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 .
Applicants’ Amendment to the Claims filed on April 23, 2026 is entered.
Applicants’ Amendment to the Specification filed on April 23, 2026 is entered.
This is the First Office Action on the Merits of US 18/185,449 filed on 03/17/2023 which claims US priority benefit of US Provisional 63/269,511 filed on 03/17/2022.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention Group II (e.g., claims 8 and 10-15) in the reply filed on 02/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s election without traverse of species (A): formula (I), and (B): R-group LS-124 of the elected formula (I) in the reply filed on 02/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Upon further consideration based on examination of the species formula (I), wherein the R-group is LS-124, the examiner is REJOINING a next species being the species of formula (I), wherein the R-group is LS-1-100 (--OH) which has been fully examined in this office action.
Claims 1-7, and 9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/09/2026.
Claim status
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 13-15 are withdrawn to non-elected subject matter.
Claims 8, and 10-12 are under examination.
Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures
The Sequence Listing filed on April 23, 2026 is acknowledged. However, certain defects are found in this Sequence Listing. Proper correction to the Sequence Listing is required as a complete reply to this office action. Please see the CRFD document of May 11, 2026 in file record and attached.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the text of FIG4A is not legible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS statements filed on 05/24/2023 and 09/28/2023 have been considered by the examiner. A courtesy cope of the Wong Kwan Yuen Poster NO: C9 reference has been provided by the examiner because the IDS copy was not legible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 8 recites an open list of formulas but does not clarify that the list is elements in the alternative by adding the term “or” before the formula in the list. Also, the list of formulas are not separated by punctuation such as by commas or semicolons. In addition, within claim 8, the R groups are listed throughout the claim stating “wherein R is selected from” but without a term such as “and” or “or” before the last element of the list of R elements. Also, the R elements are not separated by punctuation marks such as by commas or semicolons.
Claim 12 recites open lists of R groups listed throughout the claim stating “wherein R is selected from” but without a term such as “and” or “or” before the last element of the list of R elements. Also, the R elements are not separated by punctuation marks such as by commas or semicolons.
It would be remedial to recite either a closed list reciting “selected from the group consisting of” where the group concludes with an “and” or to recite an open list of alternatives where the group concludes with the term “or”.
Written Description
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(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.
Claims 10-11 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 10-11 are drawn to an anti-cancer composition comprising a YEATS2 YEATS inhibitor and pharmaceutically effective carriers and/or excipients. While showing possession for the YEATS2 YEATS inhibitor of the compound according to elected species of formula (I), and wherein R of formula (I) is the species of LS124 or LS100 (--OH),
PNG
media_image1.png
398
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
98
78
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a review of the instant application and state of the prior art shows that the applicants were in possession of the elected species of compound but not in possession of the genus of YEATS2 YEATS inhibitors having an anti-cancer property. Note that the genus of a YEATS2 YEATS inhibitor encompasses different types of inhibitory molecules including antibodies against the YEAT2 YEATS domain, and inhibitory RNA molecules.
Further, 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. Eh Lily & 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 at 1606; In re Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376, 1383, 178 USPQ 279, 284-85 (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 instant Specification provides background regarding the YEATS2 YEATS inhibitor compounds disclosed, including for the elected species of Formula (I) compound with the R group being LS124. For example, the specification recites that:
Histone post-translational modifications (PTMs), such as lysine acylation, arginine methylation and serine phosphorylation, play critical roles in some biological processes. By neutralizing the positive charge of histone residues (Lysine or Arginine), Histone PTMs disturb the physicochemical environment around modification sites. These PTMs are modified by "writers" and "erasers", and also serve as the docking site to recruit specific proteins ("readers") to the chromatin to signal the downstream cellular events, such as gene expression, DNA replication and damage repair. Given these numerous links to essential cellular processes, aberrant "reading" of histone PTMs has been closely associated with human diseases, such as cancers. Histone PTMs "readers", therefore, have been recognized as promising targets for drug discovery. (See page 1.)
Further, the specification (See pages 1-3) discloses that The YEATS domain (named after the founding members Yaf9, ENL, AF9, Taf14, and Sas5) is a ~100–120 amino acid module with an immunoglobulin-like fold that functions as an epigenetic “reader” domain, stating:
YEATS domains have been recently identified as novel "readers" of histone acylation, such as histone lysine acetylation (Kac) and lysine crotonylation (Kcr). The human genome encodes 4 YEATS domain-containing proteins (YCPs), including AF9, ENL, YEATS2, and GAS41, which are pivotal members of chromatin-modifying and transcription complexes, participating in chromatin remodeling and transcriptional regulation. In support of their functional importance, dysregulation of these YEATS family proteins is often linked to human disease.
