DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims
2. The claims filed December 4, 2023 were previously entered. Claims 1-10, 12-14, 16-19, 22-23 and 31 are under consideration.
Election/Restrictions
3. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group A in the reply filed on Oct. 21, 2025 is acknowledged. It is noted that Applicants did not elect a SINGLE SELECTED variable region selected from a variable regions of: MH1, MH3-6, MH11-12, MH14-18, MH 20-25, MH27- 35, MH38-40, MH42, MH45-46, MH48-51, MH55-60, MH62-68, MH73-76, MH80, MH82-83 and MH90. Claim 6-10, 12-14, 16-19, 22-23 and 31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on Oct. 21, 2025.
4. It is noted that the election of Group A, claims 1-5 wherein claims 2 and 3 are limited to MH4, MH28, MH58 and MH91 ONLY.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 30, 2023, Feb. 29, 2024 and March 24, 2025 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
6. Claims 1-5 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. This is a written description rejection.
The claims read on a composition comprising at least one immunotherapeutic agent, wherein the at least one immunotherapeutic agent is selected from: an antibody against an antigen of Subdoligranulum didolesgii strain D8; an antibody fragment against an antigen of Subdoligranulum didolesgii strain D8; a vaccine against Subdoligranulum didolesgii strain D8; or any combination thereof.
However, the said antibodies, antibody fragments and vaccines have not been inadequately described. The Specification states “An “antibody” (Ab) shall include, without limitation, an immunoglobulin which binds specifically to an antigen and comprises at least two heavy (H) chains and two light (L) chains interconnected by disulfide bonds, or an antigen-binding portion thereof.” An “antigen binding portion” of an Ab (also called an “antigen-binding fragment”) or antigen binding portion thereof refers to one or more sequences of an Ab (full length or fragment of the full length antibody) that retain the ability to bind specifically to the antigen bound by the whole Ab. Examples of an antigen-binding fragment include Fab, F(ab’), scFv (single-chain variable fragment), Fab’, dsFv, sc(Fv)2, and scFv-Fc. See pages 19-20.
The written description in this instant case does not set forth these antibodies, fragments and/or vaccines, which are required in the claimed composition.
The instant application does not provide sufficient guidance as to the nexus or correlation between the structure and function of the antibody or antibody fragment and the antigen that places the skilled artisan in possession of the genus of antibodies in scope with the claimed invention. Additionally, the instant application does not provide sufficient guidance as to the nexus or correlation between the structure, mechanism and function of the antigen, antibodies, antibody fragments or unnamed vaccines that places the skilled artisan in possession of the genus of antibodies, antibody fragments and/or vaccines within the scope with the claimed invention.
In Abbvie v. Centocor (Fed. Cir. 2014), the Court held that a disclosure of many different antibodies (in that case neutralizing antibodies to IL-12 with a particular binding affinity) was not enough to support the genus of all IL-12 neutralizing antibodies because the disclosed antibodies were very closely related to each other in structure and were not representative of the full diversity of the genus. The Court further noted that functionally defined genus claims can be inherently vulnerable to invalidity challenge for lack of written description support especially in technology fields that are highly unpredictable where it is difficult to establish a correlation between structure and function for the whole genus or to predict what would be covered by the functionally claimed genus.
“A sufficient description of a genus . . . requires the disclosure of either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can "visualize or recognize" the members of the genus.” See AbbVie, 759 F.3d at 1297, reiterating Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568-69.
Vas-Cath Inc. V Mahurkar, 19 U5PQ2d 1111, clearly states that "applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the 'written description' inquiry, whatever is now claimed." (See page 1117). The specification does not "clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed." (See Vas-Cath at page 1116).
Applicant is reminded that Vas-Cath makes clear that the written description provision of 35 U.S.C. 112 is severable from its enablement provision (see page 115).
The skilled artisan cannot envision the detailed structure of the encompassed polypeptides and therefore conception is not achieved until reduction to practice has occurred, regardless of the complexity or simplicity of the method of isolation. Adequate written description requires more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and a reference to a potential method of isolating it. The polypeptide itself is required. See Fiers v. Revel, 25 U5PQ 2d 1601 at 1606 (CAFC1993) and Amgen Inc. V. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Lts. 18 U5PQ2d 1016.
