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 .
2. The Amendment filed on January 19, 2026, has been received and entered.
Claim Disposition
3. Claim 3 is cancelled. Claims 1-2 and 4-10 are pending. Claim 1 is under examination. Claims 2 and 4-10 are withdrawn from consideration as directed to a non-elected invention. Applicant is reminded that the proper status identifier is “canceled” not “previously cancelled”.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. To date no Information Disclosure Statement has been filed. Applicant is reminded of the duty to disclose.
Specification Objection
5. The specification is objected to for the following informalities:
The specification is objected to because of the following typographical errors, “pilin of gam”; “These fragmentswere” (see page 1, line 10 (which should be “gram”). See others throughout the specification like ‘fromBeijing’ on page 5, line 26.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objection
6. Claim 1 is objected to for the following informalities:
For clarity and precision of claim language it is suggested that claim 1 is amended to read, “A molecular peptide mutant obtained from Streptococcus pyogenes, wherein the peptide has the amino acid sequence [[shown]] set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1 and, wherein the peptide forms isopeptide bonds”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Basis For NonStatutory Double Patenting
7. 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. See 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);and, 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) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
8. Claim 1 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Application No. 18/255368. An obvious-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but an examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); and In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The instant application claims are directed to a molecular peptide mutant set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1. The copending application claim is drawn to a molecular peptide mutant with a high ester bond formation efficiency, wherein the amino acid sequence is as shown in SEQ ID NO:1. The two sets of claims differ because the instant claims do not recite and activity, but such would be inherent since the same peptide (the copending application recites the same sequence).
Although the scope of the two sets of claims differs, the two sets of claims are an obvious variation of each other, thus prima facie obvious. This is a provisional obvious type double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant’s comments have been considered in full. Withdrawn objections/rejections will not be discussed herein as applicant’s comments are moot.
Note that objection remains over the specification because applicant has not filed an amendment, but instead indicated that they plan to. In addition, note that objections remain over the claimed invention because amendments were not made nor the lack thereof addressed in the remarks; and the modification to the claim language is deemed necessary. Further, the Obvious Type Double Patenting rejection remains because applicant requested withdrawal based on plans to file a Terminal Disclaimer (TD). However, to date no TD has been filed, thus the rejection remains and is final.
Conclusion
10. No claims are presently allowable.
11. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new/modified 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOPE A ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-0957. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5pm on Monday to Friday.
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, Robert Mondesi can be reached on (408) 918-7584. 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.
/HOPE A ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1652