Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-21 were originally filed July 7, 2023.
The amendment received February 21, 2024 amended claims 3, 5-9, 11-17, 20, and 21.
Claims 1-21 are currently pending and under consideration.
Election/Restrictions
The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn.
Priority
The present application is a 371 (National Stage) of PCT/GB2022/050043 filed January 10, 2022 which claims the benefit of 63/262,597 filed October 15, 2021 and 63/135,339 filed January 8, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 7, 2023 is being considered by the examiner, in part (see the crossed-out citation which are missing a date).
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on November 12, 2024 and March 13, 2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Sequence Interpretation
The Office interprets claims comprising SEQ ID NOs: in the following manner: “comprising a sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1” requires only a 2mer of SEQ ID NO: 1, “comprising the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1” requires the full-length sequence with 100% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 with any N-/C-terminal additions or any 5’/3’ additions, “consisting of SEQ ID NO: 1” requires the full-length sequence with 100% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 and the same length as SEQ ID NO: 1, and “selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NOs: 1, 2, and 3” requires the full-length sequence with 100% identity to SEQ ID NOs: 1, 2, or 3 and the same length as SEQ ID NOs: 1, 2, or 3. Any claim requiring a specific percent identity, necessarily requires at least the recited percent identity.
Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures
Summary of Requirements for Patent Applications Filed On Or After July 1, 2022, That Have Sequence Disclosures
37 CFR 1.831(a) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.831(b) must contain a “Sequence Listing XML”, as a separate part of the disclosure, which presents the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences and associated information using the symbols and format in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.831-1.835. This “Sequence Listing XML” part of the disclosure may be submitted:
1. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.831(a) using the symbols and format requirements of 37 CFR 1.832 through 1.834 via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (see Section I.1 of the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (https://www.uspto.gov/PatentLegalFramework), hereinafter “Legal Framework”) in XML format, together with an incorporation by reference statement of the material in the XML file in a separate paragraph of the specification (an incorporation by reference paragraph) as required by 37 CFR 1.835(a)(2) or 1.835(b)(2) identifying:
a. the name of the XML file
b. the date of creation; and
c. the size of the XML file in bytes; or
2. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.831(a) using the symbols and format requirements of 37 CFR 1.832 through 1.834 on read-only optical disc(s) as permitted by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(1)(ii), labeled according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5), with an incorporation by reference statement of the material in the XML format according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8) and 37 CFR 1.835(a)(2) or 1.835(b)(2) in a separate paragraph of the specification identifying:
a. the name of the XML file;
b. the date of creation; and
c. the size of the XML file in bytes.
SPECIFIC DEFICIENCIES AND THE REQUIRED RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE ARE AS FOLLOWS:
Specific deficiency - Sequences appearing in the specification are not identified by sequence identifiers (i.e., “SEQ ID NO:X” or the like) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.831(c).
See claims 11, 13, and 14 (i.e. AGAAAE). See pages 25, 27, and 30 (i.e. AGAAAE).
Required response – Applicant must provide:
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3), and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers, consisting of:
• A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
• A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
• A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “such that” should read “wherein”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should be dependent on independent claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should be dependent on independent claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “two loop sequences the first” should read “two loop sequences wherein the first” (see line 2). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “selected from” should read “selected from the group consisting of” (see lines 4 and 10). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: arbitrary names should not be utilized (e.g. BCY14654, etc.). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should be dependent on independent claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “two loop sequences the first” should read “two loop sequences wherein the first” (see line 2). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “selected from” should read “selected from the group consisting of” (see lines 4 and 58). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: arbitrary names should not be utilized (e.g. BCY18295, BCY15098, etc.). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: a comma is missing between “fluorescein” and “dK”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should be dependent on independent claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “two loop sequences the first” should read “two loop sequences wherein the first” (see line 2). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “selected from” should read “selected from the group consisting of” (see lines 4 and 13). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: arbitrary names should not be utilized (e.g. BCY15103, etc.). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should be dependent on independent claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “two loop sequences the first” should read “two loop sequences wherein the first” (see lines 2-3). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “selected from” should read “selected from the group consisting of” (see line 5 and page 13, second to last line). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: arbitrary names should not be utilized (e.g. BCY182692, etc.). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “selected from” should read “selected from the group consisting of” (see line 3). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “FcgRIIIA (also known as CD16a)” should read “FcgRIIIA”, “CD16a”, or “FcgRIIIA/CD16a”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should be dependent on independent claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should be dependent on independent claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “two loop sequences the first” should read “two loop sequences wherein the first” (see line 2). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “selected from” should read “selected from the group consisting of” (see line 9). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: arbitrary names should not be utilized (e.g. BCY15044, etc.). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should be dependent on independent claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “two loop sequences the first” should read “two loop sequences wherein the first” (see line 2). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “selected from” should read “selected from the group consisting of” (see lines 4 and 15). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: arbitrary names should not be utilized (e.g. BCY11808, etc.). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: a semicolon is missing after “(BCY11811)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should be dependent on independent claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “two loop sequences the first” should read “two loop sequences wherein the first” (see line 2). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “selected from” should read “selected from the group consisting of” (see line 9). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: arbitrary names should not be utilized (e.g. BCY15045, etc.). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should be dependent on independent claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “two loop sequences the first” should read “two loop sequences wherein the first” (see line 2). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “selected from” should read “selected from the group consisting of” (see line 4 and page 23). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: arbitrary names should not be utilized (e.g. BCY21693, etc.). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should be dependent on independent claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “two loop sequences the first” should read “two loop sequences wherein the first” (see line 2). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “selected from” should read “selected from the group consisting of” (see line 4 and page 27). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: arbitrary names should not be utilized (e.g. BCY16494, etc.). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “selected from” should read “selected from the group consisting of” (see line 2). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: arbitrary names should not be utilized (e.g. BCY15663, etc.). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: “selected from” should read “selected from the group consisting of” (see line 2). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: arbitrary names should not be utilized (e.g. BCY15914, etc.). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 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. One of skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the presently claimed peptide. For example, it is unclear what structure is required for the function of being specific for NK cells.
