DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1, 3-12 and 99 in the reply filed on 10 November 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 100 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10 November 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 25 September 2023 and 13 November 2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1A, 2A, 2B, 4-7 and 10-12 do not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1) which requires solid black lines. See screenshots provided below for example of deficiencies:
PNG
media_image1.png
268
631
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
220
376
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
397
403
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the language of “disclosed herein” is not acceptable. Additionally, the abstract contains no useful information as to the what is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The recitation of “half-life extending antibody” is not descriptive as the antibody of the invention is a single domain antibody which binds serum albumin. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11, 12 and 99 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.
Claim 1 is directed to an isolated polypeptide or polypeptide complex comprising a half-life extending antibody (H1) or antibody fragment that comprises 3 CDR regions which have the amino acid sequences of SEQ ID NO:1-3, respectively. The specification states that single domain antibodies were evaluated for their ability to bind serum albumin from mice, bovine, cynomolgus monkey and human by ELISA (see [0319]). The specification discloses a singular antibody (HE-1) having the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:4 (see [0323]) and no other serum albumin antibodies are described.
The instant specification fails to describe an anti-serum albumin single-domain antibody which binds serum albumin which does not possess the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:4. SEQ ID NO:4 is the complete amino acid sequence of the single domain antibody which includes not only the 3 CDRs but also the necessary framework such that the CDRs are positioned correctly to effect binding to serum albumin. The specification fails to describe any anti-serum albumin single-domain antibody which comprises 3 CDRs (with the amino acid sequences of SEQ ID NO:1-3) but with no defined framework. The specification also fails to describe the full scope of half-life extending antibodies (H1) comprising 3 CDRs having the amino acid sequences of SEQ ID NO:1-3 with variations in framework regions as recited in claims 5-7, 9 and 11-12 (90%, 95%, 99% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:4, or comprising a minimum of 110 consecutive amino acid residues of SEQ ID NO:4).
A "representative number of species" means that the species, which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. The disclosure of only one species encompassed within a genus adequately describes a claim directed to that genus only if the disclosure "indicates that the patentee has invented species sufficient to constitute the gen[us]." See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 966, 63 USPQ2d at 1615; Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1508, 1514 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Fed. Cir. 2004)("[A] patentee of a biotechnological invention cannot necessarily claim a genus after only describing a limited number of species because there may be unpredictability in the results obtained from species other than those specifically enumerated."). "A patentee will not be deemed to have invented species sufficient to constitute the genus by virtue of having disclosed a single species when ... the evidence indicates ordinary artisans could not predict the operability in the invention of any species other than the one disclosed." In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1358, 69 USPQ2d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Claims directed to PTFE dental floss with a friction-enhancing coating were not supported by a disclosure of a microcrystalline wax coating where there was no evidence in the disclosure or anywhere else in the record showing applicant conveyed that any other coating was suitable for a PTFE dental floss.).
In the instant application, the specification discloses one single domain antibody which binds serum albumin, which is called HE-1 and has the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:4. There is no disclosure of any albumin binding single domain antibody comprising the recited 3 CDRs of SEQ ID NO:1-3 with generic framework or lacking framework or possessing framework of SEQ ID NO:4 with up to 10% variation. There is no disclosure that the CDRs of SEQ ID NO:1-3 could be combined with any variable domain framework such as non-VHH framework and still result in a functional antibody. There is also no disclosure of modifications to the framework possessed by HE-1 which result in a functional antibody which binds serum albumin. Therefore, the specification does not describe representative species which fall within the context of the currently drafted claims
It is well known that minor structural differences even among structurally related compounds can result in substantially different biology, expression and activities. Based on the instant disclosure one of skill in the art would not know which structures are essential for providing the binding ability for the claimed anti-serum albumin single domain antibody. For example, there is insufficient guidance based on the reliance of VHH antibodies to direct a person of skill in the art to select or to predict variable domain framework or to modify existing framework of the isolated single domain antibody. Mere idea of function is insufficient for written description; isolation and characterization at a minimum are required.
Regarding VHH camelid antibodies and single domain antibodies, it was known in the prior art that these single domain antibodies are either in their native form not interacting with other variable domains, in the case of VHH or the variable domain must be modified, i.e. rendered hydrophilic, in the region which is normally interacting with the corresponding VL or VH chain, in order to avoid aggregation and loss of binding capacity (i.e. functionality) of the non-Camelid single variable domain. Muyldermans and Lauwereys (Journal of Molecular Recognition, 1999. Vol. 12, pages 131-140) teach the structure of a functional heavy chain antibody (camelid) contains a VHH domain, hinge, CH2 and CH3 domains (see figure 1). Additionally, Muyldermans and Lauwereys teach that naturally occurring heavy chain antibodies in humans or mice are not functional due to a deletion in the CH1 and hinge regions (page 133, 2nd column). One of ordinary skill in the art can conclude that framework from human and mice immunoglobulins would not be sufficient to provide functionality to camelid antibodies. Konning et al. (Curr. Opin. Struct. Bio. 45: 10-16, 2017) teach that VHH domains comprise different structural elements from VH and VL domains which result in a unique and stabilized structure (see page 11, column 2). Harmsen and Haard (Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 2007. Vol. 77, pages 13-22) teach that functional VHH domains contain four framework regions and three CDRs as in antibody heavy chains (page 14, 1st column). Harmsen et al. also disclose that VHHs can be classified into at least four distinct subfamilies (see page 588, column 2, paragraph 2) which differ from classical VH domains. Saerens et al. (J. Mol. Biol. 352:597-607, 2005) demonstrate that even a single amino acid difference in framework can abolish binding activity (see page 599, column 2, final paragraph).
