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
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Status of Application/Amendments/claims
2. Applicant’s amendment filed May 8, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 2-7, 11-14, 19, 21-42 and 46-48 are canceled. Claims 1, 8-10, 15-18, 20, 43-45 and 49 are pending in this application. Claims 43-45 are withdrawn without traverse (filed 04/21/2025) from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable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 April 21, 2025.
3. Claims 1, 8-10, 15-18, 20 and 49 are under examination with respect to SEQ ID NO:4, SEQ ID NO:3, FGF2 mimetic sequence and SEQ ID NO: 13 in this office action.
4. Applicant’s arguments filed on May 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
Priority
5. The priority for the claimed supramolecular assembly comprising a.at least one IKVAV peptide amphiphile (IKVAV PA) and b.at least one growth factor mimetic peptide amphiphile (FGF-2 PA), and wherein the IKVAV PA and FGF-2 PA comprise sequences and structures recited in claim 1 is February 23, 2021.
Claim Rejections/Objections Maintained
In view of the amendment filed on May 8, 2026, the following rejections are maintained.
Double Patenting
6. 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, 8-10, 15-18, 20 and 49 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of US Patent No. 12552833 (Application No. 17425757) in view of Pinto et al. (Tissue Engineering Part A.01 December 2017, Vol. 23 (Supplement 1), abstract Number 421, as in IDS), Stupp et al. (US8748569) and Zamora et al. (US8227411). The rejection is maintained for the reasons of record and the reasons set forth below.
Response to Arguments
On p. 6-9 of the response, Applicant acknowledges that Pinto teaches a combination of an IKVAV PA and FGF-2 PA. But Applicant argues that i) even applying a known FGF-2 mimetic sequence does not yield a predictable result or an improved product; ii) the specification showed that IKVAV PA2 and FGF-2 PA2 (having the same AAGG as a structural peptide segment) do not yield improved result compared to IKVAV PA2 alone (see Figures 3I, 4D-E, 5C and 17); iii) injections of IKVAV PA2 co-assembled with FGF2 PA1 (having V2A2) led to robust corticospinal axon regrowth across the lesion site even suppressing its distal border (Figs 3G-H, 15 and 17); iv) none of the cited references disclose or suggest use of IKVAV PA and an FGF-2 PA each having a distinct structural peptide segment. Applicant further cites p. 40, lines 23-26 in support of the arguments.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive. Contrary to Applicant's arguments, the examiner asserts that based on MPEP §804, MPEP §2141, MPEP2141-I, rationales identified by the Court in KSR (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)), MPEP2141-II, the basic factual inquires of Graham v. John Deere Co.(Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966)),and MPEP §2141.01-2147.03, the cited references do render the claimed invention unpatentable or obvious because:
i. The instant claims are not limited to the co-assembly of IKVAV-PA2 consisting of instant SEQ ID NO: 12 and FGF-2 PA1 consisting of instant SEQ ID NO:13 as shown in Examples (p.38-42 of the instant specification).
The instant claims encompass a supermolecular assembly comprising a IKVAV-PA and a FGF-2 mimetic PA wherein IKVAV-PA and a FGF-2 mimetic PA having the recited structure and features recited in claim 1, which are obvious over the cited references.
ii. Applicant cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The secondary references: Pinto et al. (2017), Stupp et al. (US8748569) and Zamora (US8227411) are cited to support the combination of IKVAV PA and FGF-2 PA and the claimed sequence of FGF-2 PA.
As acknowledged by Applicant on p. 7 of the response, Pinto teaches a combination of an IKVAV PA and FGF-2 PA to form nanofibers for promoting vascularization, nerve regeneration, functional recovery and limiting the damage in an experimental mouse model of spinal cord injury (SCI).
The peptide amphiphile (PA) or the PA encompassed in the nanofiber, the pharmaceutical composition or the scaffold recited in claims 1-7 of US12552833 (the ‘833 patent; original Application No. 17425757) comprises C8-24-A2G2-EEEE-G-a bioactive peptide including IKVAV (instant SEQ ID NO:1), which is identical to the IKVAV-PA recited in instant claim 1 or comprising instant SEQ ID NO:12 as in instant claim 10.
