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
1. Claims 1-19 are the original claims filed on 10/31/2022. In the Preliminary Amendment of 5/8/2023, Claims 1-19 are canceled and new Claims 20-39 are added. Claims 20-39 are all the claims. In the Response of 5/6/2025, Claims 20, 25-29, and 35-39 are amended. Claims 20-39 are all the claims. In the Response of 9/25/2025, claim 20 is amended. Claims 20-39 are all the claims. In the Response of 2/23/2026, claim 20 is amended and claims 21-24, 26-29, 31-34 and 36-39 are canceled.
Claims 20, 25, 30 and 35 are pending.
This Office Action contains new grounds for rejection.
Priority
2. USAN 18/051,307, filed 10/31/2022 and having 1 RCE-type filing therein, is a Continuation of 16/362,940, filed 03/25/2019, now U.S. Patent # 11513122, 16/362,940 is a Continuation of PCT/EP2017/074150, filed 09/25/2017, and claims foreign priority to EP 17166789.2, filed 04/18/2017, and claims foreign priority to EP 16190591.4, filed 09/26/2016.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. As of 4/11/2026, a total of one (1) IDS is filed: 10/31/2022. The corresponding initialed and dated 1449 form is considered and of record.
Withdrawal of Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Written Description
4. The rejection of Claims 20-39 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), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement is moot for the canceled claims and withdrawn for the pending claims.
The pending claims are amended to recite: XCR1, IRF8, BATF3 and FLT3 as inclusive markers used to predict a clinical response to the PD-L1 blockade treatment for RCC; and the results achieved from a therapeutically effective amount of atezolizumab that are exclusive from a prophylactic amount.
Rejections Maintained
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
5. The rejection of Claims 20, 25, 30 and 35 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 11513122 is maintained.
Applicants allege the amended ADS to correct the status of the application from CON to DIV is sufficient to overcome the rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ submission of an ADS identifying the present application as a divisional is recognized as a bona fide effort to overcome the rejection. Applicants are, however, required to amend the specification in the cross-reference section to include the update. AN amended specification is not included with the response. The most recent filing receipt is from 5/16/2023 and lists the instant application as CON. The response is incomplete.
The rejection is maintained.
New Grounds for Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
6. Claims 20, 25, 30 and 35 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 20, 25, 30 and 35 are amended to introduced two new “wherein” clauses and that are not incorporated from the canceled claims. Applicants have not identified original description support in the Response for the amendments to the claims.
Claims 20, 25, 30 and 35 recite the intended outcomes to be achieved by a therapeutically effective amount of atezolizumab without reciting the amount (dose, dosage regimen, etc.) that influence(s) any one or more of the outcomes in the final “wherein” clause (MPEP 706.03(m) states in part "New matter includes not only the addition of wholly unsupported subject matter, but may also include adding specific percentages or compounds after a broader original disclosure, or even the omission of a step from a method. See MPEP § 608.04 to § 608.04(c). See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and MPEP § 2163.05 for guidance in determining whether the addition of specific percentages or compounds after a broader original disclosure constitutes new matter.”)
Conclusion
9. No claims are allowed.
10. 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNN A. BRISTOL whose telephone number is (571)272-6883. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 AM-5 PM.
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, Wu Julie can be reached on 571-272-5205. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LYNN A BRISTOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1643
Prosecution Insights