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 .
DETAILED ACTION
2. Claims 1 – 20 are pending in this application and are examined on the merits herein.
Priority
3. This application is a domestic application, filed August 24, 2023, which claims benefit of provisional application 63/400,563, filed August 24, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/24/2023 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(b) because they are incomplete. 37 CFR 1.83(b) reads as follows:
When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
The structures are blurry in figure 3.
The axis and labeling are blurry in figures 6A – 6F and 7.
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.
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.
Claims 3 – 6 and 8 – 13 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.
a. Claims 3 and 8 recite “GL-2179”, “GL-2029”, “GL-288-Y-1, and “GL-522Y-1 Calcium” in lines 2 and 8, respectively. These GL codes used are not explicitly defined in the specification in such a way to enable one skilled in the art to which pertains and the drawing does not include the structures of these compounds. Moreover, these GL codes are not a term of art recognized in the relevant literature or prior art publications. Because the record does not provide sufficient information to identify the substances corresponding to these GL codes, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonably certainty. Therefore, claims 3 and 8 are indefinite. Claims 4 – 6 and 9 – 13 depend from claims 3 and 8 are also considered as indefinite.
b. Claim 3 recites that “4-t-butylcalix[X] arene-p-sulfonic acid includes…GL-2021…, GL-522-Y-1” in lines 1 – 2. However, the structures GL-2021 and GL-522-Y-1 shown in Figure 3 do not contain 4-t-butyl moieties Thus, it is unclear whether claim 3 is limited to compounds having the recited 4-t-butylcalix[X] arene-p-sulfonic acid or whether GL-2021 and GL-522-Y-1 are intended to be included regardless of that structural limitation. Therefore, claim 3 is indefinite. Claims 4 – 6 depend from claim 3 are also considered as indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the phrase “4-t-butylcalix[X] arene-p-sulfonic acid” is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation to encompass the recited compounds GL-2179, GL-2021, GL-2029, GL0288-Y-1, GL-522-Y-1, and GL-522Y-1 Calcium that do not contain 4-t-butyl moieties.
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 3 – 6 and 8 – 13 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.
c. Claim 3 is drawn to a composition for inhibiting SARS-CoV-2, wherein the composition comprises one or more inhibitors configured to bind the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, wherein the one or more inhibitors include pentosan polysulfate, mucopolysaccharide polysulfate, sulfated lactobrionic acid, sulodexide, a defibrotide, 4-t-butylcalix[X] arene-p-sulfonic acid, or combinations thereof, wherein the 4-t-butylcalix[X] arene-p-sulfonic acid includes GL-2179, GL-2021, GL-2029, GL-288-Y-1, GL-522-Y-1, GL-522Y-1 Calcium, or combinations thereof.
Claim 8 is drawn to a method of treating an individual with SARS-CoV-2, comprising identifying a SARS-CoV-2 infection in a patient’ and nasally administering an effective amount of a composition to the patient, the composition including one or more inhibitors configured to bind to spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, wherein the one or more inhibitors include pentosan polysulfate, mucopolysaccharide polysulfate, sulfated lactobrionic acid, sulodexide, a defibrotide, GL-2179, GL-2021, GL-2029, GL-288-Y-1, GL-522-Y-1, GL-522Y-1 Calcium, or combinations thereof.
Therefore, the claims are drawn to both a composition comprising one or more inhibitors include pentosan polysulfate, mucopolysaccharide polysulfate, sulfated lactobrionic acid, sulodexide, a defibrotide, 4-t-butylcalix[X] arene-p-sulfonic acid, or combinations thereof, wherein the 4-t-butylcalix[X] arene-p-sulfonic acid includes GL-2179, GL-2021, GL-2029, GL-288-Y-1, GL-522-Y-1, GL-522Y-1 Calcium, or combinations thereof and a method of treating SARS-CoV-2 in a subject, wherein the method comprises administering to a patient pentosan polysulfate, mucopolysaccharide polysulfate, sulfated lactobrionic acid, sulodexide, a defibrotide, GL-2179, GL-2021, GL-2029, GL-288-Y-1, GL-522-Y-1, GL-522Y-1 Calcium, or combinations thereof.
The instant claims recite structural limitations “GL-2179” and “GL-2029, GL-288-Y-1, GL-522-Y-1, GL-522Y-1 Calcium, or combinations thereof”, but the instant claims and specification do not provide any structure that corresponds to these limitations.