In particular, the PA recited in the claims 1-7 of the ‘833 patent comprises the claimed IKVAV PA2 recited in instant claim 1 because the PA of the ‘833 patent comprises i) a hydrophobic tail comprising a C8-24 carbon alkyl chain, ii) a structural peptide segment having a total propensity for forming beta-sheet conformation of 4 or less including SEQ ID NO:1 (A2G2, which is instant SEQ ID NO:4 recited in instant claim 1), iii) a charged peptide segment comprising EE, EEE or EEEE (SEQ ID NO:5, which is the instant SEQ ID NO:11 recited in instant claim 1), and iv) a bioactive peptide including SEQ ID NO:25 (IKVAV, which is the instant SEQ ID NO:1 recited in instant claim 1) (see claim 2 of the ‘833 patent ), and wherein the PA includes PA comprising C8-24-AAGG-EEEE-G-IKVAV (SEQ ID NO:7, which is instant SEQ ID NO:12 recited in instant claim 10) (see claim 4 of the ‘833 patent).
While the claims of the ‘833 patent do not recite that the limitation “b. at least one growth factor mimetic peptide amphiphile…. wherein the growth factor mimetic sequence is FGF-2 mimetic sequence comprising the sequence..(SEQ ID NO:2)” recited in instant claim 1 or “FGF-2-PA comprising instant SEQ ID NO:13” recited in claims 17 and 18, Pinto, Stupp and Zamora teach these limitations and provide motivation and an expectation of success in generating a supramolecular assembly comprising at least two PA including at least one IKVAV-PA and at least one growth factor-memetic PA that is FGF-2 mimetic PA as instantly claimed because:
1. Pinto teaches use of self-assembled nanostructures comprising an FGF-2 mimetic PA co-assembled with a known IKVAV-PA to form nanofibers for promoting vascularization, nerve regeneration, functional recovery and limiting the damage in an experimental mouse model of spinal cord injury (SCI) (see Abstract 421, p. S105-S106).
2. Stupp (US8748569) teaches self-assembly PA molecules/compounds for promoting axonal or neurite outgrowth and treatment of different neurodegenerative diseases or neuronal damage in spinal cord due to traumatic injury, and wherein the PA molecules/compounds include a basic structure of C6-C22/C15-V2A2-E4-G-IKVAV (SEQ ID NO. 1) or C6-C22/C15-V2A2-E4-G-growth factor (see col. 9, lines 61-col. 10, lines 16). Stupp teaches that the self-assembly PA molecules/compounds comprise four segments: (1) a hydrophobic segment including C6-C22 or C15 acyl group; (2) a structural peptide or beta-sheet-forming peptide segment comprising 3-10 non-polar amino acid residues including V2A2; (3) a charged peptide segment comprising the formula of (E)x(G)y, wherein x is 2-6 and y is 1-6, including (E)2-G or (E)4-G (instant SEQ ID NO:11) and (4) a signaling epitope comprising the peptide IKVAV (SEQ ID NO. 1) or a growth factor (see col.31-32, claims 1-5; col. 2, lines 4-63; col. 4, line 31-col.6, line 5; col. 8, line 32-col.11, line 61).
3. Zamora (US8227411) teaches an FGF-2 analog comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:7 (YRSRKYSSWYVALKR), which is 100% identical to instant SEQ ID NO:2 (see the sequence alignment; col. 4, line 30) and its use for treatment of different neurodegenerative diseases including occlusive cerebrovascular disease, or Huntington's disease, Parkinson's disease, or Alzheimer's disease (see col.26, lines 13-17). In addition, the FGF-2 analog comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:7 (YRSRKYSSWYVALKR, which is 100% identical to instant SEQ ID NO:2) has been shown to be effective to repair neural damaged tissue caused by trauma as evidenced by Perez et al. (see abstract; p.2167, 2nd col.; p. 2171-2172; Perez et al.ACS Biomater.Sci. Engl., 2017; 3:2166-2175, cited previously).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that selecting and applying the known FGF-2 mimetic sequence comprising instant SEQ ID NO:2 or the known FGF2-PA comprising instant SEQ ID NO:13 (V2A2-E4-G-SEQ ID NO:2) and the known technique disclosed by Pinto, Stupp and Zamora to the nanofiber comprising the PA and a pharmaceutical composition or scaffold recited in claims of the ‘833 patent would have yielded the predictable result of generating the claimed supramolecular assembly comprising at least one IKVAV-PA and at least one growth factor mimetic PA including FGF2-PA comprising instant SEQ ID NO:13, and resulted in an improved product.
