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 Claims
Claims 3-6, 8-9, 12-19 are amended. Claim 20 is cancelled. Claim 21 is added. Claims -----1-19 and 21 are currently pending and under examination.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. The claims have an earliest effective filing date of 09/14/2020, corresponding to application Italy 10/2020000021667.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 09/26/2023 has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 recites the method of claim 13, wherein the subject is affected by a tumor secreting the extracellular Morgana protein. However, claim 13 recites a method for inhibiting growth of tumors secreting the extracellular Morgana protein. Therefore, the subjects of claim 13 are affected by tumors secreting the extracellular Morgana protein, and claim 14 is not further limiting. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-4, 6, 9-19, and 21 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The purpose of the written description requirement is to ensure that the inventor had possession, at the time the invention was made, of the specific subject matter claimed. 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., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116.
Claim 1 is drawn to a monoclonal antibody or antibody fragment thereof that binds to an epitope of the extracellular Morgana protein, said epitope consisting of the amino acid sequence SEQ ID NO: 1. The claims encompass a large genus of anti-Morgana protein antibodies having diverse heavy and light chain CDR amino acid sequences. Following a review of the specification, it appears that Applicant has disclosed one anti-Morgana protein binding domain, specifically, an anti-Morgana protein antibody comprising H-CDRs 1-3 as shown in SEQ ID NO(s): 3-5 and L-CDRs 1-3 as shown in SEQ ID NO(s): 6-8; however in view of this disclosure, Applicant is claiming a broad genus of molecules that would be expected to encompass multiple anti-Morgana protein binding domains having diverse heavy and light chain CDR sequences. Even though Applicant has disclosed one species within said genus, the specification does not provide adequate written description for the entire claimed genus, because one skilled in the art would be unable to immediately envision, recognize, or distinguish at least most of the members comprised within the genus claimed, specifically, which light and heavy chain CDR sequences (and combinations of said CDR sequences) give rise to antibody molecules capable of binding Morgana protein. As detailed below Applicant’s disclosure is not sufficient to demonstrate possession of the entire claimed genus, and as such Applicant’s disclosure does not satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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. In the instant case, Applicant has disclosed one species within the genus claimed; however given the substantial antibody structure variation within the genus, as well as the high level of unpredictability in the art, the disclosure of one species comprised within the claimed genus is not sufficiently representative of the entire genus.
Furthermore Applicant has not disclosed relevant, identifying characteristics of CDR region amino acid sequences (or combinations thereof) that confer upon an antibody the ability to bind a Morgana protein or a particular Morgana epitope, because the instant specification does not provide structural antibody features that correlate with a functional ability to bind Morgana protein. To elaborate on why the claimed antibodies lack adequate written description, Mariuzza (Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biophys. Chem., 16: 139-159, 1987) reviews the structural basis of antigen-antibody recognition and teach that naturally occurring conventional antibodies comprise two polypeptides, the so-called light and heavy chains. The antigen-combining site of an antibody is a three-dimensional structure that fully comprises six CDRs, three each from the light and heavy chains. The amino acid sequences of the CDRs are hypervariable, as the amino acid residues contained within the CDRs determine much of the antibody’s antigen-binding specificity. In view of Mariuzza, it is apparent that antibodies having less than all six CDRs that form the antigen binding site of a conventional antibody in their proper context of heavy and light chain variable domains do not describe the particularly identifying structural feature of the antibody that correlates with the antibody’s ability to bind antigen. Absent a description of the at least minimal structural features correlating with a functional ability to bind Morgana protein which are shared by members of a genus commonly sharing this function, it is submitted that the skilled artisan could not immediately envision, recognize, or distinguish which heavy and light chain CDR amino acid sequences (or combinations thereof) may be combined such that the resultant heavy and light chain variable regions comprise six CDRs that confer the ability to bind Morgana protein.
Furthermore while the prior art teaches some understanding of the structural basis of antigen-antibody recognition, it is noted that the art is characterized by a high level of unpredictability, since the skilled artisan still cannot accurately and reliably predict the consequences of amino acid substitutions, insertions, and deletions in the antigen-binding domains. For example in a series of experiments involving a monoclonal antibody to Legionella pneumophilia serotype 1, McCarthy et al. (J. Immunol. Methods, 251(1-2): 137-149, 2001) demonstrated that a single VH CDR3 substitution of tyrosine to serine at position 95 resulted in the total loss of antigen recognition in an ELISA. Lin et al. (African Journal of Biotechnology, 10(79):18294-18302, 2011) teach that a single amino acid substitution in the VL CDR3 of an anti-avian infectious bronchitis virus (IBV) single-chain antibody (ZL.80) may abrogate binding. For example at Figure 3, Lin et al. demonstrate that replacing either the Cys105 or Asp106 residue in the VL CDR3 of ZL.80 with an alanine residue reduces binding to near negative control levels. Lin et al. also teach that some single amino acid substitutions in the VL CDR3 of ZL.80 may significantly improve binding. For example replacing the Val108 residue in the VL CDR3 of ZL.80 with a tyrosine residue results in a 12.9-fold increase in affinity compared to parental ZL.80. Accordingly absent empirical determination, one skilled in the art would be unable to predict or envision which CDR residues of SEQ ID NO(s): 3-8 could be changed such that the resultant variant CDR residues form an antigen-binding site capable of binding Morgana protein. The general knowledge and level of skill in the art does not adequately supplement the omitted description, because specific, not general, guidance is needed. Since the disclosure fails to describe relevant, identifying structural characteristics, in the form of heavy and light chain CDR amino acid sequences, that correlate with the ability to bind Morgana protein, and because the one disclosed species detailed above is not sufficient to describe the claimed genus, it is submitted that the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) has not been met.
Although screening techniques can be used to isolate CDR variant antibodies that possess the ability to bind Morgana protein, Applicant is reminded that the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112 is severable from the enablement provision. As stated in Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar (CA FC) 19 USPQ2d 1111, 935 F2d 1555, “The purpose of the ‘written description’ requirement is broader than to merely explain how to ‘make and use’; the applicant must also 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.”
Claim 6 is included in the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), because the claim only provides the sequence for a heavy chain variable region. Absent empirical determination one skilled in the art would be unable to determine which light chain CDRs should be paired with the heavy chain of claim 6 such that the resultant antibody possesses the ability to bind to a Morgana protein. Claim 7 is not included in the rejection, because it depends from claim 6 and provides a light chain variable region sequence. The CDRs comprised within the heavy and light chain variable region of claims 6 and 7 would be expected to form a 6 CDR antigen-binding site that binds to a Morgana epitope, thereby remedying the deficiencies of claim 6 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 2-4, 9-19, and 21 are included in the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), because these claims do not provide any CDR sequence data that cures the deficiencies of claim 1 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Accordingly given the unpredictability associated with antibody CDR region changes on antigen binding and given the lack of particularity with which the claimed antibodies are described in the specification, it is submitted that the skilled artisan could not immediately envision, recognize, or distinguish at least most of the members of the genus to which the claims are directed, and therefore the specification would not reasonably convey to the skilled artisan that Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPHINE K DARPOLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-0115. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30ET-4:30ET.
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, Samira Jean-Louis can be reached at (571)270-3503. 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.K.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1642
/NELSON B MOSELEY II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1642