Furthermore, In The Reagents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly (43 U5PQ2d 1398-1412), the court held that a generic statement which defines a genus of nucleic acids by only their functional activity does not provide an adequate written description of the genus. The court indicated that while Applicants are not required to disclose every species encompassed by a genus, the description of a genus is achieved by the recitation of a representative number of DNA molecules, usually defined by a nucleotide sequence, falling within the scope of the claimed genus. At section B(l), the court states that "An adequate written description of a DNA...'requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties', not a mere wish or plan for obtaining the claimed chemical invention".
At the time the application was filed Applicants do not seem to be in possession of antigens, antibodies or fragments thereof, as well as a reagent required for the claimed composition. Applicants did not have possession of the breadth of these molecules.
The USPTO has released a Memo on the Clarification of Written Description Guidance For Claims Drawn to Antibodies and Status of 2008 Training Materials, 02/22/2018. See https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/amgen_22feb2018.pdf.
The Memo clarifies the applicability of USPTO guidance regarding the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) concerning the written description requirement for claims drawn to antibodies, including the following.
“In view of the Amgen decision, adequate written description of a newly characterized antigen alone should not be considered adequate written description of a claimed antibody to that newly characterized antigen, even when preparation of such an antibody is routine and conventional”.
There is insufficient written description of the required kind of structure-identifying information about the corresponding makeup of antigens, antibody fragments and antibodies essential to the claimed invention to demonstrate possession that fulfill the requirements of a structure-function relationships of written description. Also, see Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 124 USPQ2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
“When a patent claims a genus using functional language to define a desired result, the specification must demonstrate that the applicant has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus.” See Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
In Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 124 USPQ2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2017), relying upon Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lily & Co., 94 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed Cir. 2010), the following is noted.
To show invention, a patentee must convey in its disclosure that is “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. Demonstrating possession “requires a precise definition” of the invention. To provide this precise definition” for a claim to a genus, a patentee must disclose “a representative number of species within the scope of the genus of structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can visualize or recognize the member of the genus” (see Amgen at page 1358).
The instant disclosure, including the claims fail to disclose a representative number of species falling with the scope of the genus and/or structural common to the members of the genus so the one of skill in the art can visualize or recognize the members of the genus of anti-Subdoligranulum didolesgii strain D8; an antibody fragment against an antigen of Subdoligranulum didolesgii strain D8; or a vaccine against Subdoligranulum didolesgii strain D8. Also, it is not enough for the specification to show how to make and use the invention, i.e., to enable it (see Amgen at page 1361).
An adequate written description must contain enough information about the actual makeup of the claimed products – “a precise definition, such as structure, formula, chemic name, physical properties of other properties, of species falling with the genus sufficient to distinguish the gene from other materials”, which may be present in “functional terminology when the art has established a correlation between structure and function” (Amgen page 1361).
Here, Applicants’ claims include ligands, anti-Subdoligranulum didolesgii strain D8 antibodies, antigen fragments, and vaccines which encompass various structural, specificities and functional attributes to fulfill the requirements of a structure-function relationships of written description, but does not describe the structure-identifying information about the antibodies, nor describe a representative number of species falling with the scope of the genus or structural common to the members of the genus so the one of skill in the art can visualize or recognize the member of the genus of the actual said ligands, antibodies and a reagent.
A skilled artisan cannot, as one can do with a fully described genus, visualize or recognize the identity of the members of the genus that exhibit this functional property.
The specification does not evidence the possession of all binding molecules that are undefined and uncharacterized falling within the potentially large genus to establish possession. Consequently, Applicant was not in possession of the instant claimed invention. See University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co. 43 U5PQ2d 1398.
The full breadth of the claims do not meet the written description provision of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
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.