Using and including the known FGF-2 mimetic sequence comprising instant SEQ ID NO:2 or the known FGF2-PA comprising instant SEQ ID NO:13 (V2A2-E4-G-SEQ ID NO:2) in the composition comprising PAs, or nanofibers or nanostructures or supramolecular structures of the ‘833 patent would generate the claimed supramolecular assembly comprising the claimed IKVAV-PA and at least one growth factor mimetic PA including FGF-2-PA having instant SEQ ID NO:13, and expand application of the composition of the ‘833 patent in therapeutic purposes and treatment of a nervous system injury, and would increase patient’s satisfaction with treatment of nervous injury including trauma using a composition comprising PAs and nanofibers, nanostructures or supramolecular structures because Pinto teaches self-assembled nanostructures comprising an FGF-2 mimetic PA co-assembled with a known IKVAV-PA to form nanofibers for promoting vascularization, nerve regeneration, functional recovery and limit the damage in an experimental mouse model of spinal cord injury (SCI), the claims of the ‘833 patent and Stupp teach self-assembled PAs including PAs comprising C8-24-V2A2-E4-G-growth factor mimetic sequence for promoting neurite outgrowth or cell survival of motor neurons; and Zamora teaches an FGF-2 analog comprising instant SEQ ID NO:2 and FGF2-PA nanoribbons comprising instant SEQ ID NO:13 for repair of damaged tissue and neural tissue caused by trauma.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select and apply the known FGF-2-PA comprising instant SEQ ID NO:2 or the known FGF2-PA comprising instant SEQ ID NO:13, the known supramolecular assembly comprising self-assembly of IKVAV-PA and growth factor-memetic PA, and the known technique of generating supramolecular assembly disclosed by Pinto, Stupp and Zamora to the nanofiber or scaffold or pharmaceutical composition of the ‘833 patent, and yield the predictable result of generating a supramolecular assembly comprising at least one IKVAV-PA having the recited structures and sequences and at least one growth factor-memetic PA including FGF2-PA having the recited structures and sequences for therapeutic purposes and for treatment of a nervous system injury.
ii. In response to Applicant’s arguments related to unexpected results, note that evidence of unexpected results must be weighed against evidence supporting prima facie obviousness in making a final determination of the obviousness of the claimed invention. In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978). See MPEP 716.02(c)-I.
In this case, the effect of self-assembled nanostructures comprising an FGF-2 mimetic PA co-assembled with a known IKVAV-PA to form nanofibers for promoting vascularization, nerve regeneration, functional recovery and limiting the damage in an experimental mouse model of spinal cord injury (SCI) is known as taught by Pinto. The effect of FGF-2 mimetic comprising instant SEQ ID NO:2 or the FGF-2 PA comprising instant SEQ ID NO:13 on repair of neural damaged tissue caused by trauma or neurodegenerative diseases including brain injury caused by occlusive cerebrovascular disease is known as taught by Stupp and Zamora as evidenced by Perez. Thus, the unexpected results as claimed by Applicant are not unexpected in view of the teachings of Pinto, Stupp and Zamora.
“The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).” See MPEP 2144.07.
In particular, Pinto teaches self-assembled nanostructures comprising an FGF-2 mimetic PA co-assembled with a known IKVAV-PA to form nanofibers for promoting vascularization, nerve regeneration, functional recovery and limit the damage in an experimental mouse model of spinal cord injury (SCI), the claims of the ‘833 patent and Stupp teach self-assembled PAs including PAs comprising C8-24-V2A2-E4-G-growth factor mimetic sequence for promoting neurite outgrowth or cell survival of motor neurons; and Zamora teaches an FGF-2 analog comprising instant SEQ ID NO:2 and FGF2-PA nanoribbons comprising instant SEQ ID NO:13 for repair of damaged tissue caused by trauma. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select and apply the known FGF-2-PA comprising instant SEQ ID NO:2 or the known FGF2-PA comprising instant SEQ ID NO:13, the known supramolecular assembly comprising self-assembly of IKVAV-PA and growth factor-memetic PA, and the known technique of generating supramolecular assembly disclosed by Pinto, Stupp and Zamora to the nanofiber or scaffold or pharmaceutical composition of the ‘833 patent, and yield the predictable result of generating a supramolecular assembly comprising at least one IKVAV-PA having the recited structures and sequences and at least one growth factor-memetic PA including FGF2-PA having the recited structures and sequences for therapeutic purposes and for treatment of a nervous system injury.
