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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1, 3-9, and 27-29, as well as the species siRNA and SEQ ID NO: 1 in the reply filed on 10/20/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 10/20/25.
Claim Objections
Claims 27-29 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims depend from withdrawn claims. Appropriate correction is required.
It is noted that the claims are interpreted as the inhibitor being a siRNA, the elected inhibitor.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The structures and labels for the structures on page 39 are not fully legible.
Appropriate correction is required.
Improper Markush Rejection
Claims 5-7 are rejected on the judicially-created basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). The improper Markush grouping includes species of the claimed invention that do not share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. The members of the improper Markush grouping do not share a substantial feature and/or a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature for the following reasons: Claim 5 is directed to delivery of antisense oligonucleotides, shRNA, or siRNA. Although each are nucleic acid inhibitory therapeutics, each of the categories have a different structure and act via different mechanisms.
Claims 6 and 7 are directed to a multitude of A1CF target sequences, each having a different activity. Instant SEQ ID NO: 1, for example, is 86,267 nucleotides in length. Each sequence has a different order of nucleotides, the activity being dependent upon the specific order of nucleotides.
In response to this rejection, Applicant should either amend the claim(s) to recite only individual species or grouping of species that share a substantial structural feature as well as a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature, or present a sufficient showing that the species recited in the alternative of the claims(s) in fact share a substantial structural feature as well as a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. This is a rejection on the merits and may be appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 134 and 37 CFR 41.31(a)(1).
When the Markush grouping is for alternatives of chemical compounds, they shall be regarded as being of a similar nature where the following criteria are fulfilled:
(A) All alternatives have a common property or activity; and
(B) (1) A common structure is present, i.e., a significant structural element is shared by all of the alternatives; or
(B) (2) In cases where the common structure cannot be the unifying criteria, all alternatives belong to a recognized class of chemical compounds in the art to which the invention pertains.
In paragraph (B)(1), above, the words “significant structural element is shared by all of the alternatives” refer to cases where the compounds share a common chemical structure which occupies a large portion of their structures, or in case the compounds have in common only a small portion of their structures, the commonly shared structure constitutes a structurally distinctive portion in view of existing prior art, and the common structure is essential to the common property or activity. The structural element may be a single component or a combination of individual components linked together.
In paragraph (B)(2), above, the words “recognized class of chemical compounds” mean that there is an expectation from the knowledge in the art that members of the class will behave in the same way in the context of the claimed invention. In other words, each member could be substituted one for the other, with the expectation that the same intended result would be achieved.
In order for the members of the Markush group to belong to “recognized class of chemical compounds” there must be an expectation that the members of the class will behave in the same way in the context of the claimed invention. In other words, each member of the class could be substituted one for the other with the expectation that the same intended result would be achieved. In the instant case, activity of any specific type of agent is dependent upon the specific structure and mechanism. There is no expectation that any one of the types of inhibitors as claimed or the different target sequences can be substituted for any of the other with a completely different structure and mechanisms or different sequences with the expectation of the same activity.
As set forth in MPEP2117, “Note that where a Markush group includes only materials from a recognized scientific class of equivalent materials or from an art-recognized class, "the mere existence of such a group in an application tend[s] to prove the equivalence of its members and when one of them [is] anticipated the group [is] therefore rendered unpatentable, in the absence of some convincing evidence of some degree of non-equivalency of one or more of the remaining members." In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 598-99, 118 USPQ 340, 348 (CCPA 1958)("[A]ctual equivalence is not enough to justify refusal of a patent on one member of a group when another member is in the prior art. The equivalence must be disclosed in the prior art or be obvious within the terms of Section 103." Id. at 599, 118 USPQ at 348).”
In the instant case, art against any one type of inhibitory agent or one target sequence would not be evidence against any of the remaining members that have completely different structures, mechanisms, and sequences and do not have identical activity.
It is noted that claim 1 link(s) the inhibitors of claim 5 and the sequences of claims 6 and 7. The restriction requirement among the linked inventions is subject to the nonallowance of the linking claim(s), claim 1. Upon the allowance of the linking claim(s), the restriction requirement as to the linked inventions shall be withdrawn and any claim(s) depending from or otherwise including all the limitations of the allowable linking claim(s) will be entitled to examination in the instant application. Applicant(s) are advised that if any such claim(s) depending from or including all the limitations of the allowable linking claim(s) is/are presented in a continuation or divisional application, the claims of the continuation or divisional application may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Where a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. In re Ziegler, 44 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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.