7. Claims 1-5 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.
The claims recite “…an antibody fragment against an antigen of Subdoligranulum didolesgii strain D8…”. While Applicants’ intent may be directed to “antigen-binding fragment thereof” or “antibody fragment thereof” the claims are not so limited and can read on any fragment. The claims are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Applicants are invited to amend the claim to recite the appropriate “fragment thereof”. Applicants should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 714.02 and 2163.06.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
8. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Based upon an analysis with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 1-5 are determined to be directed to natural products and do not recite something “significantly different” than the natural product. Natural products are “judicial exemptions”. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
The claims are drawn to a composition comprising at least one immunotherapeutic agent, wherein the at least one immunotherapeutic agent is selected from: an antibody against an antigen of Subdoligranulum didolesgii strain D8; an antibody fragment against an antigen of Subdoligranulum didolesgii strain D8; a vaccine against Subdoligranulum didolesgii strain D8; or any combination thereof.
An antibody against an antigen of Subdoligranulum didolesgii strain D8 is naturally occurring. The case of S. didolesgii, bacterial DNA is found in the intestinal epithelium of monocolonized mice, where it triggers local IgA and Th17 immune responses. See Li et al., J. Clin Invest. 2025 Sep 16;135(18):e195374. See also Chriswell et al., (Sci Transl Med. 2022 Oct 26; 14(668):eabn5166) teach clonal IgA and IgG autoantibodies from individuals at risk for rheumatoid arthritis identifying an arthritogenic strain of Subdoligranulum didolesgii strain. There are no vaccines against Subdoligranulum didolesgii strain, the claims refer to a “vaccine”. The instant specification at paragraph 115 refers to a vaccine as a substance or composition that induces an immune response. Probiotics show promise for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by modulating the gut microbiome, potentially reducing inflammation and improving symptoms like pain and joint swelling, with strains like Lactobacillus casei, B. lactis, L. rhamnosus, and B. coagulans showing beneficial effects in some studies. Therefore the antibodies and “vaccines” are not “markedly different” in structure than naturally occurring antibodies and/or probiotics. Additionally, numerous natural compounds and herbal extracts show potential by targeting inflammation, oxidative stress, and immune pathways linked to rheumatoid arthritis, with examples like curcumin (turmeric), fish oil (omega-3s), resveratrol, and plant extracts such as from green tea or Kakadu plum, often working to inhibit pro-inflammatory cytokines and pathways like NF-κB. Thus, all of the ingredients are therefore not markedly different from their counterparts found in nature.
These claims fail to satisfy the non-naturally occurring requirement. Furthermore, there is no structural difference because of the mere aggregation of natural occurring antibodies and/or probiotic together as a composition; the composition does not change the structure of the naturally occurring antibodies and probiotics. Additionally, the product claims as a whole do not recite something significantly different from the judicial exceptions because the additional components do not impose meaningful limits on the claim scope therefore substantially all practical applications of the judicial exception are covered. Moreover, the additional elements in dependent claims of antibiotics are recited at a high level of generality, and/or are well-understood, purely conventional and routine in the field, and/or are merely appended to the judicial exception without a significant change in the structure of the judicial exception itself as evidenced by the prior art recited within the rejections.
If the applicant chooses to amend the instant claims, the examiner recommends that applicant consider the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the additional steps should consist of more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity already engaged in by the scientific community. Such putative additional steps, when viewed as a whole, might add nothing significant beyond the sum of their parts taken separately. The Court has made clear that to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words "apply it." Essentially, appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality, to laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas cannot make those laws, phenomena, and ideas patent-eligible.
The unpatentability of laws of nature was confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., No. 10-1150 (March 20, 2012). The unpatentability of natural products was confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U. S. (June 13, 2013). Also see the December 4, 2014 and May 4, 2016 Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility of Claims Reciting or Involving Laws of Nature, Natural Phenomena, & Natural Products (the Guidance).
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claims are held to claim a law of nature and natural products, and are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
9. Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al., (WO2006119115 published Nov. 2006; priority to April 2006).
The claims are drawn to a composition comprising at least one immunotherapeutic agent, wherein the at least one immunotherapeutic agent is selected from: an antibody against an antigen of Subdoligranulum didolesgii strain D8; an antibody fragment against an antigen of Subdoligranulum didolesgii strain D8; a vaccine against Subdoligranulum didolesgii strain D8; or any combination thereof.