YEATS2 is an emerging oncogene highly amplified in human cancers, including NSCLC, pancreatic cancers, and ovarian cancers. It's reported that depletion of YEATS2 could reduce NSCLC cell (A549 and H1299) growth and transformation activity, suggesting its indispensable role for cell survival (see Mi, W., Guan, H., Lyu, J. et al. YEATS2 links histone acetylation to tumorigenesis of non-small cell lung cancer. Nat Commun 8, 1088 (2017)IDS ref). YEATS domain of YEATS2 recognizes histone lysine acylation by forming unique -7-7-7G stacking with its two aromatic residues (Y262 and W282). A Y262A or W282A mutation can disrupt the interaction between YEATS2 and histone lysine acylation. When reintroducing -wide-type YEATS2 to YEATS2-depleted NSCLC cells, cell proliferation restored, whereas the mutant (containing Y262A and W282A) YEATS2 did not. YEATS2 YEATS domain, therefore, emerged as attractive therapeutic target for NSCLC treatment. However, to date, no YEATS2 YEATS inhibitors have been developed.
Therefore, there remains a need for inhibitors of YEATS2 YEATS.
The subject invention pertains to novel YEATS2 YEATS inhibitors and methods of using said inhibitors. In certain embodiments, the inhibitors can target YEATS2 YEATS via a unique "sandwich" cage. The inhibitors can occupy the Kac-binding pocket of YEATS2 YEATS, which is an aromatic cage composed of residues Y262 and W282. The acetyl group of the inhibitor can be intercalated between the two aromatic rings of Y262 and W282 to form the unique "sandwich" cage. In certain embodiments, inhibitors HC25b and HC26b can efficiently inhibit YEATS2 YEATS and also cell growth and cell proliferation. In certain embodiments, YEATS2 YEATS domain preferentially recognizes H3K27ac by in the aromatic 'sandwich' cage. In certain embodiments, The YEATS2 YEATS inhibitors can be used to treat cancer in a subject. In certain embodiments, YEATS2 is linked to tumorigenesis of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by reading histone acetylation; therefore, the YEATS2 YEATS inhibitors can be used to treat NSCLC.
In certain embodiments, the peptide-derived inhibitor has the highest affinity of 89 nanomolar, targeting the unique 7G-G-7G stacking interaction of Kbz binding region of YEATS2 YEATS domain. In certain embodiments, an inhibitor, such as, for example, LS-1-124 (formula (II)), can efficiently reduce the chromatin occupancy of YEATS2-associated complexes, downregulate the oncogenes, and/or block NSCLC cell proliferation.
Thus, it is considered that the instant specification provides a sufficient set of the subspecies of Formula (I) to show possession of such subspecies but that the specification does not show possession of a representative set of the claimed genus of YEATS2 YEATS inhibitor compounds with the functional properties of being an anti-cancer agent.
Further, the state of the art shows that the compounds for inhibiting a YEATS domain in a protein is unpredictable based on the general formula of the compound. For example, Moustakim et al disclose a panel of small-molecule YEATS domain inhibitors that show different inhibitory effects based on the type of YD protein being targeted. For example, the inhibitory molecules for the YEATS1 and AF9/YEATS3 were significantly different than for YEATS2 (See Abstract). (See Moustakim et al in Discovery of an MLLT1/3 YEATS Domain Chemical Probe” (Angew Chem Int Ed Epigenetics 2018, Vol 57, pages 16302-16307). Further, the reference of Wong Yuen Kwan in “Development of YEATS2 Inhibitor as a Potential Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Cure” published November 5, 2020 (IDS ref). Wong Kwan Yuen discloses that “the YEATS2 (YEATS domain containing 2) protein is responsible for the regulation of non-small cell lung cancer tumorigenesis”, and that “[b]y binding with H3K27ac, it regulates the acetylation level of H3K14ac, which in turns recruits the ATAC complex, and allows the chromatin to maintain an open structure for gene expression”. The reference of Wong Yuen Kwan recites that “prior to my research, our lab has already screened a number of modifications and discovered that YEATS2 protein is more selective towards benzoylated lysine (IC50 = 100μM) than crotonylated lysine.
The fundamental factual inquiry is whether the specification conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, applicant was in possession of the invention as now claimed. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc., 935 F.2d at 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d at 1117.
To satisfy the written description requirement, MPEP §2163 states, in part “...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.” Moreover, the written description requirement for a genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by “...disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, 1.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between functional and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus.”
The limited disclosure of the specification in view of the vast genus of YEATS2 YEATS inhibitors encompassed by the claims does not adequately describe the entire genus of molecules encompassed by the claims.
