DETAILED ACTION
Examiner acknowledges receipt of applicant’s reply and RCE filed 5/29/2026, in response to the final office action mailed 2/02/2026.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 13-19, 21-26, 28-33, 43, 44 and 46-63 are pending. Claims 19, 21-23, 30, 32, 33, 43, 44, and 47-63 remain withdrawn for the reasons made of record.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 13-18, 24-26, 28, 29, 31, and 46 are being examined on the merits in this office 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/29/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections- withdrawn, in part
The objection of claim 26 is withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 5/29/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendment and arguments, filed 12/01/2025, with respect to the above objection have been fully considered and are persuasive, the objection has been withdrawn.
A new rejection is deemed necessary in view of the amendment filed 5/29/2026.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the maintained objection and rejection. An action on the merits is set forth herein.
Specification
Please note, the specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible error. Applicant's cooperation is required in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01.
New Rejections
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is 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. This is a new rejection necessitated by the amendment filed 5/29/2026.
The metes and bounds of claim 1 are deemed to be indefinite. Claim 1 recites “i) the antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof comprises a non-natural amino acid at position K42 and at least one non-natural amino acid at position Y180 or F404 that are covalently linked to the immunomodulatory payload or to the drug payload”. The claim does not include a reference sequence (SEQ ID NO) that accounts for amino acid positions K42, Y180 or F404. The skilled artisan is not apprised of the antibody or antigen-binding fragment sequence(s) that contain the recited amino acids at the respective amino acid positions.
Examiner recommends that claim 1 be amended to recite a comparative SEQ ID NOs that contains K42, Y180 and F404.
Claim 1 recites “the antibody drug conjugate” at p 3, l. 2. Claim 1 lacks antecedent basis for the claim term.
Because claims 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 13-18, 24-26, 28, 29, 31, and 46 depend from indefinite claim 1 and do not clarify the point of confusion, they must also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Maintained Objections/Rejections
Claim Objections- maintained, in part
The objection of claim 1 remains/is objected to because of the following informalities: This objection is maintained from the office action mailed 2/02/2026, but has been amended to reflect claims filed 5/29/226.
Claim 1 should be amended to recite the compounds in singular format, instead of presently written plural, e.g., a DNA-crosslinking agent an anti-tumor antibiotic etc.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant traversed the objection at p 20 of the reply filed 5/29/2026. Applicant amended claim 1 but did not fully address the objection. The objection related to terms that were in plural format. All of the claim terms should be written in singular format, not just the two that Applicant amended.
PNG
media_image1.png
145
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The objection is maintained for at least these reasons.
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, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 13-18, 24-29, 31, and 46 remain/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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This rejection is maintained from the office action mailed 2/2/2026, but has been amended to reflect claims filed 5/29/2026.
The courts have stated:
“To fulfill the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe an invention and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that "the inventor invented the claimed invention." Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (1997); In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (" [T]he description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed."). Thus, an applicant complies with the written description requirement "by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious," and by using "such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that set forth the claimed invention." Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.” Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 43 USPQ2d 1398.
The MPEP lists factors that can be used to determine if sufficient evidence of possession has been furnished in the disclosure of the Application. These include “level of skill and knowledge in the art, partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics alone or coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between structure and function, and the method of making the claimed invention. Disclosure of any combination of such identifying characteristics that distinguish the claimed invention from other materials and would lead one of skill in the art to the conclusion that the applicant was in possession of the claimed species is sufficient.” MPEP 2163.
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. 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 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 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 Gostelli, the Court 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.