Claims 1, 3-9, and 27-29 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.
The claims are directed to a method of treating HBV (or any disease (claim 28)) comprising administering any A1CF inhibitor.
Although the specification discloses siRNAs wherein the antisense strand is complementary to a specific A1CF target sequence (SEQ ID NO: 1), this species is not representative of the entire claimed genus of inhibitors of any A1CF target sequence.
The specification discloses in vitro transfection of HBV infected cells with a pool of A1CF siRNA sequences (target sequences SEQ ID NOs: 12-15 in exons 8, 11, and 14, page 65). The specification in fact does not disclose the actual siRNAs, but rather discloses the target sequences. Without further description of the structure required for the function, one would not be able to readily envision which agents necessarily have the function of being a A1CF inhibitor.
Claim 4 recites wherein the inhibitor is a nucleic acid molecule of 12 to 60 nucleotides in length comprising a contiguous nucleotide sequence of at least 12 nucleotides in length which is at least 95% complementary to a mammalian A1CF target sequence and is capable of reducing the expression of A1CF mRNA in a cell which expresses the A1CF mRNA. The specification does not adequately describe the genus of nucleic acid molecules that are of varying lengths (i.e. 60 nt) comprising a contiguous nucleotide sequence of 12 nucleotides which is at least 95% complementary to any mammalian A1CF target sequence. The claim encompasses 60-mers with 12 nucleotides that are complementary to the target that function as claimed, which is a genus that has not been adequately described in the specification. The claims are not limited to any specific structure of compound that is any specific structural relationship with any specific A1CF target sequence. The specification does not disclose the actual siRNA sequences of the pool of Example 1, but the structure of siRNAs is known in the art to be in a specific size range and to be specific and complementary to a specific target sequence.
For example, Elbashir et al. (The EMBO Journal, Vol. 20, No. 23, pages 6877-6888, 2001) teaches that duplexes of 21-23 nt RNAs are the sequence specific mediators of RNAi and that even single mismatches between the siRNA duplex and the target mRNA abolish interference (abstract and page 6888). The instant siRNAs are not required to have any specific relationship to any specific target.
Although claim 5 limits the antagonist to being an antisense oligonucleotide, shRNA, or siRNA, the agent is not required to have any specific structural relationship with any specific target sequence to result in the required function. The inhibitor can act on any target that has the secondary effect of A1CF inhibition, for example, which is a genus that is not described in the specification.
Claim 1 does not recite a specific A1CF nucleotide sequence by SEQ ID NO, but rather refer to the broad genus of A1CF sequences. The claims encompass a method of introducing any type of A1CF inhibitor to inhibit the expression of any A1CF sequence, as well as encompass any A1CF homolog or allele from any species known or yet to be discovered of A1CF, as well as DNA genomic fragments, spliced variants or fragment that retains A1CF-like activity. The single species of inhibitor of the specification, A1CF siRNA, is directed to a single A1CF target, SEQ ID NO: 1, although the claims are directed to any inhibitor of any A1CF sequence, a genus that has not been adequately described in the instant specification.
The MPEP states that for a generic claim, the genus can be adequately described if the disclosure presents a sufficient number of representative species that encompass the genus. See MPEP § 2163. If the genus has a substantial variance, the disclosure must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within that genus. See MPEP § 2163. Although the MPEP does not define what constitute a sufficient number of representative species, the courts have indicated what do not constitute a representative number of species to adequately describe a broad genus. In Gostelli, the courts determined that the disclosure of two chemical compounds within a subgenus did not describe that subgenus. In re Gostelli, 872, F.2d at 1012, 10 USPQ2d at 1618. Additionally, in Carnegie Mellon University v. Hoffman-La Roche Inc., Nos. 07-1266, -1267 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2008), the Federal Circuit affirmed that a claim to a genus described in functional terms was not supported by the specification’s disclosure of species that were not representative of the entire genus. Furthermore, for a broad generic claim, the specification must provide adequate written description to identify the genus of the claim. In Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co. the court stated:
"A written description of an invention involving a chemical genus, like a description of a chemical species, 'requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, [or] chemical name,' of the claimed subject matter sufficient to distinguish it from other materials." Fiers, 984 F.2d at 1171, 25 USPQ2d 1601; In re Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376, 1383, 178 USPQ 279, 284985 (CCPA 1973) ("In other cases, particularly but not necessarily, chemical cases, where there is unpredictability in performance of certain species or subcombinations other than those specifically enumerated, one skilled in the art may be found not to have been placed in possession of a genus ...") Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 43 USPQ2d 1398.
