Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. The election filed 04/09/2026 in response to the Office Action of 02/11/2026 is acknowledged and has been entered.
Applicant has elected Group II, claims 65 and 71-88, drawn to a pharmaceutical composition, wherein the composition is an aqueous composition comprising: 1-30 mg/mL bispecific antibody, functional part, or derivative thereof, comprising a first binding domain binding to Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) and a second
binding domain binding to Leucine-rich repeat-containing G protein-coupled Receptor 5
(LGR5); 3-20 mM buffer system comprising a histidine buffer, a citrate buffer, or both;
200-400 mM sugar, sugar alcohol, or both; and 0.01-2 mg/mL non-ionic surfactant; wherein the composition has a pH between 5.4 and 7.4.
Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out any supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse. See MPEP 818.03(a).
3. Claims 65-88 are pending in the application. Claims 66-70 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 04/09/2026.
Claims 65 and 71-88 are currently under prosecution.
Priority
Applicant’s claim under 35 U.S.C. §§ 365(c) for benefit of the earlier filing date of application, is acknowledged.
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 74, 86 and 88 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 74 is indefinite, because the term "substantially" in claim 74 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.5(b)I.
Claims 86 and 88 are indefinite because it recites a limitation “variable light chain” or “variable heavy chain”. It is not clear what is meant by “variable light chain” or “variable heavy chain”. Is there more than one? Is the term “variable light chain/heavy chain” used by the claim to refer to a portion of the variable domain of the light chain/heavy chain? Accordingly, it is submitted that the claims fail to delineate the metes and bounds of the subject matter that is regarded as the invention with the requisite clarity and particularity to permit the skilled artisan to know or determine infringing subject matter, so as to satisfy the requirements set forth under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
10. The following is a quotation 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.
11. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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.
12. Claims 65, 71-86 and 88 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
This is a “written description” rejection.
The considerations that are made in determining whether a claimed invention is supported by an adequate written description are outlined by the published Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications Under the 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 1, ``Written Description'' Requirement (Federal Register; Vol. 66, No. 4, January 5, 2001; The 2015 Written Description Workshop materials; hereinafter “Guidelines”).
These guidelines state that rejection of a claim for lack of written description, where the claim recites the language of an original claim should be rare. Nevertheless, these guidelines further state, “the issue of a lack of written description may arise even for an original claim when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant has possession of the claimed invention” (Id. at 1105). The “Guidelines” continue:
The claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described if the claims require an essential or critical feature which is not adequately described in the specification and which is not conventional in the art or known to one of ordinary skill in the art. This problem may arise where an invention is described solely in terms of a method of its making coupled with its function and there is no described or art-recognized correlation or relationship between the structure of the invention and its function. A lack of adequate written description issue also arises if the knowledge and level of skill in the art would not permit one skilled in the art to immediately envisage the product claimed from the disclosed process.
With further regard to the proposition that, as original claims, the claims themselves provide in haec verba support sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement, the Federal Circuit has explained that in ipsis verbis support for the claims in the specification does not per se establish compliance with the written description requirement:
Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement. The disclosure must allow one skilled in the art to visualize or recognize the identity of the subject matter purportedly described. Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406.
Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 43 USPQ2d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also: University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 69 USPQ2d 1886 1892 (CA FC 2004).
Thus, an original claim may provide written description for itself, but it must still be an adequate written description, which establishes that the inventor was in possession of the invention.
Claims 65 and 76-78 are directed to a derivative of antibody. Thus, the claims are drawn to a genus of derivative of antibodies.
Although the specification teaches the antibody (see Examples 1-9); however, the specification does not teach a genus of derivative of antibodies can be used in the claimed pharmaceutical composition.
There is no correlation between any one particularly identifying structural feature that is shared by at least a substantial number of the members of the claimed a genus of derivative of antibody; because each derivative of antibody is structurally and functionally different. Although the artisan could potentially screen derivative of antibody, it cannot be predicted whether or not one will be successful. The written description provision set forth under 35 USC 112(a) is severable from its enablement provision, so that written description requirement cannot be met by describing how one might make the invention – rather the invention must be described in such clear and particular terms so as to reasonably convey to the skilled artisan that applicant had possession of the claimed invention as of the filing date of the application (i.e., the earlier effective US filing date sought).