Claim 3 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.
Regarding claim 3, the phrases "such as" and “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 3 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. One of skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the presently claimed peptide. For example, it is unclear what structure is required for the function of being specific for NKp30, NKp44, or NKp46.
Claim 5 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.
Regarding claim 5, the phrases "such as" and “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 5 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation SEQ ID NO: 1 or 2, and the claim also recites peptides with N- and C-terminal additions which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 6 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.
Regarding claim 6, the phrases "such as" and “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation SEQ ID NOs: 3, 4, and 63-102, and the claim also recites peptides with N- and C-terminal additions which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 6 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. One of skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the presently claimed peptide. For example, it is unclear if TATA is required by SEQ ID NO: 4 or not. See “(SEQ ID NO: 4; herein referred to as BCY18295 when complexed with TATA)”.
Claim 7 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.
Regarding claim 7, the phrases "such as" and “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 7 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation SEQ ID NOs: 5-8 and 103, and the claim also recites peptides with N- and C-terminal additions which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 8 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.
Regarding claim 8, the phrases "such as" and “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 8 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation SEQ ID NOs: 9-59 and 104-168 and the claim also recites peptides with N- and C-terminal additions which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 8 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. One of skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the presently claimed peptide. For example, it is unclear if TATA is required by SEQ ID NOs: 11 or 12 or not. See “(SEQ ID NO: 11; herein referred to as BCY18262 when complexed with TATA)” and “(SEQ ID NO: 12; herein referred to as BCY15633 when complexed with TATA)”.
Claim 9 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.
Regarding claim 9, the phrases "such as" and “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 9 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. One of skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the presently claimed peptide. For example, it is unclear what structure is required for the function of being specific for FcgRIIA, FcgRIIB, FcgRIIC, FcgRIIIA, or FcgRIIIB.
Claim 11 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.
Regarding claim 11, the phrases "such as" and “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 11 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation SEQ ID NO: 265 and the claim also recites peptides with N- and C-terminal additions which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 12 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.
Regarding claim 12, the phrases "such as" and “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 12 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation SEQ ID NOs: 60 and 169-174 and the claim also recites peptides with N- and C-terminal additions which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 13 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.
Regarding claim 13, the phrases "such as" and “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 13 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation SEQ ID NO: 266 and the claim also recites peptides with N- and C-terminal additions which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 14 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.
Regarding claim 14, the phrases "such as" and “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 14 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation SEQ ID NOs: 61, 175-243, 267, and 268 and the claim also recites peptides with N- and C-terminal additions which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 14 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. One of skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the presently claimed peptide. For example, it is unclear if TBMT is required by SEQ ID NO: 230 or not. See “(SEQ ID NO: 230; herein referred to as BCY21693 when complexed with TBMT)”.
Claim 15 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.
Regarding claim 15, the phrases "such as" and “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 15 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation SEQ ID NOs: 244-264 and the claim also recites peptides with N- and C-terminal additions which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 18 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. One of skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the presently claimed peptide. For example, the arbitrary names (e.g. BCY15663, etc.) utilized in the claim are not art recognized names. Utilization of the SEQ ID NO: is suggested.
Claim 19 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. One of skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the presently claimed peptide. For example, the arbitrary names (e.g. BCY15914, etc.) utilized in the claim are not art recognized names. Utilization of the SEQ ID NO: is suggested.
Claim 21 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.