In the absence of sufficient guidance and direction to the structural and functional analysis, Applicant's reliance on the framework domains in the specification as filed does not appear to provide sufficient written description for the genus of anti-serum albumin single domain antibodies encompassed in the claims in view of the above evidence, which indicates ordinary artisans could not predict the operability of the invention of any species which lacked the native VHH domain, including the native CDRs and framework regions for a specified VHH antibody. Furthermore, there is no disclosure of any anti-serum albumin single domain antibody that lacks the specific framework regions for HE-1 and still binds serum albumin.
For inventions in an unpredictable art, adequate written description of a genus, which embraces widely variant species cannot be achieved by disclosing only one species within the genus. In the instant case, applicant has disclosed a single species of single domain antibody which is not representative of the highly variant genus (any anti-serum albumin single domain antibody with defined CDRs) nor is there disclosure of the common attributes or features (i.e., structural domains) that are essential for activity (binding) or those which are non-essential. See, e.g., Eli Lilly. Description of a representative number of species does not require the description to be of such specificity that it would provide individual support for each species that the genus embraces. If a representative number of adequately described species are not disclosed for a genus, the claim to that genus must be rejected as lacking adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 19USPQ2d 1111, clearly states "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). As discussed above, the skilled artisan cannot envision the detailed structure of the encompassed genus of antibodies, 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 reference to a potential method of isolating it. The compound itself is required. See Fiefs v. Revel, 25 USPQ2d 1601 at 1606 (CAFC 1993) and Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., 18 USPQ2d 1016.
One cannot describe what one has not conceived. See Fiddles v.Baird, 30 USPQ2d 1481, 1483. In Fiddles v. Baird, claims directed to mammalian FGF's were found unpatentable due to lack of written description for the broad class. The specification provided only the bovine sequence.
Therefore, the claims do not meet the written description provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. 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 1115).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and recites “wherein the antibody or antibody fragment of H1 comprises the single domain antibody”. However, while claim 3 recites a list of alternatives which includes “a single domain antibody”, there is not a specific single domain antibody recited in claim 3 as the term “a” is utilized with is an indefinite article. Claim 4 is indefinite because it is not clear which single domain antibody is intended as no specific, definite, single domain antibody is recited in claim 3. This rejection could be avoided by reciting “H1 comprises a single domain antibody”.
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 3-12 and 99 of this application are patentably indistinct from numerous applications by the same applicant/inventor as pointed out below. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822. Further, it is requested that Applicant identify all applications which claim common subject matter to the instant claims.
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, 3-12 and 99 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 17-18 and 26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,555,078. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to a polypeptide complex that comprises a half-life extending antibody (H1) of the same structure. ‘078 claims a polypeptide complex which has a formula of A2-A1-L1-P-H1 wherein H1 is a half-life extending molecule (claim 1). Claim 17 recites that H1 comprises a single domain antibody and claim 18 recites that H1 comprises 3 CDRs having the amino acid sequences of SEQ ID NO:54-56. These amino acid sequences are identical to SEQ ID NO:1-3 of claim 1 of the instant application. Claim 26 recites that the polypeptide complex comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:72 which is identical to SEQ ID NO:4 of the instant claims. Therefore, the polypeptide complex of ‘078 anticipates the instant claims. While ‘078 does not specifically claim a pharmaceutical composition comprising the isolated polypeptide complex and a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient, such a composition would have been obvious as the polypeptide complex of ‘078 is disclosed as being useful for treating cancer. Therefore, the instant claims are not patentably distinct from those of ‘078.
Claims 1, 3-12 and 99 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 21-22 and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 12,433,953. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims re directed to a polypeptide complex that comprises a half-life extending antibody (H1) of the same structure. ‘953 claims a polypeptide complex which has a formula of A2-A1-L1-P-H1 wherein H1 is a half-life extending molecule comprising an antibody or antibody fragment that binds to serum albumin (claim 1). Claim 20 recites that H1 comprises a single domain antibody and claim 21 recites that H1 comprises 3 CDRs having the amino acid sequences of SEQ ID NO:36-38. These amino acid sequences are identical to SEQ ID NO:1-3 of claim 1 of the instant application. Claim 22 recites that the polypeptide complex comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:42 which is identical to SEQ ID NO:4 of the instant claims. Claim 28 is directed to a polypeptide complex which comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:51; this amino acid sequence comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:4 of the instant application. Therefore, the polypeptide complex of ‘953 anticipates the instant claims. While ‘953 does not specifically claim a pharmaceutical composition comprising the isolated polypeptide complex and a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient, such a composition would have been obvious as the polypeptide complex of ‘953 is disclosed as being useful for treating cancer. Therefore, the instant claims are not patentably distinct from those of ‘953.