The examiner directs attention to MPEP § 2163.05, which states, “The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice…, reduction to drawings…, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e. structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the inventor was in possession of the claimed genus…”. The instant specification does not show possession of “GL-2179” and “GL-2029, GL-288-Y-1, GL-522-Y-1, GL-522Y-1 Calcium, or combinations thereof” because no structure or identifying characteristics are disclosed.
The drawing section of the specification only illustrates the structures of GL-2079, GL-2021, GL-2129, and GL-522-Y-1 and the specification does not provide examples or structural formulae for the limitations “GL-2179” and “GL-2029, GL-288-Y-1, GL-522-Y-1, GL-522Y-1 Calcium, or combinations thereof”. There is no prior art that specifically teaches “GL-2179” and “GL-2029, GL-288-Y-1, GL-522-Y-1, GL-522Y-1 Calcium, or combinations thereof”. It is not evident by the disclosure or the prior art, that Applicant was in possession of the claimed “GL-2179” and “GL-2029, GL-288-Y-1, GL-522-Y-1, GL-522Y-1 Calcium, or combinations thereof”. Therefore, the instant claims do not meet the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Dependent claims 4 – 6 and 9 – 13 are also rejected because these claims are referring to “GL-2179” and “GL-2029, GL-288-Y-1, GL-522-Y-1, GL-522Y-1 Calcium, or combinations thereof”.
Claims 14 – 20 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 treating an infection caused by SARS-CoV-2 in a patient, does not reasonably provide enablement for a method of preventing an infection caused by SARS-CoV-2 in a patient. 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 use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Claims 15 – 20 depend from claim 14.
The Applicant’s attention is drawn to re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (CAFC1988) at 1404 where the court set forth eight factors to consider where assessing if a disclosure would have required undue experimentation. Citing Ex parte Forman, 230 USPQ 546 (BdApls 1986) at 547 the court recited eight factors:
(1) The nature of the invention;
(2) the state of the prior art;
(3) the relative skill of those in the art;
(4) the predictability or unpredictability of the art;
(5) the breadth of the claims;
(6) the amount of direction or guidance presented;
(7) the presence or absence of working examples; and
(8) the quantity of experimentation necessary.
The nature of the invention & The breadth of claims:
The claimed invention is directed to a method of treating or preventing an infection caused by SARS-CoV-2 in a patient. In order to be enabled for the full scope of the method, one skilled in the art must reasonably be able to ascertain which compositions are effective to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. Moreover, “preventing” infection including administering the claimed formulation to a subject not suffering from SARS-CoV-2 infection in such a manner that the subject does not experience SARS-CoV-2 infection in the future.
The state of prior art:
While several human coronaviruses are known in the prior art, the state of art is not particularly advanced with respect to antiviral agents against these pathogens. For example, Yao et al. (Journal of Medical Virology, February 2020, Vol. 92, Issue 6, Reference included with PTO-892) teach that there are different coronaviruses, such as COVID-19, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV (page 536, Right Col., para. 2). Some in-vitro studies of SARS-CoV demonstrate that the combination of lopinavir and ritonavir may inhibit the SARS-CoV 3CLpro enzyme. Another study shows that neither lopinavir nor ritonavir has an effect on the replication of SARS-CoV. However, studies have revealed that lopinavir has antiviral activity against SARS-CoV (page 557, Left Col., para. 2 – 3). Some in-vitro studies of MERS-CoV shows LPV inhibition. Other study shows that LPV is not effective (page 557, Left Col., para. 5). For COVID-19, there are no reported in-vitro studies. A treatment of LPV/r was given to four patients and three patients showed significant improvement in pneumonia-associated symptoms (page 562, Left Col., para. 4). Yao et al. demonstrate variability in the antiviral efficacy of LPV/r across different coronavirus species, indicating that a single treatment cannot be presumed effective against all coronaviruses. Yao et al. also assert that there is no specific antiviral therapies for COVID-19 (Abstract), thus, there was no established therapies for treating COVID-19 at the time of filing, let alone for prevention of infection or transmission. Moreover, Virology Research Service (Virology Research Service, 2019, Reference included with PTO-892) teaches that individuals differ in their susceptibility to viral infections (page 3, para. 1). Multiple innate factors, such as age, nutritional status, genetics, immune competency, and pre-existing chronic diseases, and external variables, such as concurrent drug therapy, influence the overall susceptibility of a person exposed to a virus (page 3, para. 2).
