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 .
Support for the amendments is within the instant application specification.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed on 4/22/2026 in response to the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 1/22/2026 is acknowledged. This listing of claims replaces all prior listings of claims in the application.
Claims 1-6, 8-15 are pending.
Claims 7 is cancelled.
Applicant’s remarks filed on 4/22/2026 in response to the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 1/22/2026 have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive to overcome at least one of the rejections and/or objections as previously applied.
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in the instant action can be found in the prior Office Action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/27/2026 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Withdrawn Rejections
The rejection of claims 5-8, 14 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112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment of claim 5 to recite ‘the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 8’; amendment of claim 6 to incorporate the specific linker sequences ([GS]x, [GGGS]x, and [GGGGS]x) from claim 7; amendment of claim 14 to recite ‘the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 13’; cancellation of claim 7.
The scope of enablement rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment of claim 5 to recite ‘the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 8.’
The rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment of claim 1 to recite ‘each independently a peptide linker’; amendment of claim 5 to recite ‘the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 8’; amendment of claim 12 to recite ‘the alpha-galactosidase’; cancellation of claim 7.
The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jung et al (US 2021/0009984 A1, Date Filed: Dec. 21, 2018, cited on PTO-892 dated 1/22/2026, recently (9-24-25) issued as US 12435328) {herein Jung} as evidenced by Politei et al (2016, CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics, cited on PTO-892 dated 1/22/2026) {herein Politei} is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s cancellation of claim 7.
The provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-18 of prior U.S. Patent Application No. 18/036,580 {herein 580} is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment of claim 1 to recite ‘sensory and sensorimotor impairment of the peripheral nervous system’ and cancellation of claim 7.
Maintained Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The rejection of claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-16, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jung et al (US 2021/0009984 A1, Date Filed: Dec. 21, 2018, cited on PTO-892 dated 1/22/2026, recently (9-24-25) issued as US 12435328) {herein Jung} as evidenced by Gomes et al (2025, Original Article, Examiner cited) {herein Gomes} and Politei et al (2016, CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics, cited on PTO-892 dated 1/22/2026) {herein Politei}. The rejection has been modified in view of cancellation of claim 7, new claim 16 and amendment of claim 1 to recite ‘a method for preventing or treating neuropathy caused by or accompanied by sensory and sensorimotor impairment of the peripheral nervous system.’ See MPEP 2131.01 regarding multiple reference 102 rejections.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-16 are drawn to a method for preventing or treating neuropathy caused by or accompanied by sensory and sensorimotor impairment of the peripheral nervous system, comprising administering a pharmaceutical composition to a patient in need thereof, wherein the pharmaceutical composition comprises an enzyme fusion protein represented by the following Chemical Formula 1: [Chemical Formula 1] wherein X and X' are each alpha-galactosidase; L and L' are each independently a peptide linker; F is one polypeptide chain of an immunoglobulin Fc region; is a covalent bond; and :is a covalent or non-covalent bond.
With respect to claims 1-6, 8-9, 12, 14-15 Jung teaches a method for treating Niemann-Pick disease utilizing a pharmaceutical composition (para 0010, para 0155, para 0056). Niemann-Pick disease is a sensory and sensorimotor impairment disease of the peripheral nervous system. The evidentiary reference of Gomes is cited to demonstrate that Niemann-Pick disease has been documented as causing peripheral neuropathy which can include demyelinating or axonal sensorimotor polyneuropathy, leading to symptoms like altered reflexes, muscle weakness, and sensory loss (abstract). Jung further teaches a method wherein the pharmaceutical composition comprises an enzyme fusion protein of Formula I (para 0010 and para 0155). The pharmaceutical composition of the fusion protein X and X' are each independently the same or a different kind of therapeutic enzyme; L and L' are linkers, each independently a different kind of linker; F is an immunoglobulin Fc region; I is a covalent bond; and is a covalent or non-covalent bond (para 0010-0016). The enzyme may be selected from alpha-galactosidase (para 0031) for the production of an enzyme fusion protein including a therapeutic enzyme in the form of an antiparallel dimer (para 0200). Said fusion protein comprises a monomer that is 100% identical to the instant application SEQ ID NO: 13 (appendix A). The immunoglobulin Fc region may be aglycosylated (para 0050). The Fc region may comprise a hinge region of which may by one having a variation where a part of the hinge region is deleted (para 0119). Said hinge region is comprised of Glu-Ser-Lys-Tyr-Gly-Pro-Pro-Cys-Pro-Ser-Cys-Pro (para 0118). Absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that Glu-Ser-Lys-Tyr-Gly-Pro-Pro-Cys-Pro-Ser-Cys-Pro teaches the limitation of claim 4 of the instant application SEQ ID NO: 31 as the instant application SEQ ID NO: 31 is Pro-Pro-Cys-Pro, of which Glu-Ser-Lys-tyr-Gly-Pro-Pro-Cys-Pro-Ser-Cys-Pro comprises. As such, the instant application SEQ ID NO: 31 is the same as the hinge region taught by Jung since Jung teaches a part of the hinge region is deleted of which is the Examiner’s position would result in the following hinge region: Pro-Pro-Cys-Pro, which is 100% identical to the instant application SEQ ID NO: 15. Furthermore, the immunoglobulin Fc region having the amino sequence of SEQ ID NO: 8, the 2nd amino acid is substituted with proline; the 71st amino acid is substituted with glutamine; or the 2nd amino acid is substituted with proline and the 71st amino acid is substituted with glutamine (Jung: claim 33). SEQ ID NO: 8 taught by Jung is 100% identical to the instant Application SEQ ID NO: 8 (appendix B). Additionally, the linker may include at least one amino acid, specifically 10 to 50 amino acids (para 0108) of which encompasses the claimed range 1 to 100 amino acids in the instant application claim 6. The peptide linker consists of an amino acid sequence: [GS] linker, [GGGS]x linker, and [GGGGS]x linker, etc., in which x is a natural x number of 1 or greater (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or greater) (para 0108) and may consist of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 11 (para 0108), of which is 100% identical to the instant application SEQ ID NO: 11 (appendix C). Jung further teaches that the frequency of administration of the pharmaceutical formulation containing the enzyme fusion protein can be significantly reduced (para 0159).
With respect to claim 10, since the art teaches the structure of the pharmaceutical composition, it is the Examiner’s interpretation that the pharmaceutical composition would necessarily have an a protective effect on peripheral sensory nerves.
With respect to claim 11, since the art teaches the structure of the pharmaceutical composition, it is the Examiner’s interpretation that the pharmaceutical composition would necessarily inhibit vacuolation of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) cells.
With respect to claim 16, Jung teaches a method for treating Fabry’s disease utilizing a pharmaceutical composition (para 0010, para 0155, para 0056). Evidentiary reference of Politei is cited to demonstrate that small fiber neuropathy is a type of pain associated with Fabry Disease, of which is a lysosomal disorder (page 570, column 1, para 2 and column 2, para 1). As such, it is the Examiner’s position that the treatment of Fabry’s disease utilizing the pharmaceutical composition taught by Jung would necessarily also treat small fiber neuropathy since small fiber neuropathy is associated with Fabry’s disease, of which is a lysosomal disorder.
For the reasons stated herein, the teachings of Jung anticipates claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-16.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS: Beginning on p. 7 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant contends that the rejection has been addressed by amendment. In summary, Applicant contends that neither Jung or Politei discloses a therapeutic effect of the enzyme fusion protein on neuropathy accompanied by sensory and sensorimotor impairment of the peripheral nervous system. Applicant contends that Jung is directed to the therapeutic effect on Fabry disease and merely confirms that the enzyme activity of the fusion protein is increased and intracellular uptake is not lost, with no disclosure or suggestion of a direct therapeutic effect on "neuropathy". Applicant contends that the fusion protein of the present invention significantly lowers the latency threshold (-56%) in neuropathy mice and exhibits an excellent inhibitory effect on cellular lesions. These remarkable effects could not have been expected from the cited references, which do not suggest a specific therapeutic effect on neuropathy accompanied by sensory and sensorimotor impairment of the peripheral nervous system.
Examiner appreciates Applicant’s amendment to the claims and remarks. However, the arguments are not persuasive. Examiner contends that Jung teaches a method for treating Niemann-Pick disease utilizing a pharmaceutical composition (para 0010, para 0155, para 0056). Niemann-Pick disease is a sensory and sensorimotor impairment disease of the peripheral nervous system. Supporting the Examiner’s position is the evidentiary reference of Gomes which is cited to demonstrate that Niemann-Pick disease has been documented as causing peripheral neuropathy which can include sensorimotor polyneuropathy (abstract). Examiner contends that since Jung teaches the structure of the claimed method for treating or preventing neuropathy caused by sensory and sensorimotor impairment of the peripheral nervous system (Niemann-Pick disease) using a pharmaceutical composition (the claimed fusion protein), then said method taught by Jung would necessarily significantly lowers the latency threshold (-56%) in neuropathy mice and exhibit an excellent inhibitory effect on cellular lesions.