It is noted that there are no vaccines against Subdoligranulum didolesgii strain D8 or vaccines against rheumatoid arthritis. The instant specification at page 20 defines “vaccine” (also referred to as an immunogenic composition) refers to a substance or composition that induces an immune response upon inoculation into a subject. In certain embodiments, the vaccine induces an adaptive immune response. The vaccine can be used to induce a protective immune response against S. didolesgii strain D8, resulting in the depletion of S. didolesgii strain D8 and treating or preventing RA in a subject. Therefore, any composition which induces as immune response meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “vaccine”.
Chen et al., describe an anti-IL-6 antibody, including isolated nucleic acids that encode at least one anti-IL-6 antibody, vectors, host cells, transgenic animals or plants, and methods of making and using thereof have applications in diagnostic and/or therapeutic compositions, methods and devices [abstract]. Targeting IL-6 can potentially provide therapeutic benefit in a variety of disease areas. An increase in the production of IL-6 has been observed in a rheumatoid arthritis [para 5]. Chen et al., describe modulating or treating at least one IL-6 related immune related disease, in a cell, tissue, organ, animal, or patient including, but not limited to, at least one of rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, systemic onset juvenile and rheumatoid arthritis [para 185]. The Anti-IL-6 antibody compositions can further comprise at least one of any suitable and effective amount of a composition or pharmaceutical composition comprising at least one anti-IL-6 antibody contacted or administered to a cell, tissue, organ, animal or patient in need of such modulation, treatment or therapy, optionally further comprising an antirheumatic such as methotrexate [para 155]. The present invention also provides a method for modulating or treating at least one IL-6 related infectious disease in a cell, tissue, organ, animal or patient, including, but not limited to, at least one of: acute or chronic bacterial infection, acute and chronic parasitic or infectious processes, including bacterial, viral and fungal infections [para 187].
Therefore Chen et al., anticipates the rejected claims.
Pertinent Art
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See also Mirsky et al., (Molecular Biology and Evolution, Volume 32, Issue 3, March 2015, Pages 806–819).
Olee et al., (J Exp Med 1992 Mar 1;175(3):831-42). Olee et al., state the rheumatoid factor (RF)s in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, particularly those found in the inflamed joints, contain both IgM and IgG isotypes. Also, in addition to the low affinity and polyspecific RFs, RA patients have high affinity and monospecific RFs [page 832, col. 1]. To delineate the underlying mechanisms for IgG RF synthesis in RA patients, we now report the molecular characterization of the L1 IgG3' and the D1 IgGk RFs (18). These RFs bind specifically to the human Ig Fc fragment with high affinity [page 832, col. 1]. In addition to defining the RF H and L chain cDNA (designated HumhalL1, HumlalL1, Humha3dl, and Humka3dl, respectively), we also isolated the L1-RF-corresponding germline V genes (designated HumhvlL1 and HumlvlL1, respectively) [page 832, col. 1]. The patterns of mutations were not random and suggested that the L1 IgG RF was highly likely to be driven by the antigen Fc fragment. Combined, these data implied that some IgG RFs in RA patients may come from natural IgM RFs of a normal immune system [page 832, col. 1]. The results showed that the D1 IgG RF contained Vh3 and Vk3 genes, designated Humha3dl and Humka3dl, respectively (Figs. 5 and 6). The CDR3 of ha3dl contained a stretch of 10 bp that was homologous to Dk4 and a nonoverlapping stretch of 5 bp identical to D21/10, suggesting that the ha3dl H chain CDR3 might be generated by a D-D fusion of these two Dh genes and with one mutation (Fig. 5). Also, the ha3dl H chain uses a Jh4 and a C3'3 gene (Fig. 5); its Jh region is identical to a Jh4 sequence, and its C3'3 region is identical to the reported C3'3 sequence over a 77-bp region. On the other hand, the ka3dl L chain uses a Jkl gene (Fig. 6); its Jk and Ck regions are identical to reported germline sequences [pages 837-838 col. 2-1].
Sequence alignment of SEQ ID NO:9
S23624
Ig heavy chain V region - human (fragment)
C;Species: Homo sapiens (man)
C;Date: 13-Jan-1995 #sequence_revision 13-Jan-1995 #text_change 23-Jul-1999
C;Accession: S23624
R;Olee, T.; Lu, E.W.; Huang, D.F.; Soto-Gil, R.W.; Deftos, M.; Kozin, F.; Carson, D.A.; Chen, P.P.