In the instant case, the claims are drawn to an antibody conjugate comprising an antibody, or antigen-binding fragment thereof, covalently linked to a drug payload and wherein the antibody, or antigen-binding fragment thereof, is further covalently linked to an immunomodulatory payload, wherein the drug payload is a cytotoxic compound, wherein the immunomodulatory payload is an agonist of the STING (stimulator of interferon genes) pathway, and wherein the cytotoxic compound is selected from the group consisting of an alkylating agent, a DNA-crosslinking agent, an anti-tumor antibiotic, anti-metabolites, anti-mitotic agents, microtubule disrupting agents, histone-deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors, telomerase inhibitors and immunogenic cell death agents; and wherein (i) the antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof comprises a non-natural amino acid at position K42 and at least one non-natural amino acid at position Y180 or F404 that are covalently linked to the immunomodulatory payload or to the drug payload; and/or (ii) the antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof comprises one or more glutamine (Q) residues that is covalently linked to the immunomodulatory payload or to the drug payload; and/or wherein (iii) the drug payload or the immunomodulatory payload is linked to the antibody, or antigen-binding fragment, via one or more linkers and the one or more linkers comprise a release trigger group, wherein the release trigger group is a β-glucuronidase-cleavable β-glucuronide according to the structure
PNG
media_image2.png
101
143
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein
PNG
media_image3.png
55
40
media_image3.png
Greyscale
indicates the atoms in the antibody drug conjugate to which the a β-glucuronidase-cleavable β-glucuronide is bonded.
The specification does not explicitly define the terms “drug payload”, “immunomodulatory payload”, or “agonist of the STING (stimulator of interferon genes) pathway”. Claim 26 recites a Markush grouping of cytotoxic compounds, e.g. including but not limited to, carboplatin, chlorambucil, docetaxel and a hemiasterlin. Claim 4 recites wherein the agonist of the STING pathway is ulevosting, 1R,6R,8R,9R,10S,15R,17R,18R)-8,17-bis(6-aminopurin-9-yl)-12-oxido-3-oxo- 12-sulfanylidene-3-sulfido-2,4,7,11,13,16-hexaoxa-3lambda5,12lambda5- diphosphatricyclo[ 13.2.1.06,10]octadecane-9,18-diol,or SB11285. The specification is limited to disclosure of 4 STING agonists - MK-1454 (Merck), ADU-S100 (Aduro), TTI-10001 (Trillium Therapeutics), and SB11285 (Springbank Pharmaceuticals) (para. [0500]).
Agonists of the STING pathway are construed as encompassing any compound that directly or indirectly affects the STING pathway. Compounds could be construed as encompassing but not limited to, small molecules, antibodies, peptides, proteins, and any combination thereof.
No examples of a claimed antibody conjugate comprising an antibody, or antigen- binding fragment thereof, covalently linked to a cytotoxic compound (drug payload), and an agonist of the STING (stimulator of interferon genes) pathway (immunomodulatory payload) was reduced to practice. It is further noted that an antibody, or antigen-binding fragment thereof sequence comprising amino acid positions K42, Y180 and F404 was not reduced to practice. The skilled artisan cannot extrapolate the entirety of an antibody or antigen-binding fragment sequence based on 3 disparate amino acid residues.
As stated earlier, the MPEP states that written description for a genus can be achieved by a representative number of species within a broad generic. It is unquestionable claims 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 13-18, 24-29, 31, and 46 are broad generics with respect to all possible compounds encompassed by the claims. There are numerous compounds that can fall within the categories of “drug payload”, “immunomodulatory payload”, and “agonist of the STING (stimulator of interferon genes) pathway” but there is no guidance as to what specific compounds can physically be combined with each other to form the claimed antibody conjugates while retaining individual functional properties.
It must not be forgotten that the MPEP states that if a compound 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. Here, though the claims may recite some functional characteristics [e.g., anchor peptide], the claims lack written description because there is no disclosure of a correlation between function and structure of the compounds beyond compounds disclosed in the examples in the specification. Moreover, the specification lacks sufficient variety of species to reflect this variance in the genus.
Examiner reiterates that no embodiments of the claimed invention were reduced to practice. There are no examples of an antibody conjugate comprising an antibody, or antigen- binding fragment thereof, covalently linked to a cytotoxic compound (drug payload), and an agonist of the STING (stimulator of interferon genes) pathway (immunomodulatory payload) was reduced to practice.
The specification appears to be limited to a listing compounds that fall within the claim scope of cytotoxic compounds and agonist of the STING pathway. The specification doesn’t provide any examples that encompass the numerous characteristics of the entire genus claimed.