The skilled artisan could not immediately envision, recognize or distinguish at least a substantial number of the members of the claimed genus of derivative of antibodies.
The specification therefore would not reasonably convey to the skilled artisan Applicant's possession of the claimed invention as of the filing date of the application.
Notably, the Federal Circuit has decided that 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. See Noelle v. Lederman, 69 USPQ2d 1508 1514 (CA FC 2004) (citing Enzo Biochem II, 323 F.3d at 965; Regents, 119 F.3d at 1568).
Furthermore, Applicant is reminded that “generalized language may not suffice if it does not convey the detailed identity of an invention.” University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle Co., 69 USPQ2d 1886 1892 (CAFC 2004).
In this instance, there is no language that adequately describes with any of the requisite clarity or particularity the claimed a genus of derivative of antibody can be used in the claimed pharmaceutical composition. A description of what a material does, rather than of what it is, does not suffice to describe the claimed invention.
While the written description requirement can by satisfied without an actual reduction to practice, the disclosure of a catalog of potentially effective substances that might be found to be useful in practicing the claimed invention does not fulfill the written description requirement.
Recognizing that the claims are drawn to a genus of derivative of antibody can be used in the claimed pharmaceutical composition, it is aptly noted that the Federal Circuit has decided that a generic statement that defines a genus of substances by only their functional activity, does not provide an adequate written description of the genus. See The Reagents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly, 43 USPQ2d 1398 (CAFC 1997). 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 precise definition of a representative number of members of the genus, such as by reciting the structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties of those members, rather than by merely reciting a wish for, or even a plan for obtaining a genus of molecules having a particular functional property. The recitation of a functional property alone, which must be shared by the members of the genus, is merely descriptive of what the members of genus must be capable of doing, not of the substance and structure of the members.
Finally, Guidelines states, “[p]ossession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing the invention was ‘ready for patenting’ such as by disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention” (Id. at 1104). “Guidelines” further states, “[f]or 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” (Id. at 1106); accordingly, it follows that an adequate written description of a genus cannot be achieved in the absence of a disclosure of at least one species within the genus. Moreover, because the claims encompass a genus of derivative of antibody can be used in the claimed pharmaceutical composition, but which otherwise vary materially, structurally and/or functionally, an adequate written description of the claimed invention must include sufficient description of at least a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, reduction to drawings, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. In this instance, factual evidence of an actual reduction to practice has not been disclosed by Applicant in the specification; Applicant has not shown the invention was “ready for patenting” by disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete; and Applicant has not described distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
13. 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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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 of this title, 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.
15. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
16. Claims 65 and 71-86 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oostindie et al. (WO2020070313, published on 09 April 2020, IDS) in view of Throsby et al. (US 20180312604, published on 11/01/2018, IDS).
Claims 65 and 71-86 are herein drawn to a pharmaceutical composition, wherein the composition is an aqueous composition comprising:
1-30 mg/mL bispecific antibody, comprising a first binding domain binding to EGFR and a second binding domain binding to LGR5;
3-20 mM buffer system comprising a histidine buffer;
200-400 mM sugar; and
0.01-2 mg/mL non-ionic surfactant;
wherein the composition has a pH between 5.4 and 7.4. wherein non-ionic surfactant is polysorbate 80.
Oostindie et al. teach a pharmaceutical composition comprising:
a) 10-30 mg/ml bispecific antibody, e.g., 20 mg/ml bispecific antibody,
b) 10 to 30 mM histidine buffer,
c) 50 to 300 mM of a sugar and/or 50 to 300 mM of a polyol, and
d) 0.01 to 0.1 % polysorbate 80,
wherein the pH of the composition is between 4.5 and 6.8;
see entire document, e.g., pages 3-4, 28, claims 1-15.
Oostindie et al. teach that sugar is sucrose (instant claim 71); see page 27.
Oostindie et al. teach do not teach the bispecific antibody is EGFR/LGR5 bispecific antibody.
However, this deficiency is remedied by Throsby et al.