Regarding claim 21, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Please note: due to the myriad of grammatical and 35 USE 112 issues with the claims, applicants are respectfully requested to carefully review the claims for any additional issues.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. WO 2019/025811 published February 7, 2019.
For present claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21, Chen et al. teach bicyclic peptides comprising at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences and a molecular scaffold wherein at least three cysteine residues form the loops and wherein the bicyclic peptide is specific for NK cells, the loops comprise 5 or 6 amino acids, the molecular scaffold is TATA, salt including sodium/Na, potassium/K, calcium/Ca, or ammonium, coupling two bicyclic peptides, and excipients and methods of administering the peptides to subjects with cancer (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; pages 1-15, 20-23, 28-34).
Therefore, the teachings of Chen et al. anticipate the presently claimed peptide.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of copending Application No. 19/515,038 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 19/515,038 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-33 of copending Application No. 19/493,277 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 19/493,277 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold (see SEQ ID NOs: 1-5 regarding present SEQ ID NO: 145).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of copending Application No. 19/464,790 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 19/464,790 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/451,122 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 19/451,122 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 14-32 of copending Application No. 19/380,611 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 19/380,611 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of copending Application No. 18/921,910 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 18/921,910 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-46 of copending Application No. 17/663,169 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 17/663,169 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 44 and 67-91 of copending Application No. 17/630,747 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 17/630,747 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-33 of copending Application No. 19/493,277 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 19/493,277 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of copending Application No. 19/515,038 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 19/515,038 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/451,122 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 19/451,122 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 14-32 of copending Application No. 19/380,611 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 19/380,611 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-31 of copending Application No. 19/309,085 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 19/309,085 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 19/308,931 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 19/308,931 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 19/246,212 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 19/246,212 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-32 of copending Application No. 18/742,691 (reference application; Notice of Allowance mailed March 3, 2026). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 18/742,691 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/499,739 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 18/499,739 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-31 of copending Application No. 17/309,626 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 17/309,626 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4-32 of copending Application No. 17/252,038 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 17/252,038 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 22-42 of copending Application No. 19/187,619 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 19/187,619 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 38-49 of copending Application No. 19/025,596 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 19/025,596 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 18/698,730 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 18/698,730 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-21 of copending Application No. 18/698,562 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 18/698,562 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-31 of copending Application No. 17/309,626 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 17/309,626 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 45-64 of copending Application No. 18/802,865 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 18/802,865 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 24 and 27-45 of copending Application No. 18/796,898 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 18/796,898 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-46 of copending Application No. 18/271,593 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 18/271,593 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
,
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of copending Application No. 18/271,360 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not ,patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 18/271,360 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold (see SEQ ID NOs: 5, 6, and 10 regarding present SEQ ID NO: 145).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/271,344 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 18/271,344 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/271,333 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 18/271,333 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-46 of copending Application No. 17/663,169 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 17/663,169 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4-32 of copending Application No. 17/252,038 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 17/252,038 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-40 of copending Application No. 18/427,414 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 18/427,414 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 32-51 of copending Application No. 18/313,983 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 18/313,983 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of copending Application No. 18/271,330 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of copending Application No. 18/271,330 (reference application) are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,150,998. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,150,998 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,970,555. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,970,555 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,551,567. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,551,567 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,730,819. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,730,819 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,904,020. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,904,020 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,866,518. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,866,518 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 12,492,224. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,492,224 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,613,560. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,613,560 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 11,241,473. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,241,473 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,857,196. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,857,196 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,049,520. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,049,520 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 11,261,214. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,261,214 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,833,211. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,833,211 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,696,956. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,696,956 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,484,602. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,484,602 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,623,012. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,623,012 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 12,378,288. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,378,288 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,542,304. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,542,304 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,453,703. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,453,703 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 10,875,894. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,875,894 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,459,974. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,459,974 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,792. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,792 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,180,531. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,180,531 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,396,530. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,396,530 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 10,919,937. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,919,937 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 12,492,224. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,492,224 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,551,567. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,551,567 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,613,560. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,613,560 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,570,695. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,570,695 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,435,107. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,435,107 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,970,553. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,970,553 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,312,749. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,312,749 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,306,123. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,306,123 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,516,084. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,516,084 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,350,343. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,350,343 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,814,447. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,814,447 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,332,500. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,332,500 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,606,594. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,606,594 are drawn to bicyclic peptides with at least three reactive groups separated by at least two loop sequences wherein at least three cysteines make the loops and a molecular scaffold.
Allowable Subject Matter
Sequences with 100% identity to present SEQ ID NOs: 1-268 are free of the prior art.
Future Communications
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMBER D STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-5538. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Melissa Fisher can be reached at 571-270-7430. 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.
/AMBER D STEELE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1658
Prosecution Insights