Further, any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. See: MPEP §716.02.
The claimed robust corticospinal axon regrowth in the treatment with the co-assembly of IKVAV-PA2 and FGF2-PA1 (with a structural peptide segment V2A2) relative to IKVAV-PA2 alone compared to the co-assembly of IKVAV-PA and FGF2-PA2 (with a structural peptide segment A2G2) relative to IKVA2-PA2 alone is not unexpected because the effect of the co-assembly of IKVAV-PA2 and FGF2-PA is known as taught by Pinto, and the effect of IKVAV-PA2 on neural repair and the effect of FGF2-PA with the claimed sequence on neural repair are also known as taught by Pinto, Stupp and Zamora. “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).” See MPEP 2144.07, and “A greater than expected result is an evidentiary factor pertinent to the legal conclusion of obviousness ... of the claims at issue.” In re Corkill, 711 F.2d 1496, 226 USPQ 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 716.02(a)-I.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 8-10, 15-18, 20 and 49 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of US12552833 (original Application No. 17425757) in view of Pinto, Stupp and Zamora is maintained.
Double Patenting
7. Claims 1, 8-10, 15-18, 20 and 49 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-59 of copending Application No. 19448840 (the ‘840 Application) in view of Pinto et al. (2017), Stupp et al. (US8748569), and Zamora et al. (US8227411).
On p. 6-9 of the response, the rejection should be withdrawn for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive. Contrary to Applicant's arguments, the examiner asserts that based on MPEP §804, MPEP §2141, MPEP2141-I, rationales identified by the Court in KSR (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)), MPEP2141-II, the basic factual inquires of Graham v. John Deere Co.(Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966)), and MPEP §2141.01-2147.03, the cited references do render the claimed invention unpatentable or obvious for the reasons set forth above.
In particular, the PA or the PA encompassed in the nanofiber, the pharmaceutical composition or the scaffold recited in claims 1-59 of the ‘840 Application includes PA comprising C8-24-A2G2-EEEE-G-a bioactive peptide including IKVAV, which is the same as the IKVAV peptide amphiphile recited in instant claim 1. While the claims of the ‘840 Application do not recite that the limitation “b. at least one growth factor mimetic peptide amphiphile…. wherein the growth factor mimetic sequence is FGF-2 mimetic sequence comprising the sequence..(SEQ ID NO:2)” recited in instant claim 1 or “FGF-2-PA comprising instant SEQ ID NO:13” recited in claims 17 and 18, Pinto, Stupp and Zamora teach these limitations and provide motivation and an expectation of success for the reasons set forth above. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select and apply the known FGF-2-PA comprising instant SEQ ID NO:2 or the known FGF2-PA comprising instant SEQ ID NO:13, the known supramolecular assembly comprising self-assembly of IKVAV-PA and growth factor-memetic PA, and the known technique of generating supramolecular assembly disclosed by Pinto, Stupp and Zamora to the nanofiber or scaffold or pharmaceutical composition of the ‘840 Application, and yield the predictable result of generating a supramolecular assembly comprising at least one IKVAV-PA having the recited structures and sequences and at least one growth factor-memetic PA including FGF2-PA having the recited structures and sequences for therapeutic purposes and for treatment of a nervous system injury.
Accordingly, the provisional rejection of claims 1, 8-10, 15-18, 20 and 49 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-59 of Application No. 19448840 in view of Pinto, Stupp and Zamora is maintained.
Double Patenting
8. Claims 1, 8-10, 15-18, 20 and 49 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3-8, 14-18, 30 and 32 of copending Application No. 19147007 (the ‘007 Application) in view of Pinto et al. (2017), Stupp et al. (US8748569), and Zamora et al. (US8227411). The rejection is maintained for the reasons of record and the reasons set forth below.
Response to Arguments
On p. 9 of the response, Applicant argues that the instant application has an earlier effecting date than the ‘007 Application because the filing date of the ‘007 Application is January 16, 2024. Applicant argues that the rejection should be withdrawn in view of MPEP 804(I)(B)(b)(i) because the rejection is the only rejection remaining.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive. Contrary to Applicant's arguments, the double patenting rejection over the ‘007 Application is the only one rejection for the reasons set forth above.