Maintained 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 rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (US 2021/0009984 A1, Date Filed: Dec. 21, 2018, cited on PTO-892 dated 1/22/2026, recently (9-24-25) issued as US 12435328) {herein Jung} as evidenced by Gomes et al (2025, Original Article, Examiner cited) {herein Gomes} and Politei et al (2016, CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics, cited on PTO-892 dated 1/22/2026) {herein Politei}. Claim 13 is drawn to the method of claim 1, wherein the pharmaceutical composition is administered to an individual once every two weeks or once a month.
The teachings of Jung as applied to claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-15 are set forth in the 102a2 rejection above.
However, Jung does not teach the method of claim 13, wherein the pharmaceutical composition is administered to an individual once every two weeks or once a month (claim 13).
With respect to claim 13, Jung teaches the pharmaceutical composition is administered to patients (para 0008). Jung further teaches that the frequency of administration of the pharmaceutical formulation containing the enzyme fusion protein can be significantly reduced (para 0159). Although the reference of Jung does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 13, MPEP 2144.05 states"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or frequency at which to administer the [pharmaceutical composition to an individual by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05 IIA)." One of ordinary skill would desire to optimize the frequency upon which the pharmaceutical composition is given to subjects depending on the particular application. It would be routine for one to arrive at the frequency for the application they intend on using the pharmaceutical composition. Therefore, the above invention would have been prima facie obvious.
However, Jung does not teach the method of claim 13, wherein the pharmaceutical composition is administered to an individual once every two weeks or once a month (claim 13).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the frequency upon which the pharmaceutical composition is administered to a patient to once every two weeks or once a month. Especially when Junga teaches said composition is able to maximize pharmacological efficacy by increasing the blood stability of the therapeutic enzymes and maintaining their blood concentration at a high level for a longer period of time (para 0008). Jung further teaches that the frequency of administration of the pharmaceutical formulation containing the enzyme fusion protein can be significantly reduced (para 0159).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, a reasonable level of predictability, and would be motivated to modify the frequency upon which the pharmaceutical composition is administered as Jung teaches frequent injections to maintain the blood concentration of active polypeptides may cause significant pain to the patient (para 0008). As such, reducing the frequency upon which the pharmaceutical composition is administered to the recited once every two weeks or once a month would reduce the pain of the patient while maintaining the therapeutic efficacy of the pharmaceutical composition. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would expect similar results if the pharmaceutical composition is injected once every two weeks or once a month. Therefore, the above invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS: Beginning on p. 7 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant contends that the rejection has been addressed by amendment. In summary, Applicant contends that Jung and Politei do not anticipate, and would not have rendered obvious claim 1.
Examiner contends that Jung teaches the administration of a pharmaceutical composition to treat or prevent neuropathy caused by or accompanied by sensory and sensorimotor impairment of the peripheral nervous system (Niemann-Pick disease). MPEP 2144.05 states"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or frequency at which to administer the [pharmaceutical composition to an individual by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05 IIA)." One of ordinary skill would desire to optimize the frequency upon which the pharmaceutical composition is given to subjects depending on the particular application. It would be routine for one to arrive at the frequency for the application they intend on using the pharmaceutical composition. Therefore, the above invention would have been prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-6, 8-15 are pending.
Claims 7 is cancelled.
Claims 1-6, 8-15 are rejected.
No claims are in condition for allowance.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA NICOLE JONES-FOSTER whose telephone number is (571)270-0360. The examiner can normally be reached mf 7:30a - 4:30p.
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, Manjunath Rao can be reached at 571-272-0939. 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.