Throsby et al. teach PB10651 (EGFR/LGR5 bispecific antibody (composed of the Fab fragments MF3755 and MF5816)); see entire document, e.g., [0655], [0657], [0659]. Throsby et al. teach the bispecific antibody is human bispecific IgG antibody; see [0059], [0632-0636] and [0650].
SEQ ID NOs: 80,20,162,82,84,86,88 of Throsby et al. are 100% identical with the instant claimed SEQ ID NOs: 53,5,41,57,58,59,60; see below sequence alignment.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the references so as to have a pharmaceutical composition comprising: a) 10-30 mg/ml EGFR/LGR5 bispecific antibody, b) 10 to 30 mM histidine buffer, c) 50 to 300 mM of a sugar, and d) 0.01 to 0.1 % polysorbate 80, wherein the pH of the composition is between 4.5 and 6.8. One would have been motivated to do so because Oostindie et al. teach a pharmaceutical composition comprising: a) 10-30 mg/ml bispecific antibody, b) 10 to 30 mM histidine buffer, c) 50 to 300 mM of a sugar, and d) 0.01 to 0.1 % polysorbate 80, wherein the pH of the composition is between 4.5 and 6.8; Throsby et al. teach EGFR/LGR5 bispecific antibody. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success that by combining the teachings of the references so as to substitute the bispecific antibody of Oostindie et al. for another EGFR/LGR5 bispecific antibody of Throsby et al., because simple substitution of the bispecific antibody of Oostindie et al. for another EGFR/LGR5 bispecific antibody of Throsby et al. would obtain predictable results.
Given the examination guidelines for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of the Supreme Court decision in KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) and the Examination Guidelines set forth in the Federal Register (Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007) and incorporated recently into the MPEP (Revision 9, March 2014), the following rationales to support rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are noted:
A) Combining prior art elements according known methods to yield predictable results.
B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
D) Applying known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
E) “Obvious to try” --- choosing form a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
G) Some teachings, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would lead to one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
In this case, simple substitution of the bispecific antibody of Oostindie et al. for another EGFR/LGR5 bispecific antibody of Throsby et al. would obtain predictable results.
Obviousness is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. See KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). From the combined teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention.
Conclusion
17. Claims 65, 71-86 and 88 are rejected. Claim 87 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAN XIAO whose telephone number is (571)270-3578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Samira Jean-Louis can be reached on 571-270-3503. 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.
/YAN XIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1642
Sequence alignment
US-15-770-317-80
Filing date in PALM: 2018-04-23
Sequence 80, US/15770317
Publication No. US20180312604A1
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Merus N.V.
APPLICANT: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen
APPLICANT: OcellO B.V.
APPLICANT: Institute for Research in Biomedicine (IRB Barcelona)
APPLICANT: Institucio Catalana de Recerca I Estudis Avancats
TITLE OF INVENTION: Binding molecules that inhibit cancer growth
FILE REFERENCE: 4096.0110002
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/15/770,317
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2018-04-23
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: PCT/NL2016/050726
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2016-10-21
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: EP 15191343.1
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2015-10-23
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: 16168647.2
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2016-05-06
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 181
SEQ ID NO 80
LENGTH: 107
TYPE: PRT
ORGANISM: Artificial Sequence
FEATURE:
OTHER INFORMATION: Synthetic Construct
Query Match 100.0%; Score 549; Length 107;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 107; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 DIQMTQSPSSLSASVGDRVTITCRASQSISSYLNWYQQKPGKAPKLLIYAASSLQSGVPS 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 DIQMTQSPSSLSASVGDRVTITCRASQSISSYLNWYQQKPGKAPKLLIYAASSLQSGVPS 60
Qy 61 RFSGSGSGTDFTLTISSLQPEDFATYYCQQSYSTPPTFGQGTKVEIK 107
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 RFSGSGSGTDFTLTISSLQPEDFATYYCQQSYSTPPTFGQGTKVEIK 107
US-15-770-317-20
(NOTE: this sequence has 19 duplicates in the database searched.
See complete list at the end of this report)
Sequence 20, US/15770317
Publication No. US20180312604A1
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Merus N.V.
APPLICANT: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen
APPLICANT: OcellO B.V.