Claims 1, 3-12 and 99 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 31, 52, 53 and 61 of copending Application No. 18/055,932 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘932 make obvious the polypeptide complex comprising a half-life extending antibody (H1) of the instant claims. ‘932 is directed to a method of treatment which administers a polypeptide complex which has a formula of A2-A1-L1-P-H1 wherein H1 is a half-life extending molecule (claim 31). Claim 52 recites that H1 comprises a single domain antibody and claim 53 recites that H1 comprises 3 CDRs having the amino acid sequences of SEQ ID NO:54-56. These amino acid sequences are identical to SEQ ID NO:1-3 of claim 1 of the instant application. Claim 61 recites that the polypeptide complex comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:72 which comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:4 of the instant claims (portion of the full polypeptide complex that corresponds to the single domain antibody is identical to SEQ ID NO:4). Therefore, the polypeptide complex in the method claims of ‘932 anticipates the instant claims. While ‘932 does not specifically claim a pharmaceutical composition comprising the isolated polypeptide complex and a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient, such a composition would have been obvious as the polypeptide complex of ‘932 is being administered in a method of treatment. Therefore, including the polypeptide complex in a pharmaceutical composition would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the instant claims are not patentably distinct from those of ‘932.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3-12 and 99 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 94, 121 and 151 of copending Application No. 18/314,090 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘090 include the polypeptide complex comprising a half-life extending antibody (H1) of the instant claims. ‘090 is directed to a multispecific antibody (claim 1) which further comprises a half-life extending molecule (H1)(claim 94). Claim 121 recites that H1 comprises a single domain antibody and recites that H1 comprises 3 CDRs having the amino acid sequences of SEQ ID NO:54-56. These amino acid sequences are identical to SEQ ID NO:1-3 of claim 1 of the instant application. Claim 61 recites that the polypeptide complex comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:166 (or sequence having at least 95% identity) which comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:4 of the instant claims (portion of the full polypeptide complex that corresponds to the single domain antibody is identical to SEQ ID NO:4). Therefore, the half-life extending molecule in the multispecific antibody of ‘090 anticipates the instant claims. While ‘090 does not specifically claim a pharmaceutical composition comprising the isolated polypeptide complex and a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient, such a composition would have been obvious as the multispecific antibody of ‘090 is disclosed as useful for treating cancer. Therefore, including the polypeptide complex in a pharmaceutical composition would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the instant claims are not patentably distinct from those of ‘090.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3-12 and 99 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 145-146 of copending Application No. 18/256,271 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘271 make obvious the polypeptide complex comprising a half-life extending antibody (H1) of the instant claims. ‘271 is a polypeptide complex which has a formula of A2-A1-L1-P-H1 wherein H1 is a half-life extending molecule (claim 145). Claim 145 recites that H1 comprises a single domain antibody and that H1 comprises 3 CDRs having the amino acid sequences of SEQ ID NO:66-68. These amino acid sequences are identical to SEQ ID NO:1-3 of claim 1 of the instant application. Claim 146 recites that the single domain antibody comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:69 which is identical to the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:4 of the instant. Therefore, the polypeptide complex of ‘271 anticipates the instant claims. While ‘271 does not specifically claim a pharmaceutical composition comprising the isolated polypeptide complex and a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient, such a composition would have been obvious as the polypeptide complex of ‘271 is disclosed as being useful for treating cancer. Therefore, including the polypeptide complex in a pharmaceutical composition would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the instant claims are not patentably distinct from those of ‘271.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
NOTE:
Application 18/249,886 discloses the single domain antibody of the instant claims however, ‘866 does not include the single domain antibody in the most current set of claims.
Application 18/314,088 discloses the single domain antibody of the instant claims however, ‘088 does not include the single domain antibody in the most current set of claims.
Applicant 19/320,207 generically recites a method with a protein of the formula A2-A1-L1-P1-H1 wherein H1 comprises a half-life extending molecule (see claim 1) and wherein H1 comprises a single domain antibody (claim 17) and binds to human serum albumin (see claim 18). The claims of ‘207 do not currently recite the specific single domain antibody of the instant claims although ‘207 does disclose the identical antibody.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christine J Saoud whose telephone number is (571)272-0891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-4pm.
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, Vanessa Ford can be reached at 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 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.
/Christine J Saoud/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1645