The relative skill of those in the art:
The relative skill of those in the art is high.
The predictability or unpredictability of the art:
As disclosed by Yao et al., the antiviral efficacy of LPV, alone or in combination with ritonavir, varies across different coronaviruses species, including SARS-CoV. This variability in antiviral activity across closely related coronavirus species indicates that therapeutic efficacy could not be reliably extrapolated from one coronavirus to another. Given the unpredictability of the therapeutic agents, the use of antiviral agents for prevention of infection would also have been uncertain. Moreover, the wide range of factors make it impossible to predict which subjects will develop a viral infection in the future and medication for treating SARS-CoV-2 infection are generally given to subjects already displaying symptoms rather than to healthy subjects who might develop SARS-CoV-2 infection in the future.
The amount of direction or guidance presented & The presence or absence of working examples:
The specification provides direction for in-vitro evaluation of compounds that interact with the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. For example, the disclosure describes SPR assays measuring interactions between heparin and the SARS-CoV-2 S-protein RBD (para. [48 – 51]). In these assays, sulfated glycans are mixed with S-protein RBD and injected over a heparin chip to measure inhibition of binding and IC50 values. However, the disclosure does not provide sufficient guidance enabling the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection as broadly claimed. The working examples are limited to in-vitro binding and pseudovirus infectivity assays, which demonstrate only that certain sulfated glycans can reduce spike protein binding or decrease infectivity in cultured cells. These experiments demonstrate reduction of infection in-vitro, but the specification does not provide working examples demonstrating prevention of infection in-vivo. Thus, the disclosure do not provide any evidence supporting the prevention of SARS-CoV-2.
The quantity of experimentation necessary:
In order to carry out the claimed preventative treatment, one of ordinary skill in the art would need to develop specifically preventative treatment from scratch with no assistance from Applicant’s declaration beyond the general idea that pentosan polysulfate, mucopolysaccharide polysulfate, sulfated lactobrionic acid, sulodexide, a defibrotide, 4-t-butylcalix[X] arene-p-sulfonic acid are an antiviral agent effective against SARS-CoV-2. Because SARS-CoV-2 infection is caused by multiple factors as mentioned above, determining which healthy patients would benefit from this treatment would be difficult and unpredictable based on the state of the art, and any treatment is likely to be imperfectively effective given the influence of other factors..
Genentech, 108 F.3d at 1366, states that “a patent is not a hunting license. It is not a reward for search, but compensation for its successful conclusion.” And “patent protection is granted in return for an enabling disclosure of an invention, not for vague intimations of general ideas that may or may not be workable.”
Therefore, in view of the Wands factors, as discussed above, particularly the state of art and the lack of guidance or working examples, Applicant fails to provide information sufficient to practice the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1 – 2, 7, and 14 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bertini et al. (Thrombosis and Haemostasis, March 2022, Vol. 122, Issue 06, page 984 – 997, Reference included with PTO-892).
a. Independent claim 1 is directed to a composition for inhibiting SARS-CoV-2, wherein the composition comprises one inhibitors configured to bind to spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, wherein the inhibitor is pentosan polysulfate. Dependent claim 2 is directed to the composition, wherein the composition is formulated for nasal delivery. Dependent claim 7 is directed to the composition, wherein the composition includes pharmaceutically acceptable carrier. Independent claim 14 is directed to a method of treating an infection caused by SARS-CoV-2 in a patient, comprising administering an effective amount of a composition to a patient to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection, wherein the composition includes one inhibitor configured to bind to spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, wherein the inhibitor includes one or more sulfated glycans having a plurality of repeating disaccharide subunits, wherein the disaccharide subunits include 3 or more sulfo groups. Dependent claim 15 is directed to the method, wherein the method comprises administering the composition nasally via nasal delivery. Dependent claims 16 – 18 are directed to the method, wherein the sulfated glycan is pentosan polysulfate with a molecular weight greater than about 5 kDa or 10 kDa. Dependent claim 19 is directed to the method, wherein the composition includes a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier. Dependent claim 20 is directed to the method, wherein administering to the patient the effective amount of the composition produces a peak plasma concentration in the patient less than about 0.5 μg/mL.