APPLICANT: Institute for Research in Biomedicine (IRB Barcelona)
APPLICANT: Institucio Catalana de Recerca I Estudis Avancats
TITLE OF INVENTION: Binding molecules that inhibit cancer growth
FILE REFERENCE: 4096.0110002
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/15/770,317
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2018-04-23
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: PCT/NL2016/050726
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2016-10-21
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: EP 15191343.1
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2015-10-23
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: 16168647.2
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2016-05-06
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 181
SEQ ID NO 20
LENGTH: 120
TYPE: PRT
ORGANISM: Artificial Sequence
FEATURE:
OTHER INFORMATION: Synthetic Construct
Query Match 100.0%; Score 647; Length 120;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 120; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 QVQLVQSGSELKKPGASVKISCKASGYDFTNYAMNWVRQAPGHGLEWMGWINANTGDPTY 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 QVQLVQSGSELKKPGASVKISCKASGYDFTNYAMNWVRQAPGHGLEWMGWINANTGDPTY 60
Qy 61 AQGFTGRFVFSLDTSVSTAYLQISSLKAEDSAVYYCTRERFLEWLHFDYWGQGTLVTVSS 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 AQGFTGRFVFSLDTSVSTAYLQISSLKAEDSAVYYCTRERFLEWLHFDYWGQGTLVTVSS 120
US-15-770-317-162
(NOTE: this sequence has 14 duplicates in the database searched.
See complete list at the end of this report)
Sequence 162, US/15770317
Publication No. US20180312604A1
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Merus N.V.
APPLICANT: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen
APPLICANT: OcellO B.V.
APPLICANT: Institute for Research in Biomedicine (IRB Barcelona)
APPLICANT: Institucio Catalana de Recerca I Estudis Avancats
TITLE OF INVENTION: Binding molecules that inhibit cancer growth
FILE REFERENCE: 4096.0110002
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/15/770,317
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2018-04-23
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: PCT/NL2016/050726
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2016-10-21
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: EP 15191343.1
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2015-10-23
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: 16168647.2
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2016-05-06
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 181
SEQ ID NO 162
LENGTH: 127
TYPE: PRT
ORGANISM: Artificial Sequence
FEATURE:
OTHER INFORMATION: member of supercluster10
Query Match 100.0%; Score 687; Length 127;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 127; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 EVQLVQSGSKLKKPGASVKVSCKASGYTFTSYTMNWVRQAPGQGLEWMGWINTDTGDPTY 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 EVQLVQSGSKLKKPGASVKVSCKASGYTFTSYTMNWVRQAPGQGLEWMGWINTDTGDPTY 60
Qy 61 AQGFTGRFVFSLDTSVSTAFLQINSLKAEDTAVYYCARGDCDSTSCYRYSYGYEDYWGQG 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 AQGFTGRFVFSLDTSVSTAFLQINSLKAEDTAVYYCARGDCDSTSCYRYSYGYEDYWGQG 120
Qy 121 TLVTVSS 127
|||||||
Db 121 TLVTVSS 127
US-15-770-317-82
Filing date in PALM: 2018-04-23
Sequence 82, US/15770317
Publication No. US20180312604A1
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Merus N.V.
APPLICANT: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen
APPLICANT: OcellO B.V.
APPLICANT: Institute for Research in Biomedicine (IRB Barcelona)
APPLICANT: Institucio Catalana de Recerca I Estudis Avancats
TITLE OF INVENTION: Binding molecules that inhibit cancer growth
FILE REFERENCE: 4096.0110002
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/15/770,317
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2018-04-23
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: PCT/NL2016/050726
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2016-10-21
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: EP 15191343.1
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2015-10-23
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: 16168647.2
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2016-05-06
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 181
SEQ ID NO 82
LENGTH: 107
TYPE: PRT
ORGANISM: Artificial Sequence
FEATURE:
OTHER INFORMATION: Synthetic Construct
Query Match 100.0%; Score 553; Length 107;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 107; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 RTVAAPSVFIFPPSDEQLKSGTASVVCLLNNFYPREAKVQWKVDNALQSGNSQESVTEQD 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 RTVAAPSVFIFPPSDEQLKSGTASVVCLLNNFYPREAKVQWKVDNALQSGNSQESVTEQD 60
Qy 61 SKDSTYSLSSTLTLSKADYEKHKVYACEVTHQGLSSPVTKSFNRGEC 107
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 SKDSTYSLSSTLTLSKADYEKHKVYACEVTHQGLSSPVTKSFNRGEC 107
US-15-770-317-84
Filing date in PALM: 2018-04-23
Sequence 84, US/15770317
Publication No. US20180312604A1
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Merus N.V.