It is further noted that the prior art taught that STING agonists were highly selective. Preclinical studies using the agent 5,6- dimethyllxanthenone-4-acetic acid (DMXAA) showed potent anti-tumor activity in various mouse models. However, this agent showed no effect in the clinic when combined with chemotherapy in a Phase III trial in human non-small cell lung cancer. DMXAA can only interact with the murine molecule. This likely explains the lack of clinical activity of this compound in human cancer patients, and prompted the development of new agents that might serve as direct human STING agonists. At the same time, it has become apparent that the human TMEM173 (STING gene) is polymorphic, and natural CDNs do not stimulate all human STING variants (Corrales et al (Cytokine 77:245-247 (2016) at p. 2- previously cited). Thus, the skilled artisan would have known that although a compound may be a “STING agonist” it would have limited functionality with respect to i) Ab (mouse Ab and human specific STING agonist combination), or ii) the animal species to which the claimed antibody conjugate was administered.
Merely listing components in the specification is not sufficient to extrapolate to all combinations of antibodies/antigen binding fragments, cytotoxic compounds, and STING agonists that are not only capable of being fused together but further retain their functional binding/targeting to the STING pathway and cytotoxic effects.
The description requirement of the patent statute requires a description of an invention, not an indication of a result that one might achieve if one made that invention. See In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1521, 222 USPQ 369, 372-73 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (affirming rejection because the specification does "little more than outlin[e] goals appellants hope the claimed invention achieves and the problems the invention will hopefully ameliorate"). Accordingly, it is deemed that the specification fails to provide adequate written description for the genus of the claims and does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the entire scope of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant traversed the rejection at pp. 21-22 of the reply filed 5/29/2026. Applicant asserts that “one skilled in the art would readily understand the term [agonist of STING pathway] based on the support found in paragraph [00500] that lists STING agonists. [The specification discloses four STING agonists]. Applicant states “the agonist of STING in claim 1 is characterized by the structure of the antibody conjugate” (reply at p. 21). Applicant asserts the specification provides an enabling disclosure. Id.
Applicant asserts the specification discloses immunostimulatory antibody-drug conjugates (iADCs). In certain embodiments, the iADCs are dual conjugates of antibodies with STING agonists and cytotoxins. The conjugates comprise an antibody recognizing a suitable antigen (e.g., a tumor antigen) covalently linked directly or indirectly, via linkers, to payloads. In certain embodiments, the antibody is linked to two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, or more payloads (reply at pp 21-22).
Applicant states at p. 22:
Whereas there is not specific data for a STING conjugate, there is support for compounds that are dual antibody conjugates, such as immunomodulator-antibody-drug-conjugates, in particular immunostimulatory-antibody-drug-conjugates (iADCs), that provide targeted delivery of two therapeutic agents. In some embodiments, the immunomodulatory agent is an agent that modulates components of the immune system such that it would enhance the anti-tumor activity of the conjugate, such agents can include agonists of the STING (stimulator of interferon genes) pathway (e.g., MK-1454, ADU-S100, and SB11285). The examples in the specification provide further support for antibody conjugates with a drug payload and immunomodulatory payload.
Applicant asserts “based on the ample empirical data for antibody conjugates with a drug payload and immunomodulatory payload, one skilled in the art would not resort to undue experimentation” (reply at p. 22).
Examiner has reviewed and considered Applicant’s arguments but is not persuaded.
To satisfy the written description requirement, 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. MPEP § 2163 states that a “representative number of species” means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. In the instant case, the disclosure does not provide any examples that are representative of the genus of antibody conjugates. The disclosure of 4 agonists of STING in a single paragraph of the specification that is 270 pages in length is not representative of the entire genus because the instant claims are extremely broad and encompasses a huge genus of antibody conjugates.
Examiner reiterates that the specification is limited to disclosure of 4 STING agonists - MK-1454 (Merck), ADU-S100 (Aduro), TTI-10001 (Trillium Therapeutics), and SB11285 (Springbank Pharmaceuticals) (para. [0500]). Agonists of the STING pathway are construed as encompassing any compound that directly or indirectly affects the STING pathway. Compounds could be construed as encompassing but not limited to, small molecules, antibodies, peptides, proteins, and any combination thereof.