“Possession may not be shown by merely describing how to obtain possession of members of the claimed genus or how to identify their common structural features.” Ex parte Kubin, 83 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007) citing University of Rochester, 358 F.3d at 927, 69 USPQ2d at 1895. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 19USPQ2d 1111, clearly states that “applicant must 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.” (See page 1117.) The specification does not “clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the inventor(s) invented what is claimed.” (See Vas-Cath at page 1116).
The MPEP further states that if a biomolecule is described only by a functional characteristic, without any disclosed correlation between function and structure of the sequence, it is “not sufficient characteristic for written description purposes, even when accompanied by a method of obtaining the claimed sequence.” MPEP 2163. The MPEP does state that for generic claim the genus can be adequately described if the disclosure presents a sufficient number of representative species that encompass the genus. 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, the Courts have indicated what do not constitute a representative number species to adequately describe a broad generic. In Gosteli, the Court determined that the disclosure of two chemical compounds within a subgenus did not describe that subgenus. In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d at 1012, 10 USPQ2d at 1618.
The court and the Board have repeatedly held (Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.,18 USPQ2d 1016 (CA FC, 1991); Fiers v. Revel, 25 USPQ2d 1601 (CA FC 1993); Fiddes v. Baird, 30 USPQ2d 1481 (BPAI 1993) and Regents of the Univ. Calif. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 43 USPQ2d 1398 (CA FC, 1997)) that an adequate written description requires more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method for isolating it, irrespective of the complexity or simplicity of the method; what is required is a description of the nucleic acid itself.
Thus, one of skill at the time of the invention could not have concluded that the inventor(s) were in possession of the genus of YEATS2 YEATS inhibitor compounds as presently written.
Scope of enablement
Claims 8, and 10-12 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 YEATS2 YEATS inhibitor having the structure of Formula (I) wherein the R is LS124, does not reasonably provide enablement for the genus of any YEATS2 YEATS inhibitor for use in treating any type of cancer in a subject. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Factors to be considered in determining whether a disclosure meets the enablement requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph, have been described by the court in In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (CA FC 1988). Wands states at page 1404,
“Factors to be considered in determining whether a disclosure would require undue experimentation have been summarized by the board in Ex parte Forman. They include (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breadth of the claims.”
The nature of the invention: The invention is drawn to anti-cancer compounds being a YEATS2 YEATS inhibitor. The intended use of such compounds is recited in the claims as an anti-cancer agent. The invention is in a class of invention which the CAFC has characterized as “the unpredictable arts such as chemistry and biology.” Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 243 F.3d 1316, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
The breadth of claims: Claims 10-11 are drawn to a generic anti-cancer composition comprising a YEATS2 YEATS inhibitor and pharmaceutically effective carriers and/or excipients. Claims 10-11 are broad to a genus of a YEATS2 YEATS inhibitor which encompasses different types of inhibitory molecules including antibodies against the YEAT2 YEATS domain, and inhibitory RNA molecules. Claims 8 and 12 are limited to the elected species of the YEATS2 YEATS inhibitor of the compound according to elected species of formula (I), and wherein R of formula (I) is the elected species of LS124, as shown below and to the REJOINED species of the YEATS2 YEATS inhibitor of the compound according to elected species of formula (I), and wherein R of formula (I) is the species of LS-1-100 (wherein the R-group is LS-1-100 which is --OH). Further, all claims are broad to an intended use of being an anti-cancer agent.
:
PNG
media_image1.png
398
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
98
78
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Level of Skill in the Art: The level of skill in the art was high before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention.
The unpredictability of the art and the state of the prior art: The art teaches the unpredictability of whether a given YEATS2 YEATS inhibitor is useful as an anti-cancer agent. For example, Moustakim et al disclose a panel of small-molecule YEATS domain inhibitors that show different inhibitory effects based on the type of YD protein being targeted. Moustakim et al disclose the inhibitory molecules for the YEATS1 and AF9/YEATS3 were significantly different than for YEATS2 (See Abstract). (See Moustakim et al in Discovery of an MLLT1/3 YEATS Domain Chemical Probe” (Angew Chem Int Ed Epigenetics 2018, Vol 57, pages 16302-16307). Further, the prior art teaches that the YEATS domain is a predicted target against several types of cancers in human subjects. For example, the reference of Wong Yuen Kwan in “Development of YEATS2 Inhibitor as a Potential Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Cure” (published November 5, 2020) discloses that “the YEATS2 (YEATS domain containing 2) protein is responsible for the regulation of non-small cell lung cancer tumorigenesis”, and that “[b]y binding with H3K27ac, it regulates the acetylation level of H3K14ac, which in turns recruits the ATAC complex, and allows the chromatin to maintain an open structure for gene expression”. However, the reference of Wong Yuen Kwan does not show a working example of use of a YEATS2 YEATS inhibitor treating a cancer but does show successful binding assay results. Wong Yuen Kwan recites that “prior to my research, our lab has already screened a number of modifications and discovered that YEATS2 protein is more selective towards benzoylated lysine (IC50 = 100μM) than crotonylated lysine.
