DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action details a final action on the merits for the above referenced application No. Claims 1-10, 12, 14, 16-20, and 28-29 are pending in this application.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, and 16-17 are amended. Claims 11, 13, 15, 21-27, and 30-38 are cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 17 Aug. 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 17 Aug. 2026 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicants amendments, the rejection of claims 13 and 17 under 35 USC 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter is withdrawn.
In view of Applicants amendments, the rejection of claim 30 under 35 USC 102(a)(1),(2) as being anticipated by Bander et al. (WO 2018/204477A1; published 8 Nov. 2018) is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12, 14, 16-20, and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bander et al. (WO 2018/204477 A1; published 8 Nov. 2018) for the reasons cited in the Office action filed on 17 Feb. 2026.
Regarding claim 30, Bander et al. disclose co-incubation of J591-177Lu and PSMA-617-177Lu leading to additive amount of radiolabel within cells wherein the amount of first and second therapeutic component internalized and retained inside the tumor is greater than the sum of the first and second therapeutic components internalized and retained in a tumor if each of the first and second therapeutic agents were administered individually (example 1). Bander et a. teach methods and reagents for tumor targeting with greater efficacy and less toxicity (see title). Bander et al. teach combined treatment using radiolabeled anti-PSMA antibody J591-177Lu and radiolabeled PSMA-617-177Lu results in additive anti-tumor effect in vivo. Equal antitumor effect could be achieved at half the dose of J591-177Lu (75 µCi) by also adding a dose of PSMA-617-177Lu (200 µCi) ([0102]-[0103]). The data shows that co-administering 2 agents that bind different sites of a target molecule present on a population of cells results in additive binding of those agents. Where the target molecule/receptor is internalized, additive amounts of the 2 agents will therefore be internalized. If the 2 targeting agents have different properties such that their respective side effects differ, the 2 agents can be co-administered to result in additive binding/uptake by the targeted cells without causing any added toxicity ([0104]). When the two targeted agents are combined in a treatment strategy, the result is that both drugs converge simultaneously or sequentially at the target site providing a combined treatment effect ([0009]). Bander et al. teach maximum tolerable dose ([0023]). The first and second targeting components target the same molecular target ([0041]). In another embodiment, the first and second target components target different molecular targets on the same cell type ([0042]). The first and/or second targeting components may be the same or different ([0044]). The first and/or second therapeutic component is a chemotherapeutic agent independently selected from busulfan, etc ([0048]). The cancer is prostate cancer, neuroendocrine cancer, breast cancer, or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma ([0026]). Bander et al. teach dosing in human patients where the two classes of agents differ greatly both in molecular size and plasma half-life (prophetic example 1).
Bander et al. do not expressly teach treating a subject for cancer by administering the first and second therapeutic agents no more than 8 h, 6 h, 4 h, or 2 h apart from each other or simultaneously.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bander et al. (composition and method of treating e.g. prostate cancer in a human subject comprising the use of J591-177Lu and PSMA-617-177Lu to result in additive binding/uptake by targeted cells without causing any added toxicity) so that the J591-177Lu and PSMA-617-177Lu are co-administered 8 h, 6 h, 4 h, or 2 h or simultaneously as taught and suggested by Bander et al. because those co-administration times would have been expected to enable additive internalization and optimal efficacy resulting from simultaneous or sequential contact at the target site within the half-life of both agents.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Bander et al. so that the first and second molecular components target the same molecular target or so that the cancer is a neuroendocrine cancer as taught by Bander et al. because it would have been expected to provide an equivalent method of treating a cancer including a neuroendocrine cancer, the equivalent method advantageously enabling greater than additive internalization of the first and second therapeutic agent whereby improving therapeutic outcome.
Applicants’ Arguments
Applicants assert that in contrast to Bander, the presently claimed invention requires administering the first and second agents no more that 8 h apart from each other to the subject to treat cancer wherein the result of the administering the first and second cancer therapeutic component internalized and retained within a tumor is greater that the sum of the first and second cancer therapeutic components internalized and retained in a tumor if each of the first and second agents were administered individually. At [0013], the as filed application describes not just additive dose to tumor can be achieved but synergy can be derived where the total dose to the tumor exceeds the sum of its individual agents.