The art further indicates that STING agonists were highly selective. Preclinical studies using the agent 5,6- dimethyllxanthenone-4-acetic acid (DMXAA) showed potent anti-tumor activity in various mouse models. However, this agent showed no effect in the clinic when combined with chemotherapy in a Phase III trial in human non-small cell lung cancer. DMXAA can only interact with the murine molecule. This likely explains the lack of clinical activity of this compound in human cancer patients, and prompted the development of new agents that might serve as direct human STING agonists. At the same time, it has become apparent that the human TMEM173 (STING gene) is polymorphic, and natural CDNs do not stimulate all human STING variants (Corrales et al (Cytokine 77:245-247 (2016) at p. 2- previously cited). Thus, the skilled artisan would have known that although a compound may be a “STING agonist” it would have limited functionality with respect to i) Ab (mouse Ab and human specific STING agonist combination), or ii) the animal species to which the claimed antibody conjugate was administered.
It is noted that Applicant has not addressed this part of the rejection- as relating to variable selectivity of STING agonists.
As noted by Applicant, the claimed antibody conjugates comprise an antibody that recognizes a “suitable antigen”- which further imparts variability and complexity to the instant claim scope because the target antigens are not expressly defined. The corresponding antibody sequence(s) are also unknown. The categories of cytotoxic compounds recited in claim 1 encompass numerous specific chemicals and compounds.
The individual components of the claimed antibody conjugates are extremely broad and encompasses many different antibody and/or antigen binding fragments, cytotoxic compounds, and immunomodulatory payloads (agonists of the STING pathway). The instant claim scope encompasses an infinite number of combinations thereof to arrive at the claimed antibody conjugates. However, the specification does not disclose any representative of the entire diverse genus. There is no guidance as to what specific compounds can physically be combined with each other to form the claimed antibody conjugates while retaining individual functional properties.
Applicant’s amendment relating to 3 amino acids [K422, Y180, F404] or glutamine residues for drug/immunomodulatory payload binding provides insufficient guidance as to the overall sequence/structure of the claimed antibody conjugates. Applicant’s arguments regarding Examples 17, 19, and 29 (reply at pp. 19-20) are for unrelated antibody conjugates and cannot be conflated to provide probative guidance for the instantly claimed antibody conjugates comprising different antibody and/or antigen binding fragments, cytotoxic compounds, and immunomodulatory payloads (agonists of the STING pathway).
For at least the reasons presented above, the rejection is maintained.
Relevant Art Not Relied Upon
Bruml et al (WO2018/200812, published Nov 2018- previously cited) teach immunoconjugates comprising an antibody, or a functional fragment thereof, linked to a STING agonist via a linker. The antibody, or functional fragment thereof, can be engineered to include a non-naturally occurring amino acid, e.g., para-acetyl Phe or para-azido-Phe, which is reacted with the linker component of the immunoconjugates. The immunoconjugates can be combined with a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier or excipient, and with one or more additional therapeutic agents, and then administered to a patient in order to treat cancer.
Bruml et al do not teach or suggest that an immunoconjugate comprises a cytotoxic compound linked to the Ab-STING agonist. The reference does not teach or suggest an antibody conjugate comprising three distinct elements: Ab, STING agonist, and drug payload (cytotoxic compound).
Thompson et al (U.S. 20170158772- previously cited) teach compositions of antibody construct-immune stimulatory compound conjugates (abstract). The antibody construct comprises an antigen binding domain and an Fc domain. The immune stimulatory compound can be a STIN agonist (e.g., para. [0066], [0173]).
Thompson et al do not teach or suggest that an immunoconjugate comprises a cytotoxic compound linked to the Ab-STING agonist. The reference does not teach or suggest an antibody conjugate comprising three distinct elements: Ab, STING agonist, and drug payload (cytotoxic compound).
U.S. Patent No. 11,744,876- previously cited, which issued based upon parent application 16/898,233, has been carefully considered; however, the claims of the ‘876 patent do not raise issues of non-statutory double patenting with the instant claims. The claims of the ‘876 patent do not recite STING agonists.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 13-19, 21-26, 28-33, 43, 44 and 46-63 are pending. Claims 19, 21-23, 30, 32, 33, 43, 44, and 47-63 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 13-18, 24-26, 28, 29, 31, and 46 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTINA M HELLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2836. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:30 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, LIANKO GARYU can be reached at 571-270-7367. 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.
/KRISTINA M HELLMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1654