Bertini et al. teach that pentosan polysulfate (PPS) is an establish drug for the oral treatment of interstitial cystitis, is well-tolerated, and exhibits weaker anticoagulant effects than heparin. In an established Vero cell model, PPS and its fractions of varying molecular weights inhibit invasion by SARS-CoV-2. Intact PPS and its size-defined fractions are characterized by molecular weight distribution and chemical structure using NMR spectroscopy and LCMS, then employed to explore the structural basis of interactions with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S1 RBD) and the inhibition of Vero cell invasion. PPS is as effective as unfractionated heparin, but more effective in inhibiting cell infection than low-molecular-weight heparin. All data suggests that PPS is a novel inhibitor of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Abstract). Bertini et al. teach PPS and its fractions with Mw greater than 5 kDa and greater than 10 kDa (page 989, Table 1):
PNG
media_image1.png
278
775
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Both PPS and its fractions bind the S1 RBD efficiently with KD values in the μM and nM range, with similar energy changes, and both involve interactions that are driven, as expected, primarily by charge-charge interactions (page 995, Right Col., para. 1). PPS and fractions derived from it exhibit reduced anticoagulant activity for the inhibition of invasion of susceptible cells by SARS-CoV-2 and merit further investigation for potential use as a treatment (page 995, Right Col., para. 3). Bertini et al. teach that PPS has poor anticoagulant activity and is known for its anti-inflammatory activities and affinity for the cytokines, IL-4, IL-5, and IL-3, resulting in similar anti-inflammatory efficacy to topical steroids in a guinea pig model of allergic rhinitis, following intranasal administration. Indeed, aerosol administration could be an attractive approach for upper airway drug treatments, thereby enabling the relatively low bioavailability of PPS after oral administration to be overcome (page 985, Right Col., para. 3).
Claim 7 requires “pharmaceutically acceptable carriers”. Bertini et al. disclose intranasal or aerosol administration, which necessarily requires a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier. Therefore, the disclosure of Bertini et al. addresses the limitation of claim 7. Bertini et al. teach that PPS is a novel inhibitor of SARS-CoV-2 infection and PPS may be formulated for nasal delivery. As the disclosure of prior art meets all structural limitation of the claimed method, the result “produces a peak plasma concentration in the patient less than about 0.5 μg/mL” would be achieved.
For these reasons above, Bertini et al. anticipates the claimed invention.
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:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. 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.
Claims 1 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagy et al. (WO2021/255226A1) in view of Bertini et al. (Thrombosis and Haemostasis, March 2022, Vol. 122, Issue 06, page 984 – 997, Reference included with PTO-892).
b. Regarding claims 1 – 13, Nagy et al. teach a calixarene compound in an antiviral effective amount for use as an antiviral substance in a pharmaceutical preparation for use in prophylactic or therapeutic treatment of a disease condition which is caused by or associated with an infection with a virus (Abstract). Nagy et al. provide new antiviral treatments, medicinal and pharmaceutical products, which can be used to prevent from virus infection and/or virus spread, in particular in subjects that have been exposed to or infected with a virus, or who are at risk of being infected. (page 6, lines 3 – 6). The disease condition treated is SARS-CoV-2 infection (page 6, line 28). The subject has been determined or diagnosed of being infected with the virus (page 16, lines 27 – 28). The calixarene compound is a calix[n]arene characterized by the structure (I):
PNG
media_image2.png
206
217
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
wherein n = 4 – 8 and R is -SO3Ra, wherein Ra is hydrogen (page 10, lines 1 – 4), preferably n = 4, 6, or 8 (page 9, lines 10 – 11). Nagy et al. provide an exemplary compound of structure (I):
PNG
media_image3.png
313
362
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
The pharmaceutical preparation comprises the calixarene compound and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier (page 7, lines 15 – 16), wherein the pharmaceutical preparation is formulated for local administration, preferably for application to the upper and lower respiratory tract and nasal, such as a nose spray (page 13, lines 3 – 10).
However, Nagy et al. do not teach the inhibitor includes pentosan polysulfate with the molecular weight greater than about 5 kDa or 10 kDa.