/ERICA NICOLE JONES-FOSTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1656
/MANJUNATH N RAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1656 (nr)
Appendix A
Jung SEQ ID NO: 13 vs Instant Application SEQ ID NO: 13
Query Match 100.0%; Score 3707; Length 680;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 680; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 MQLRNPELHLGCALALRFLALVSWDIPGARALDNGLARTPTMGWLHWERFMCNLDCQEEP 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 MQLRNPELHLGCALALRFLALVSWDIPGARALDNGLARTPTMGWLHWERFMCNLDCQEEP 60
Qy 61 DSCISEKLFMEMAELMVSEGWKDAGYEYLCIDDCWMAPQRDSEGRLQADPQRFPHGIRQL 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 DSCISEKLFMEMAELMVSEGWKDAGYEYLCIDDCWMAPQRDSEGRLQADPQRFPHGIRQL 120
Qy 121 ANYVHSKGLKLGIYADVGNKTCAGFPGSFGYYDIDAQTFADWGVDLLKFDGCYCDSLENL 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 ANYVHSKGLKLGIYADVGNKTCAGFPGSFGYYDIDAQTFADWGVDLLKFDGCYCDSLENL 180
Qy 181 ADGYKHMSLALNRTGRSIVYSCEWPLYMWPFQKPNYTEIRQYCNHWRNFADIDDSWKSIK 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 ADGYKHMSLALNRTGRSIVYSCEWPLYMWPFQKPNYTEIRQYCNHWRNFADIDDSWKSIK 240
Qy 241 SILDWTSFNQERIVDVAGPGGWNDPDMLVIGNFGLSWNQQVTQMALWAIMAAPLFMSNDL 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 SILDWTSFNQERIVDVAGPGGWNDPDMLVIGNFGLSWNQQVTQMALWAIMAAPLFMSNDL 300
Qy 301 RHISPQAKALLQDKDVIAINQDPLGKQGYQLRQGDNFEVWERPLSGLAWAVAMINRQEIG 360
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 301 RHISPQAKALLQDKDVIAINQDPLGKQGYQLRQGDNFEVWERPLSGLAWAVAMINRQEIG 360
Qy 361 GPRSYTIAVASLGKGVACNPACFITQLLPVKRKLGFYEWTSRLRSHINPTGTVLLQLENT 420
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 361 GPRSYTIAVASLGKGVACNPACFITQLLPVKRKLGFYEWTSRLRSHINPTGTVLLQLENT 420
Qy 421 MQMSLKDLLGGGGSGGGGSGGGGSGGGGSGGGGSGGGGSPPCPAPEFLGGPSVFLFPPKP 480
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 421 MQMSLKDLLGGGGSGGGGSGGGGSGGGGSGGGGSGGGGSPPCPAPEFLGGPSVFLFPPKP 480
Qy 481 KDTLMISRTPEVTCVVVDVSQEDPEVQFNWYVDGVEVHNAKTKPREEQFQSTYRVVSVLT 540
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 481 KDTLMISRTPEVTCVVVDVSQEDPEVQFNWYVDGVEVHNAKTKPREEQFQSTYRVVSVLT 540
Qy 541 VLHQDWLNGKEYKCKVSNKGLPSSIEKTISKAKGQPREPQVYTLPPSQEEMTKNQVSLTC 600
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 541 VLHQDWLNGKEYKCKVSNKGLPSSIEKTISKAKGQPREPQVYTLPPSQEEMTKNQVSLTC 600
Qy 601 LVKGFYPSDIAVEWESNGQPENNYKTTPPVLDSDGSFFLYSRLTVDKSRWQEGNVFSCSV 660
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 601 LVKGFYPSDIAVEWESNGQPENNYKTTPPVLDSDGSFFLYSRLTVDKSRWQEGNVFSCSV 660
Qy 661 MHEALHNHYTQKSLSLSLGK 680
||||||||||||||||||||
Db 661 MHEALHNHYTQKSLSLSLGK 680
Appendix B
Jung SEQ ID NO: 8 vs Instant Application SEQ ID NO: 8
Query Match 100.0%; Score 1186; Length 222;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 221; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 PSCPAPEFLGGPSVFLFPPKPKDTLMISRTPEVTCVVVDVSQEDPEVQFNWYVDGVEVHN 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 2 PSCPAPEFLGGPSVFLFPPKPKDTLMISRTPEVTCVVVDVSQEDPEVQFNWYVDGVEVHN 61
Qy 61 AKTKPREEQFNSTYRVVSVLTVLHQDWLNGKEYKCKVSNKGLPSSIEKTISKAKGQPREP 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 62 AKTKPREEQFNSTYRVVSVLTVLHQDWLNGKEYKCKVSNKGLPSSIEKTISKAKGQPREP 121
Qy 121 QVYTLPPSQEEMTKNQVSLTCLVKGFYPSDIAVEWESNGQPENNYKTTPPVLDSDGSFFL 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 122 QVYTLPPSQEEMTKNQVSLTCLVKGFYPSDIAVEWESNGQPENNYKTTPPVLDSDGSFFL 181
Qy 181 YSRLTVDKSRWQEGNVFSCSVMHEALHNHYTQKSLSLSLGK 221
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 182 YSRLTVDKSRWQEGNVFSCSVMHEALHNHYTQKSLSLSLGK 222
Appendix C
Jung SEQ NO: 11 vs Instant Application SEQ ID NO: 11
Query Match 100.0%; Score 168; Length 30;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 30; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 GGGGSGGGGSGGGGSGGGGSGGGGSGGGGS 30
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 GGGGSGGGGSGGGGSGGGGSGGGGSGGGGS 30
Prosecution Insights