At example 1, an in vivo imaging study of treated mice found that the 3rd group of animals that were treated with both 617-Lu-177 plus J591-Lu177 had the greatest number of counts which exceeded the sum of the tumors that got either agent alone meeting the definition of synergy. At example 2, tumors treated with both PSMA-617-Lu177 and PSMA-617-Lu177 had counts 48% greater than the sum of each of its individual components. The findings of example 3 demonstrate that in the 3 xenograft models, the combination of antibody plus small molecule ligand targeted radiopharmaceuticals delivered from the 44-65% more radiation dose to tumor that the sum of the 2 individual agents when given individually.
The administration of the presently claimed first and second agents as required by amending claim 1 allows for increased uptake and retention of the claimed agents to the tumor comprising the target. The administration is of the claimed first and second agents allows for increased internalization of each agent wherein each agent is retained for a longer period in the tumor.
Applicants’ arguments filed 17 Aug. 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. At example 2 and Figs 2 and 3, Bander describes that the combined treatment using radiolabeled anti-PSMA antibody J591-177Lu and radiolabeled PSMA-617-177Lu results in additive anti-tumor effect in vivo. In this case, Bander describes studies in mice bearing LNCaP or CWR22Rv1 xenografts. In the case of LNCaP xenografts, equal anti-tumor effect could be achieved at half the dose of J591-177Lu (i.e. 75 µCi) by also adding a dose of PSMA-617-177Lu (200 µCi). In the case of CWR22Rv1 xenografts, the best anti-tumor response could be equaled by J591-177Lu at 135 µCi plus 525µCi of PSMA-617-177Lu. These examples read on the instant method for treating a subject for cancer as amended wherein the method comprises providing a first agent comprising a first component coupled to a first cancer therapeutic component (J591-177Lu); providing a second agent comprising a second targeting component coupled to a second cancer therapeutic component (PSMA-671-177Lu) wherein the first and second targeting components have different biodistributions and/or pharmacokinetics in the subject and wherein the first and second targeting components target the PSMA receptor and wherein the first and second cancer therapeutic component is a radionuclide (177Lu). Regarding the recitation of administering the first and second agents no more than eight hours apart from each other to the subject to treat cancer, Figs 2 and 3 imply simultaneous administration of J591-177Lu and PSMA-617-177Lu as e.g. the LU177_Combo; 75+200 µCi. In addition, at [0009], Bander teaches and suggests that both drugs should converge simultaneously or sequentially at the target site to provide a combined treatment effect. Regarding the claim recitation that the amount of first and second cancer therapeutic component internalized and retained within a tumor is greater than the sum of the first and second therapeutic components internalized and retained in a tumor if each of the first and second agents were administered individually, it is noted that the combined treatment at example 2 in Bander (J591-177Lu +PSMA-617-177Lu) is the same as the combined treatment at instant example 1 and 2 (J591-177Lu +PSMA-617-177Lu) wherein it was determined that mice treated with both 617-Lu177 plus J591-Lu177 have the greatest of counts measured via ex vivo imaging which exceeds the sum of the tumors that either alone. Accordingly, the example 2 treatment in Bander must result in the claim recitation. In addition, it is noted that as intended result of a previously applied method step is generally not given weight. See Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In this case, at example 2, Bander exemplifies the previously applied method steps of claim 1 as amended.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10, 12, 14, 16-20, and 28-29 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26, 48, and 61 of copending Application No. 18/029,596, in view of Bander et al. (WO 2018/204477 A1; published 8 Nov. 2018) for the reasons cited in the Office action filed on 17 Feb. 2026. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-26, 48, and 61 of copending Application No. 18/029,596 claim a method for treating cancer, the method comprising: providing a first therapeutic agent comprising a first targeting component coupled to a cancer therapeutic component; providing a second agent comprising a second targeting component alone wherein second agent increases the uptake, internalization, and/or retention of the first target component coupled to a cancer therapeutic and administering to the subject having cancer, the first and second agents to treat cancer optionally wherein the first agent is PSMA-617-177Lu and the second agent is J581 optionally wherein the first and second targeting components target the same molecular target or different targets on the same cell optionally wherein the cancer therapeutic has a MTD and less than the MTD is given during the administering optionally wherein the cancer therapeutic component is a chemotherapeutic component selected from busulfan, etc, optionally wherein the subject is human and optionally wherein the cancer is a prostate cancer, neuroendocrine cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, breast cancer and optionally wherein the first and second agents are different and optionally a combination therapeutic for treating cancer.