The claims are rejected under the written description requirement for failing to disclose adequate species to represent the claimed genus, the genus being CD44 antagonists or expression inhibitors; or antisense oligonucleotides, shRNAs, siRNAs, RNAi, or ribozymes that are directed to any target that has the outcome of CD44 antagonism or expression inhibition.
The Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications under the 35 USC § 112, first paragraph, “Written Description” Requirement”, published at Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 4, pp. 1099-1111 outline the method of analysis of claims to determine whether adequate written description is present. The first step is to determine what the claim as a whole covers, i.e., discussion of the full scope of the claim. Second, the application should be fully reviewed to understand how applicant provides support for the claimed invention including each element and/or step, i.e., compare the scope of the claim with the scope of the description. Third, determine whether the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention as a whole at the time of filing.
Thus, having analyzed the claims with regard to the Written Description guidelines, it is clear that the specification does not disclose a representative number of species for the instant antagonists that have the required function as claimed. Thus, one skilled in the art would be led to conclude that Applicant was not in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Claims 1, 3-9, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a method for treating HBV infection via delivery of the A1CF siRNA pool of the specification in vitro, does not reasonably provide enablement for a method for treating HBV infection via delivery of any A1CF inhibitor via any mode of delivery in vivo and is not enabling for a method of treating any possible disease comprising delivery of the A1CF inhibitor via any means. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Factors to be considered in a determination of lack of enablement include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
The claims are directed to a method for treating HBV infection via delivery of any A1CF inhibitor via any mode of delivery in vivo and is not enabling for a method of treating any possible disease comprising delivery of the A1CF inhibitor via any means.
The specification demonstrates in vitro transfection of HBV infected cells with a pool of A1CF siRNA sequences (target sequences SEQ ID NOs: 12-15 in exons 8, 11, and 14, page 65). The specification in fact does not disclose the actual siRNAs, but rather discloses the target sequences. It is therefore not evident what specific level of complementarity that each of the antisense strands has with the sense strand and with the target.
The specification does not draw an adequate nexus between delivery of any possible inhibitor of A1CF targeted to any target that has the effect of any level of A1CF inhibition and the predictable outcome of treating HBV or treating any possible disease, which encompasses an enormous genus of diseases that have not been shown to be reliant upon A1CF expression alone.
The specification does not draw an adequate nexus between any level of inhibition of A1CF and the predictable outcome of treating HBV or any possible disease.
Additionally, there is no guidance in the specification as filed that teaches how to deliver the instantly recited genus of inhibitors, each having different delivery challenges, and predictably treat HBV or any disease in vivo.
With regards to siRNAs, a single species of the instant inhibitors, the instant siRNAs are not required to have any specific structural relationship with any specific target sequence. The siRNAs of the specification that resulted in the recited outcome in vitro are targeted to specific regions of a specific A1CF target sequence (exons 8, 11, and 14). However, the instant claims not only encompass targeting any target that has the secondary effect of inhibiting A1CF, but also encompasses siRNAs targeted to any possible region of any A1CF sequence. It is known in the siRNA field that not any siRNA to any target sequence will result in inhibitory effect. Even from those that are inhibitory to A1CF, not all of this pool would predictably result in treatment effects in vivo.
Although applicant has demonstrated RNA interference in vitro via specific siRNAs as a pool that are targeted to specific regions of a specific HBV target sequence, applicant is not enabled for mediating RNA interference in vivo by the broadly recited methods, as delivery and effective action therein is known in the art to be unpredictable with regards to dsRNA duplexes. Activity in vitro is not predictable of the in vivo therapeutic effect in the in vivo complex environment.
