DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is in response to the communications filed 4-10-26.
Claims 17, 33-46 are pending in the instant application.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6, 10, 12, 22-32, 16 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) and have been cancelled, as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4-10-26.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III, claims 17, 33-46, in the reply filed on 4-10-26 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 17, 33-46 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,637,672. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because methods of modulating the level of a transcript or gene product of a gene in a cell, the method comprising the step of contacting the cell with a biologically agent capable of modulating the level of the transcript or gene product, which biologically active agent comprises
1) a common base sequence;
2) a common pattern of backbone linkages;
3) a common pattern of backbone chiral centers; and
4) a common pattern of backbone phosphorus modifications; and which oligonucleotides of the plurality each comprise two or more consecutive 2'-F modified sugars; 50% or more of sugar moieties in each oligonucleotide of the plurality are 2'-F modified sugars; oligonucleotides of the plurality share the same stereochemistry at five or more chiral internucleotidic linkages; and oligonucleotides of the plurality are each individually conjugated to a lipid, wherein the lipid comprises an optionally substituted C10-C60 linear, saturated or partially unsaturated aliphatic.
Claims 17, 33-46 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 36-39, 41, 42 of copending Application No. 19/646,253 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to methods of modulating the level of a transcript or gene product of a gene in a cell, the method comprising the step of contacting the cell with a biologically agent capable of modulating the level of the transcript or gene product, which biologically active agent comprises
1) a common base sequence;
2) a common pattern of backbone linkages;
3) a common pattern of backbone chiral centers; and
4) a common pattern of backbone phosphorus modifications; and which oligonucleotides of the plurality each comprise two or more consecutive 2'-F modified sugars; 50% or more of sugar moieties in each oligonucleotide of the plurality are 2'-F modified sugars; oligonucleotides of the plurality share the same stereochemistry at five or more chiral internucleotidic linkages; and oligonucleotides of the plurality are each individually conjugated to a lipid, wherein the lipid comprises an optionally substituted C10-C60 linear, saturated or partially unsaturated aliphatic.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Certain papers related to this application may be submitted to Art Unit 1637 by facsimile transmission. The faxing of such papers must conform with the notices published in the Official Gazette, 1156 OG 61 (November 16, 1993) and 1157 OG 94 (December 28, 1993) (see 37 C.F.R. ' 1.6(d)). The official fax telephone number for the Group is 571-273-8300. NOTE: If Applicant does submit a paper by fax, the original signed copy should be retained by applicant or applicant's representative. NO DUPLICATE COPIES SHOULD BE SUBMITTED so as to avoid the processing of duplicate papers in the Office.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jane Zara whose telephone number is (571) 272-0765. The examiner’s office hours are generally Monday-Friday, 10:30am - 7pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jennifer Dunston, can be reached on (571)-272-2916. Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the Group receptionist whose telephone number is (703) 308-0196.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Jane Zara
5-26-26
/JANE J ZARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1637
Prosecution Insights