Claims 1-26, 48, and 61 of copending Application No. 18/029,596 do not claim a second agent where the second targeting component is coupled to a second cancer therapeutic component. Claims 1-26, 48, and 61 of copending Application No. 18/029,596 do not further claim administering the first and second agents no more than 8 h, 6 h, 4 h, or 2 h apart from each other or administered simultaneously.
Bander et al. teach as discussed above.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claims 1-26, 48, and 61 of copending Application No. 18/029,596 so that the second targeting agent comprises a second targeting component coupled to a second cancer therapeutic component and so that the amount of first and second therapeutic components internalized and retained within a tumor is greater than the sum of the first and second therapeutic components internalized and retained in a tumor if each of the first and second agents were administered individually and so that the first and second agent are optionally blended as taught by Bander et al. because it would have been expected to advantageously enable greater than additive accumulation of two different therapeutic components in the cancer whereby enabling effective treatment of cancer. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify claims 1-26, 48, and 61 of copending Application No. 18/029,596 so that the first and second agents are co-administered 8 h, 6 h, 4 h, or 2 h or simultaneously as taught and suggested by Bander et al. because those co-administration times would have been expected to enable additive internalization and optimal efficacy resulting from simultaneous or sequential contact at the target site within the half-life of both agents.
Claims 1-10, 12, 14, 16-20, and 28-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,285,503 B2 in view of Bander et al. (WO 2018/204477 A1; published 8 Nov. 2018) for the reasons cited in the Office action filed on 17 Feb. 2026.
Claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,285,503 B2 claim a method for treating prostate cancer in a subject, comprising co-administering to a subject in need thereof, a therapeutically effective amount of J591-Ac225 and a therapeutically effective amount of a PSMA ligand/inhibitor wherein the PSMA/ligand inhibitors is optionally PSMA 617-177Lu optionally wherein the agents are administering in separated composition or are co-administered simultaneously (within 8 h, 6 h, 4 h, and 2 h apart from each other) and optionally allow to be dosed at about 25% to 100% of their MTD. Claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,285,503 B2 claim a combination therapeutic optionally wherein the first and second agents are in the same or separate compositions.
Claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,285,503 B2 do not claim that the first and second targeting components target the same molecular target or different molecular targets on the same cell or claim cytotoxic agents selected from the group consisting of busulfan, etc or claim a human subject or claim treating a neuroendocrine cancer, etc.
Bander et al. teach as discussed above.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,285,503 B2 so that the first and second agents target the same molecular target or different molecular targets on the same cell or so that the first and/or second therapeutic components are selected from busulfan, etc or so that the subject is human subject as taught by claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,285,503 B2 because those modifications would have been expected to provide an equivalent method of treating cancer in a human subject wherein the first and second therapeutic components internalize and retain in a tumor greater than the sum if each of the first and second agents were administered individually. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,285,503 B2 by further treating a neuroendocrine cancer as taught by Bander et al. because it would have been expected to provide an equivalent method of treating a cancer including a neuroendocrine cancer, the equivalent method advantageously enabling additive internalization of the first and second therapeutic agent whereby improving therapeutic outcome.
Applicants’ Arguments
Applicants respectfully defers addressing the present NSDP rejections until there is allowable subject matter or all remaining rejections are withdrawn.
Applicants’ arguments filed 17 Aug. 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Allowable subject matter has not been identified for the reasons discussed above. The NSDP rejections are being maintained for the reasons cited in the Office action filed on 17 Feb. 2026.
New Grounds of Rejection
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 8 and 20 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. In this case, claim 1 has been amended so that the first and second targeting agents target the PSMA receptor. Claim 8 depends on claim 1 and requires that the first and second targeting agents target different molecular targets on the same cell. It is not clear if claim 8 further limits claim 1 as amended since both targeting agents in amended claim 1 target PSMA which is the same molecular target. Claim 20 depends to claim 1 and requires that the cancer is a neuroendocrine cancer, breast cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma or Hodgkin’s disease. It is not clear if claim 20 further limits claim 1 as amended since those cancers are generally not considered to be PSMA associated cancers.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN R DONOHUE whose telephone number is (571)270-7441. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 - 5:00 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, Michael Hartley can be reached on (571)272-0616. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael G. Hartley/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1618
/SEAN R. DONOHUE/
Examiner, Art Unit 1618
Prosecution Insights