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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-4 and 7-23 in the reply filed on 1/5/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Likewise, applicant’s election of the species Core 2+galactose (as depicted structurally in claim 23 – see also figure 9A herein) is acknowledged and claims 1-4, 7-17, and 23 read on this elected species.
MPEP 803.02 III A notes that if the examiner determines that the elected species is allowable over the prior art, the examination of the Markush claim will be extended. If prior art is then found that anticipates or renders obvious the Markush claim with respect to a nonelected species, the Markush claim shall be rejected; claims to the nonelected species would still be held withdrawn from further consideration. The prior art search will not be extended unnecessarily to cover all nonelected species, and need not be extended beyond a proper Markush grouping. See subsection III.C.2, below, for additional guidance.
It is noted that this elected species is free of the art. As such, the search and examination has been expanded beyond the elected species of the Markush group of claim 1 to include fucosylated glycans derived from cervical mucins. Claims 1-4 and 7-8 read on this additionally examined species. See below for art reading on this.
As such, claims 18-22 are withdrawn and the portion of claims 1-4, 7-17, and 23 which does not read on the elected and additionally examined compounds above are withdrawn.
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) 1-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Domino et al (Glycoconjugate Journal, vol. 26, no. 9, March 2009, pp 1125-1134).
Domino discloses methods of administering exogenous mucins displaying α(1-2)fucosylated glycans (see page 1131, right column and table 2). The compositions administered were used to test a potential therapeutic treatment of yeast vaginitis where the mice were inoculated with C. albicans (a fungi) and tested to determine antifungal activity – see results on figure 4 showing the treated group had a lower fungal burden compared to the non-treated group. Domino states that their results showed that mucins can have an affect either positively or negatively in adhesion and/or proliferation of C. albicans (see right column on page 1131), thus meeting the present limitations in claim 3 wherein the treatment can reduce the fungus’s surface adhesion. These mucin glycans would meet the limitations of those comprising at least fucose and galactose (see table 2 therein).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 and 7-17 are objected to for containing non-elected subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVISS C MCINTOSH III whose telephone number is (571)272-0657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5:30PM EST.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/TRAVISS C MCINTOSH III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1693
Prosecution Insights