of the saponin is derivatized with a bifunctional linker; Weng teaches the saponin known as SO1861; and Hubbell teaches the bifunctional linker known as N-(2-aminoethyl)maleimide, as evidenced by the specification which discloses SO1861-Glu-AEM (molecule 18) (see pg. 133, lines 10-15; Figure 11 of the Drawings filed 12/23/2022; and the elected species as depicted above).
Thus, in view of the teachings above, the Examiner reasonably interprets all structural limitations required in claims 1-2, 5-13, 15-18 and 20-21 as elected by Applicant within molecule 18 as discussed above are met by the combined teachings of Marciani, Weng and Hubbell as discussed above.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the invention’s effective filing date to have substituted the saponin as taught by Marciani above for the saponin known as SO1861 as taught by Weng above as a simple substitution of one known element for another as within the scope of the artisan as combining prior art elements according to known compounds to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include SO1861 as taught by Weng above as the saponin within the lipophile-saponin conjugate as taught by Marciani above; because Marciani explicitly teaches a saponin such as and including a saponin derived from Saponaria can be included because of its enhancing adjuvant effects on humoral and cell mediated immunity as taught by Marciani above.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to have made said substitution above as Marciani is drawn to saponins with a carboxyl group on the 3-O-glcA residue of the saponin; and Weng teaches SO1861 has a 3-O-glcA residue comprising a carboxyl group as discussed above.
Moreover, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the invention’s effective filing date to have incorporated the bifunctional linker of N-(2-aminoethyl)maleimide as taught by Hubbell as the bifunctional linker explicitly taught by Marciani for use in subsequently connecting a lipophile to a saponin to produce the lipophile-saponin conjugate as taught by Marciani above; as the Examiner respectfully notes said incorporation is within the scope of the artisan as combining prior art elements according to known compounds to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use said N-(2-aminoethyl)maleimide as taught by Hubbell; as Marciani explicitly teaches the incorporation of a bifunctional linker in order to conjugate a lipophile to a saponin to produce a lipophile-saponin conjugate as taught by Marciani above.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success of including said incorporation above, as both Marciani and Hubbell are drawn to conjugates comprising bifunctional linkers; and wherein Hubbell teaches N-(2-aminoethyl)maleimide as an exemplary bifunctional linker to produce conjugates is a known consideration within the art as discussed above.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to have (i) substituted the saponin of Marciani for the saponin of Weng for the reasons stated above; and (ii) to have included N-(2-aminoethyl)maleimide as taught by Hubbell as the bifunctional linker as taught by Marciani above for the reasons stated above as within the scope of the artisan as combining prior art elements according to known compounds to yield predictable results.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute and incorporate as discussed above and therefore arrive at molecule 18 elected by Applicant above in order to create a starting compound of a saponin comprising a 3-O-glcA residue comprising a carboxyl group which is derivatized with a bifunctional linker to allow for the linking of a lipophile to create a lipophile-saponin conjugate that is easier to purify, less toxic, chemically more stable, and possess equal or better adjuvant properties than the original saponin as taught by Marciani above.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to have substituted and incorporated as discussed above; as Marciani and Weng are both drawn to saponins comprising a carboxyl group on the 3-O-glcA residue of the saponin; and both Marciani and Hubbell are drawn to the use of bifunctional linkers to create conjugates within vaccine compositions as discussed above.
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious over the combined teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed in this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARET J CREWS whose telephone number is (571)270-0962. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00am-5:30pm EST.
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, Renee Claytor can be reached at (571) 272-8394. 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.
/JARET J CREWS/Examiner, Art Unit 1691
/RENEE CLAYTOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1691