J. Exp. Med. 175, 831-842, 1992
A;Title: Genetic analysis of self-associating immunoglobulin G rheumatoid factors from two rheumatoid synovia implicates an antigen-driven response.
A;Reference number: S23623; MUID:92156804; PMID:1740665
A;Accession: S23624
A;Status: preliminary
A;Molecule type: DNA
A;Residues: 1-143 <OLE>
A;Cross-references: UNIPARC:UPI0000115F94; EMBL:X59703; NID:g32012; PIDN:CAA42224.1; PID:g32013
C;Superfamily: immunoglobulin V region; immunoglobulin homology
C;Keywords: heterotetramer; immunoglobulin
F;15-98/Domain: immunoglobulin homology <IMM>
Query Match 68.9%; Score 441; Length 143;
Best Local Similarity 71.4%;
Matches 85; Conservative 12; Mismatches 20; Indels 2; Gaps 1;
Qy 1 QVQMVESGGGVVQPGTSLRLSCAASGFDFSSYGMHWVRQAPGKGLEWVAMISHDGTSRYY 60
:||:||||||:|||| ||||||||||| ||:| |:|||||||||||||: || :: ||
Db 1 EVQLVESGGGLVQPGGSLRLSCAASGFTFSNYSMNWVRQAPGKGLEWVSYISSSSSTIYY 60
Qy 61 GDSVKGRFTISRDNSNHTLYLQMNSLRVEDMAVYYCASWSFYYNGVDVWGRGATVTVSS 119
|||||||||||||: ::||||||||| || |||||| | | | ||:| |||||
Db 61 ADSVKGRFTISRDNAKNSLYLQMNSLRAEDTAVYYCARSG--YRGGDYWGQGTLVTVSS 117
Sequence alignment of SEQ ID NO:10
S23628
Ig kappa chain V region - human (fragment)
C;Species: Homo sapiens (man)
C;Date: 13-Jan-1995 #sequence_revision 13-Jan-1995 #text_change 21-Jan-2000
C;Accession: S23628
R;Olee, T.; Lu, E.W.; Huang, D.F.; Soto-Gil, R.W.; Deftos, M.; Kozin, F.; Carson, D.A.; Chen, P.P.
J. Exp. Med. 175, 831-842, 1992
A;Title: Genetic analysis of self-associating immunoglobulin G rheumatoid factors from two rheumatoid synovia implicates an antigen-driven response.
A;Reference number: S23623; MUID:92156804; PMID:1740665
A;Accession: S23628
A;Status: preliminary
A;Molecule type: DNA
A;Residues: 1-111 <OLE>
A;Cross-references: UNIPARC:UPI0000115F96; EMBL:X59705; NID:g34022; PIDN:CAA42226.1; PID:g1335190
C;Superfamily: immunoglobulin V region; immunoglobulin homology
C;Keywords: heterotetramer; immunoglobulin
F;16-90/Domain: immunoglobulin homology <IMM>
Query Match 78.3%; Score 445; Length 111;
Best Local Similarity 78.9%;
Matches 86; Conservative 10; Mismatches 11; Indels 2; Gaps 1;
Qy 1 EIIMTQSPAILSVSPGERATLSCRASQSISSNLAWFQQRPGQPPRLLLYGASTRATGIPA 60
||::||||| ||:|||||||||||||||:|| |||:||:||| ||||:| || |||||||
Db 1 EIVLTQSPATLSLSPGERATLSCRASQSVSSYLAWYQQKPGQAPRLLIYDASNRATGIPA 60
Qy 61 RFSGSGSGTEFTLTISSLHSEDFAVYYCQQYHRWPPSITFGQGTRLEIK 109
|||||||||:|||||||| |||||||||| || ||||||::|||
Db 61 RFSGSGSGTDFTLTISSLEPEDFAVYYCQQRSNWP--WTFGQGTKVEIK 107
Sequence alignment of SEQ ID NO:183
S23624
Ig heavy chain V region - human (fragment)
C;Species: Homo sapiens (man)
C;Date: 13-Jan-1995 #sequence_revision 13-Jan-1995 #text_change 23-Jul-1999
C;Accession: S23624
R;Olee, T.; Lu, E.W.; Huang, D.F.; Soto-Gil, R.W.; Deftos, M.; Kozin, F.; Carson, D.A.; Chen, P.P.