APPLICANT: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen
APPLICANT: OcellO B.V.
APPLICANT: Institute for Research in Biomedicine (IRB Barcelona)
APPLICANT: Institucio Catalana de Recerca I Estudis Avancats
TITLE OF INVENTION: Binding molecules that inhibit cancer growth
FILE REFERENCE: 4096.0110002
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/15/770,317
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2018-04-23
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: PCT/NL2016/050726
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2016-10-21
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: EP 15191343.1
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2015-10-23
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: 16168647.2
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2016-05-06
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 181
SEQ ID NO 84
LENGTH: 98
TYPE: PRT
ORGANISM: Artificial Sequence
FEATURE:
OTHER INFORMATION: Synthetic Construct
Query Match 100.0%; Score 504; Length 98;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 98; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 ASTKGPSVFPLAPSSKSTSGGTAALGCLVKDYFPEPVTVSWNSGALTSGVHTFPAVLQSS 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 ASTKGPSVFPLAPSSKSTSGGTAALGCLVKDYFPEPVTVSWNSGALTSGVHTFPAVLQSS 60
Qy 61 GLYSLSSVVTVPSSSLGTQTYICNVNHKPSNTKVDKRV 98
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 GLYSLSSVVTVPSSSLGTQTYICNVNHKPSNTKVDKRV 98
US-15-770-317-86
Filing date in PALM: 2018-04-23
Sequence 86, US/15770317
Publication No. US20180312604A1
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Merus N.V.
APPLICANT: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen
APPLICANT: OcellO B.V.
APPLICANT: Institute for Research in Biomedicine (IRB Barcelona)
APPLICANT: Institucio Catalana de Recerca I Estudis Avancats
TITLE OF INVENTION: Binding molecules that inhibit cancer growth
FILE REFERENCE: 4096.0110002
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/15/770,317
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2018-04-23
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: PCT/NL2016/050726
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2016-10-21
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: EP 15191343.1
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2015-10-23
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: 16168647.2
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2016-05-06
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 181
SEQ ID NO 86
LENGTH: 15
TYPE: PRT
ORGANISM: Artificial Sequence
FEATURE:
OTHER INFORMATION: Synthetic Construct
Query Match 100.0%; Score 98; Length 15;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 15; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 EPKSCDKTHTCPPCP 15
|||||||||||||||
Db 1 EPKSCDKTHTCPPCP 15
US-15-770-317-88
Filing date in PALM: 2018-04-23
Sequence 88, US/15770317
Publication No. US20180312604A1
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Merus N.V.
APPLICANT: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen
APPLICANT: OcellO B.V.
APPLICANT: Institute for Research in Biomedicine (IRB Barcelona)
APPLICANT: Institucio Catalana de Recerca I Estudis Avancats
TITLE OF INVENTION: Binding molecules that inhibit cancer growth
FILE REFERENCE: 4096.0110002
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/15/770,317
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2018-04-23
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: PCT/NL2016/050726
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2016-10-21
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: EP 15191343.1
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2015-10-23
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: 16168647.2
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2016-05-06
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 181
SEQ ID NO 88
LENGTH: 110
TYPE: PRT
ORGANISM: Artificial Sequence
FEATURE:
OTHER INFORMATION: Synthetic Construct
Query Match 100.0%; Score 586; Length 110;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 110; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 APELLGGPSVFLFPPKPKDTLMISRTPEVTCVVVDVSHEDPEVKFNWYVDGVEVHNAKTK 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 APELLGGPSVFLFPPKPKDTLMISRTPEVTCVVVDVSHEDPEVKFNWYVDGVEVHNAKTK 60
Qy 61 PREEQYNSTYRVVSVLTVLHQDWLNGKEYKCKVSNKALPAPIEKTISKAK 110
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 PREEQYNSTYRVVSVLTVLHQDWLNGKEYKCKVSNKALPAPIEKTISKAK 110
Prosecution Insights