For example, Elbashir et al. (The EMBO Journal, Vol. 20, No. 23, pages 6877-6888, 2001) teaches that duplexes of 21-23 nt RNAs are the sequence specific mediators of RNAi and that even single mismatches between the siRNA duplex and the target mRNA abolish interference (abstract and page 6888).
Fujita et al. (Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2015, 16, 5254-5270) teach that two types of small RNA molecules, small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) and microRNAs (miRNAs), have a central function in RNAi technology. The success of RNAi-based therapeutic delivery may be dependent upon uncovering a delivery route, sophisticated delivery carriers, and nucleic acid modifications (page 5254). Fujita et al. teach that the success of an RNAi-based therapy in clinical trials rests on careful selection of target genes and miRNAs. Moreover, we suggest that a delivery route, sophisticated delivery carriers, chemical modification, and modified RNAi platforms are needed to enhance RNAi effects in cancer cells (pages 5262-5263).
Friedrich et al. (BioDrugs (2022) 36:549–571) teach that still, the development of siRNA therapeutics faces several challenges and issues, including the definition of optimal siRNAs in terms of target, sequence, and chemical modifications, siRNA delivery to its intended site of action, and the absence of unspecific off-target effects (Abstract). Friedrich et al. teach that the use of short siRNA is preferred because longer siRNAs can provoke an inflammatory antiviral immune response (page 551).
Friedrich et al. teach: As a basic parameter, the GC content of an siRNA is addressed by algorithms and its range should be between ~30 and 60%. Too low GC content can lead to weak or unspecific binding, whereas too high GC content may impede unwinding by helicase and incorporation in the RISC complex. Between nucleotides 9 and 14, however, low GC content is important to increase RISC function during mRNA cleavage. Sequences that could lead to secondary structures in the sense or antisense stand must be avoided (e.g., internal repeats, palindromes, CCC or GGG sequences). A proper duplex formation is essential for functional siRNA. Additionally, sequences that contain single nucleotide polymorphisms, miRNA seed matches, and known toxic motifs must be avoided (page 552).
Friedrich et al. teach: The 5′-untranslated region (and 3′-untranslated region) of mRNA as well as sequences close to the start codon are not recommended as siRNA targets, as the binding of regulatory proteins in this area may impede RISC binding and thus the silencing effect. Rather, selecting regions in the open reading frame about 50–100 nucleotides downstream of the start codon is recommended. Furthermore, siRNAs closer to the start codon seem to be more efficient than those further downstream (page 552). Friedrich et al. is evidence as to the delivery challenges, as well as the fact that not any siRNA inhibitor of a target would result in the desired therapeutic effect.
As outlined above, it is well known that there is a high level of unpredictability in the RNAi art (a single species of the instant inhibitors) for therapeutic in vivo applications and design. The scope of the claims in view of the specification as filed together do not reconcile the unpredictability in the art to enable one of skill in the art to make and/or use the claimed invention, namely a broad method of treating HBV or any possible disease via broad systemic delivery of a broad genus of agents that act via different mechanisms and have different levels of activity encompassing in vivo effects.
MPEP 2164.01
Any analysis of whether a particular claim is supported by the disclosure in an application requires a determination of whether that disclosure, when filed, contained sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the claims as to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the claimed invention.
Also, MPEP 2164.01(a)
A conclusion of lack of enablement means that, based on the evidence regarding each of
the above factors, the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed
invention without undue experimentation. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557,1562, 27
USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Given the teachings of the specification as discussed above, one skilled in the art could not predict a priori whether introduction of any A1CF inhibitor of the instant genus in vivo by the broadly disclosed methodologies of the instantly claimed invention, would result in successful treatment of Hepatitis B virus infection or of any possible disease. To practice the claimed invention, one of skill in the art would have to de novo determine; the stability of the molecule in vivo, delivery of the molecule to the whole organism, specificity to the target tissue in vivo, dosage and toxicity in vivo, and entry of the molecule into the cell in vivo and the effective action therein. Without further guidance, one of skill in the art would have to practice a substantial amount of trial and error experimentation, an amount considered undue and not routine, to practice the instantly claimed invention.
A conclusion of lack of enablement means that, based on the evidence regarding each of the above factors, the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation (see MPEP 2164.01(a)).