Guidance in the Specification & Existence of Working Examples: The specification provides no evidence that the broad scope of the claims are enabled regarding generic YEATS2 YEATS inhibitors. However, the specification shows that the YEATS2 YEATS inhibitor can target Kac binding pocket. Further, the specification shows a panel of compounds which have a strong inhibiting effect on cancer cell growth, specifically NSCLC cell growth and proliferation. Specifically, the specification shows binding assay results for a myriad of YEATS2 YEATS inhibitor compounds of Formula (I) of the present claims (see FIGs 6A-6H). Specifically, specification shows binding results for the compound species of Formula (I) where R is LS-1-124 and Formula (I) where R is LS-1-100 (--OH; aka compound HC15b) shown in FIG 11B. Survival data is shown in FIG12A. Data for the compounds of species LS-1-124 (but not LS-1-100) are shown in FIG 12B, 13A-B, 14A-B & 15A-D. The specification shows a working Example regarding an in vivo mouse model anti-cancer experiment with results shown in FIGs 15A-15D using the LS-1-124 species but not with the REJOINED species LS-I-100. (See pages 65-66).
Quantity of Experimentation: The quantity of experimentation in this area is extremely large since there is significant number of parameters which would have to be studied to enable the skilled artisan to use the invention as anti-cancer compounds as broadly written.
Conclusion: Given the broad claims in an art whose nature is identified as unpredictable, the unpredictability of that art, the large quantity of research required to define these unpredictable variables, the lack of guidance provided in the specification, the absence of a working example except for the elected species of LS-1-124, balanced only against the high skill level in the art, it is the position of the examiner that it would require undue experimentation for one of skill in the art to use the invention anti-cancer compounds as broadly written.
Allowable Subject Matter: Claims limited to the elected species of Formula (I) wherein R is LS-1-124 would overcome this rejection.
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.
(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.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sha et al in “YEATS domain-containing 2 (YEATS2), targeted by microRNA miR-378a-5P, regulates growth and metastasis in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma” (Bioengineered 2021, Vol 12, No. 1 pages 7286-7296).
Claim interpretation: The following terms are construed to be alternative names for the term YEATS2: “YEATS Domain Containing 2”; KIAA1197; YEATS Domain-Containing Protein 2; FLJ10201; FLJ12841; FLJ13308; YEATS2 Protein; FAME4).
Regarding independent claim 10, Sha et al discloses an anti-cancer composition comprising a YEATS2 YEATS inhibitor. Sha et al target the YEATS2 using an anti-cancer composition comprising a microRNA miR-378a-5P which regulates growth and metastasis in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. (See Abstract; entire article; page 7289, Section 2.10 headed: “MiR-378a-5p inhibitor transfection”; pages 7289-7290, Section 3.1 “Expression of YeATS2 in HNSCC tissues and cancer cell lines”).
Regarding claim 11 Sha et al discloses the composition further comprising pharmaceutically effective carriers and/or excipients. (See page 7289, Section 2.9 which discloses that the Detroit562 cells were co-transfected with miR-378a-5p with Lipofectamine which meets the limitation of an excipient).
Free of the prior art
Regarding instant claims, the elected species of a YEATS2 YEATS inhibitor compound according to elected species of formula (I),
PNG
media_image1.png
398
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
98
78
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and wherein R or formula (I) is the elected species of LS124 and the rejoined species of wherein the R-group is LS-1-100 are free of the prior art.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Related art which may be applied in a future office action if appropriate:
Wong Yuen Kwan in “Development of YEATS2 Inhibitor as a Potential Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Cure” published November 5, 2020 (IDS ref) discloses a compound of formula (LII).
Ji et al Cancer Cell International “YEATS2: a novel cancer epigenetic reader and potential therapeutic target” 2025 Vol 25: 162). Post-filing review of YEATS2 as cancer therapeutic target.
Wu et al Cell Cycle 2024 Vol 23: NO4, pages 478-494. Post-filing research article showing use of YEATS 2 miRNA inhibitors against hepatocellular carcinoma.
WO 2019/101195 to Li et al (published May 31, 2019; IDS ref).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE S HIBBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-3053. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Melissa Fisher can be reached at 571-270-7430. 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.
/CATHERINE S HIBBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1658
Prosecution Insights