Bertini et al. teach that pentosan polysulfate (PPS) is an establish drug for the oral treatment of interstitial cystitis, is well-tolerated, and exhibits weaker anticoagulant effects than heparin. In an established Vero cell model, PPS and its fractions of varying molecular weights inhibit invasion by SARS-CoV-2. Intact PPS and its size-defined fractions are characterized by molecular weight distribution and chemical structure using NMR spectroscopy and LCMS, then employed to explore the structural basis of interactions with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S1 RBD) and the inhibition of Vero cell invasion. PPS is as effective as unfractionated heparin, but more effective in inhibiting cell infection than low-molecular-weight heparin. All data suggests that PPS is a novel inhibitor of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Abstract). Bertini et al. teach PPS and its fractions with Mw greater than 5 kDa and greater than 10 kDa (page 989, Table 1):
PNG
media_image1.png
278
775
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Both PPS and its fractions bind the S1 RBD efficiently with KD values in the μM and nM range, with similar energy changes, and both involve interactions that are driven, as expected, primarily by charge-charge interactions (page 995, Right Col., para. 1). PPS and fractions derived from it exhibit reduced anticoagulant activity for the inhibition of invasion of susceptible cells by SARS-CoV-2 and merit further investigation for potential use as a treatment (page 995, Right Col., para. 3). Bertini et al. teach that PPS has poor anticoagulant activity and is known for its anti-inflammatory activities and affinity for the cytokines, IL-4, IL-5, and IL-3, resulting in similar anti-inflammatory efficacy to topical steroids in a guinea pig model of allergic rhinitis, following intranasal administration. Indeed, aerosol administration could be an attractive approach for upper airway drug treatments, thereby enabling the relatively low bioavailability of PPS after oral administration to be overcome (page 985, Right Col., para. 3). The reduced anticoagulant potency of PPS and its fractions compared with heparin, alongside its well-tolerated oral administration even at high dose (300 mg daily), suggests that oral administration or, even better, aerosol administration of PPS might provide an effective and safe prophylactic treatment of COVID-19 disease (page 986, Left Col., para. 1). Furthermore, the docking experiments suggest that the interactions of both heparin and PPS with S1 RBD occur between the sulfate groups of the xylohexasaccharide and the site I sequence of S1 RBD (page 995, Right Col., para. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the -SO3H of the calixarene compound as taught by Nagy et al. with a sulfate group in view of the Bertini et al. because Nagy et al. teach that the R substituent may be varied and Bertini et al. explicitly disclose that sulfate group is where the PPS interacts with the S1 RBD. One would have been motivated to substitute the -SO3H of the calixarene compound as taught by Nagy et al. with a sulfate group in view of the Bertini et al. because Nagy et al. teach that the R substituent may be modified while maintaining the binding properties of the compound and Bertini eta l. teach that sulfate groups play a key role in the binding interaction with S1 RBD, thereby suggesting that incorporation of sulfate groups would maintain binding interactions with the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to substitute the -SO3H of the calixarene compound as taught by Nagy et al. with a sulfate group in view of the Bertini et al. because Nagy et al. teach that the R substituent of the calixarene compound may be modified without disrupting the binding properties of the compound and Bertini et al. teach that the sulfate group are responsible for mediating interaction with the S1 RBD, thereby indicating that incorporation of sulfate groups is expected to maintain the binding to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exemplary calix[4]arene compound as taught by Nagy et al. to calix[8]arene because Nagy et al. teach that calix[8]arene is preferred. One would have been motivated to modify the exemplary calix[4]arene compound as taught by Nagy et al. to calix[8]arene because Nagy et al. teach that calix[8]arene is a preferred homolog, thereby suggesting to a person of ordinary skill in the art that increasing ring size would have been a predictable variation expected to retain the desired binding interaction. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the exemplary calix[4]arene compound as taught by Nagy et al. to calix[8]arene because Nagy et al. explicitly teach that calix[8]arene are preferred homologs and the selection of these ring sizes would be predictable to yield calixarene compounds with the expected binding interaction. These modifications read on the limitation “GL-522-Y-1”.
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified calixarene compounds as taught by Nagy et al. with pentosan polysulfate in view of Bertini et al. because Nagy et al. teach calixarene compounds for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection and Bertini et al. teach that pentosan polysulfate is a novel inhibitor of SARS-CoV-2. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to do this because both drugs are known separately in the prior art for the purpose of treating SARS-CoV-2 infection, and it would have been obvious to combine to treat the same disease. Moreover, the disclosure of prior art meets all structural limitation of claimed method, the intended result of claim 13 “produces a peak plasma concentration in the patient less than about 0.5 μg/mL” would be achieved. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to combine the modified calixarene compounds as taught by Nagy et al. with pentosan polysulfate in view of Bertini et al. because it is well known to combine drugs to treat the same disease.
Conclusion
No claim is found to be allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOI YAN LEE whose telephone number is 571-270-0265. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 - 17:30.
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.
/H.Y.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1693
/SCARLETT Y GOON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1693