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jolivet et al. (PLOS ONE, 2014, 9, 9, e106655, 1-15).
Jolivet et al. teach: In the search of new strategies to fight against obesity, we targeted a gene pathway involved in energy uptake. We have thus investigated the APOB mRNA editing protein (APOBEC1) gene pathway that is involved in fat absorption in the intestine. The APOB gene encodes two proteins, APOB100 and APOB48, via the editing of a single nucleotide in the APOB mRNA by the APOBEC1 enzyme. The APOB48 protein is mandatory for the synthesis of chylomicrons by intestinal cells to transport dietary lipids and cholesterol. We produced transgenic rabbits expressing permanently and ubiquitously a small hairpin RNA targeting the rabbit APOBEC1 mRNA. These rabbits exhibited a moderately but significantly reduced level of APOBEC1 gene expression in the intestine, a reduced level of editing of the APOB mRNA, a reduced level of synthesis of chylomicrons after a food challenge, a reduced total mass of body lipids and finally presented a sustained lean phenotype without any obvious physiological disorder. Interestingly, no compensatory mechanism opposed to the phenotype. These lean transgenic rabbits were crossed with transgenic rabbits expressing in the intestine the human APOBEC1 gene. Double transgenic animals did not present any lean phenotype, thus proving that the intestinal expression of the human APOBEC1 transgene was able to counterbalance the reduction of the rabbit APOBEC1 gene expression. Thus, a moderate reduction of the APOBEC1 dependent editing induces a lean phenotype at least in the rabbit species. This suggests that the APOBEC1 gene might be a novel target for obesity treatment (abstract).
Jolivet et al. teach that they delivered a small interfering RNA (siRNA) targeting the rabbit intestinal APOBEC1 gene in cells, wherein the siRNA is 21 nucleotides in length (page 11).
Therefore, Jolivet et al. anticipate instant claim 27.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jolivet et al. (PLOS ONE, 2014, 9, 9, e106655, 1-15).
Jolivet et al. teach: In the search of new strategies to fight against obesity, we targeted a gene pathway involved in energy uptake. We have thus investigated the APOB mRNA editing protein (APOBEC1) gene pathway that is involved in fat absorption in the intestine. The APOB gene encodes two proteins, APOB100 and APOB48, via the editing of a single nucleotide in the APOB mRNA by the APOBEC1 enzyme. The APOB48 protein is mandatory for the synthesis of chylomicrons by intestinal cells to transport dietary lipids and cholesterol. We produced transgenic rabbits expressing permanently and ubiquitously a small hairpin RNA targeting the rabbit APOBEC1 mRNA. These rabbits exhibited a moderately but significantly reduced level of APOBEC1 gene expression in the intestine, a reduced level of editing of the APOB mRNA, a reduced level of synthesis of chylomicrons after a food challenge, a reduced total mass of body lipids and finally presented a sustained lean phenotype without any obvious physiological disorder. Interestingly, no compensatory mechanism opposed to the phenotype. These lean transgenic rabbits were crossed with transgenic rabbits expressing in the intestine the human APOBEC1 gene. Double transgenic animals did not present any lean phenotype, thus proving that the intestinal expression of the human APOBEC1 transgene was able to counterbalance the reduction of the rabbit APOBEC1 gene expression. Thus, a moderate reduction of the APOBEC1 dependent editing induces a lean phenotype at least in the rabbit species. This suggests that the APOBEC1 gene might be a novel target for obesity treatment (abstract).
Jolivet et al. teach that they delivered a small interfering RNA (siRNA) targeting the rabbit intestinal APOBEC1 gene, wherein the siRNA is 21 nucleotides in length (page 11).
It would have been obvious to treat obesity via delivery of the APOBEC1 siRNA or shRNA of Jolivet et al. because Jolivet et al. teach that the results suggest that the APOBEC1 gene might be a novel target for obesity treatment. One would reasonably expect that delivery of the APOBEC1 siRNA or shRNA of Jolivet et al. would result in a reduced total mass of body lipids and a sustained lean phenotype as achieved by Jolivet et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amy R Hudson whose telephone number is (571)272-0755. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-6:00pm.
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, Neil Hammell can be reached at 571-270-5919. 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.
/AMY ROSE HUDSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1636