J. Exp. Med. 175, 831-842, 1992
A;Title: Genetic analysis of self-associating immunoglobulin G rheumatoid factors from two rheumatoid synovia implicates an antigen-driven response.
A;Reference number: S23623; MUID:92156804; PMID:1740665
A;Accession: S23624
A;Status: preliminary
A;Molecule type: DNA
A;Residues: 1-143 <OLE>
A;Cross-references: UNIPARC:UPI0000115F94; EMBL:X59703; NID:g32012; PIDN:CAA42224.1; PID:g32013
C;Superfamily: immunoglobulin V region; immunoglobulin homology
C;Keywords: heterotetramer; immunoglobulin
F;15-98/Domain: immunoglobulin homology <IMM>
Query Match 84.5%; Score 498.5; Length 143;
Best Local Similarity 82.9%;
Matches 97; Conservative 8; Mismatches 9; Indels 3; Gaps 1;
Qy 1 EVQLLESGGGLVQPGGSLRLSCAASGFTFISYAMSWVRQAPGKGLEWVSAISGSGGSTYY 60
||||:|||||||||||||||||||||||| :|:|:|||||||||||||| || | : ||
Db 1 EVQLVESGGGLVQPGGSLRLSCAASGFTFSNYSMNWVRQAPGKGLEWVSYISSSSSTIYY 60
Qy 61 ADSVKGRFTISRDNSKNTLYLQMNSLRAEDTAVYYCAKI---AGDDWGQGTLVTVSS 114
||||||||||||||:||:|||||||||||||||||||: || |||||||||||
Db 61 ADSVKGRFTISRDNAKNSLYLQMNSLRAEDTAVYYCARSGYRGGDYWGQGTLVTVSS 117
Sequence alignment of SEQ ID NO:184
S23628
Ig kappa chain V region - human (fragment)
C;Species: Homo sapiens (man)
C;Date: 13-Jan-1995 #sequence_revision 13-Jan-1995 #text_change 21-Jan-2000
C;Accession: S23628
R;Olee, T.; Lu, E.W.; Huang, D.F.; Soto-Gil, R.W.; Deftos, M.; Kozin, F.; Carson, D.A.; Chen, P.P.
J. Exp. Med. 175, 831-842, 1992
A;Title: Genetic analysis of self-associating immunoglobulin G rheumatoid factors from two rheumatoid synovia implicates an antigen-driven response.
A;Reference number: S23623; MUID:92156804; PMID:1740665
A;Accession: S23628
A;Status: preliminary
A;Molecule type: DNA
A;Residues: 1-111 <OLE>
A;Cross-references: UNIPARC:UPI0000115F96; EMBL:X59705; NID:g34022; PIDN:CAA42226.1; PID:g1335190
C;Superfamily: immunoglobulin V region; immunoglobulin homology
C;Keywords: heterotetramer; immunoglobulin
F;16-90/Domain: immunoglobulin homology <IMM>
Query Match 93.5%; Score 530; Length 111;
Best Local Similarity 95.4%;
Matches 104; Conservative 2; Mismatches 1; Indels 2; Gaps 1;
Qy 1 EIVLTQSPATLSLSPGERATLSCRASQSVSSYLAWYQQKPGQAPRLLIYDASNRATGIPA 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 EIVLTQSPATLSLSPGERATLSCRASQSVSSYLAWYQQKPGQAPRLLIYDASNRATGIPA 60
Qy 61 RFSGSGSGTDFTLTISSLEPEDFAVYYCQQRSNWPLEFTFGPGTKVDIK 109
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| :||| ||||:||
Db 61 RFSGSGSGTDFTLTISSLEPEDFAVYYCQQRSNWP--WTFGQGTKVEIK 107
Conclusion
11. No claims are allowed.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JA-NA A HINES whose telephone number is (571)272-0859. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Vanessa Ford, can be reached on 571-272-0857. 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).
/JANA A HINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1645