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 Group 1 (claims 1,6 and 9) in the reply filed on 11/25/2025 is acknowledged.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Status of Application, Amendments, And/Or Claims
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are pending.
Claims 2-5, 7 and 10-20 are withdrawn for being drawn to non-elected inventions (i.e., Groups 2-8).
Claims 1,6 and 9 are under examination to the extent they read on a peptide having amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:2.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDSs) filed on 3/6/2023, 2/28/2024 and 4/1/2024 have been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 is objected for reciting a nonelected sequence of Group 2 (i.e., SEQ ID NO: 1). 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-1967630 B1 (IDS, 2019-04-11, also published as KR20180100944) over KR-10-1306643 B1(IDS, Helix Biomedix Inc).
The instantly claimed invention is broadly drawn to a composition comprising a peptide having the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 2, wherein the peptide a C-terminal amino group (claims 1,9) and a pharmaceutical composition comprising the same.
KR 10-1967630 B1 teaches a composition comprising a peptide selected from amino acid sequences of SEQ ID Nos: 1-21, wherein the peptide of SEQ ID NO: 16 is 100% identical to the instantly claimed peptide of SEQ ID NO: 2 (GLYYF). The reference teaches to use the peptide in a composition for treating a skin disease (see an English translation of the abstract). Regarding claim 9, the claimed pharmaceutical composition comprises the same limitation as a composition taught by KR 10-1967630 B1, and therefore, meets the limitations. The reference does not teach that the C-terminal of the peptide is amidated.
KR-10-1306643 B1 teaches that the amidation of the C-terminal of a peptide results in increased activity and stability, wherein the peptide is a hexapeptide. (see paragraphs [0004], [0085-0086], and [0154], and claims 1, 10 and 15).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to amidate the C-terminal of peptide as taught by KR-10-1306643 B1 for the peptide having amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 2 as taught by KR 10-1967630 B1. Additionally, one would have been motivated to do so because KR-10-1306643 B1 teaches that the amidation of the C-terminal of a peptide results in more stable and increased the activity of the peptide. Further, one would have a reasonable expectation of success for the peptide GLYYF (SEQ ID NO: 16) because KR-10-1306643 B1 teaches C-terminal amidation of a peptide and it is routine in the art. Therefore, the instant invention would have been obvious over the combined teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GYAN CHANDRA whose telephone number is (571)272-2922. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8:30AM-5:00P.
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, Vanessa Ford can be reached at 571-272-0857. 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.
/GYAN CHANDRA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1674
Prosecution Insights