Based on MPEP §804, MPEP §2141, MPEP2141-I, rationales identified by the Court in KSR (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)), MPEP2141-II, the basic factual inquires of Graham v. John Deere Co.(Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966)),and MPEP §2141.01-2147.03, the cited references do render the claimed invention unpatentable or obvious because:
i. For the reasons set forth above, the instant rejection is not the only rejection remaining.
ii. The PAs encompassed in the composition recited in claims 3-8, 14-18, 30 and 32 of the ‘007 Application self-assembled into a supramolecular nanofiber and wherein the PAs comprises the claimed IKVAV PA and FGF2 PA as instantly claimed. In particular, the PAs of the ‘007 Application comprises: a) a hydrophobic non-peptide segment comprising an acyl chain including C6-C20; b) a structural peptide segment comprising a beta-sheet forming peptide segment including A2G2 (SEQ ID NO:4) and V2A2 (SEQ ID NO:3); c) a charged peptide segment which is a glutamate and/or aspartate-rich segment including EE, EEE or EEEE; and d) a bioactive peptide including a IKVAV and a FGF2 mimetic peptide (see claims 16-17) or a composition comprising a first PA and a second PA (claim 31), which relate to the limitations recited in instant claims.
While the claims of the ‘007 Application do not recite that the limitation “b. at least one growth factor mimetic peptide amphiphile…. wherein the growth factor mimetic sequence is FGF-2 mimetic sequence comprising the sequence..(SEQ ID NO:2)” recited in instant claim 1, “FGF-2-PA comprising instant SEQ ID NO:13” in claims 17 and 18, Pinto, Stupp and Zamora teach these limitations and provide motivation and an expectation of success for the reasons set forth above. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select and apply the known FGF-2-PA comprising instant SEQ ID NO:2 or the known FGF2-PA comprising instant SEQ ID NO:13, the known supramolecular assembly comprising self-assembly of IKVAV-PA and growth factor-memetic PA, and the known technique of generating supramolecular assembly disclosed by Pinto, Stupp and Zamora to the nanofiber/scaffold/pharmaceutical composition of the ‘007 Application, and yield the predictable result of generating a supramolecular assembly comprising at least one IKVAV-PA having the recited structures and sequences and at least one growth factor-memetic PA including FGF2-PA having the recited structures and sequences for therapeutic purposes and for treatment of a nervous system injury.
Accordingly, the provisional rejection of claims 1, 8-10, 15-18, 20 and 49 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3-8, 14-18, 30 and 32 of copending Application No. 19147007 in view of Pinto, Stupp and Zamora is maintained.
Conclusion
9. NO CLAIM IS ALLOWED.
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US8748569 teaches peptide amphiphiles (PAs) comprising at least one IKVAV PA wherein the PAs including a PA comprising instant SEQ ID NO:12 (see the sequence alignment below).
SEQ ID NO:12
US-13-442-210B-7
Sequence 7, US/13442210B
Patent No. 8748569
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Stupp, Samuel I.
APPLICANT: Goldberger, Joshua E.
APPLICANT: Berns, Eric J.
TITLE OF INVENTION: PEPTIDE AMPHIPHILES AND METHODS TO ELECTROSTATICALLY CONTROL
TITLE OF INVENTION: BIOACTIVITY OF THE IKVAV PEPTIDE EPITOPE
FILE REFERENCE: NWEST-32590/US-2/ORD
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/13/442,210B
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2012-04-09
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US 61/473,593
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2011-04-08
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 19
SEQ ID NO 7
LENGTH: 14
TYPE: PRT
ORGANISM: Artificial Sequence
FEATURE:
OTHER INFORMATION: Synthetic
Query Match 70.1%; Score 47; Length 14;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 10; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 5 EEEEGIKVAV 14
||||||||||
Db 5 EEEEGIKVAV 14
US8227411 teaches an FGF-2 analog comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:7, which is 100% identical to instant SEQ ID NO:2 (see the sequence alignment below; col. 4, line 30).
SEQ ID NO:2
Sequence 7, US/11361565B
Patent No. 8227411
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: BioSurface Engineering Technologies, Inc.
APPLICANT: Brookhaven National Laboratory
APPLICANT: Zamora, Paul O.
APPLICANT: Pena, Louis A.
APPLICANT: Lin, Xinhua
APPLICANT: Takahashi, Kazuyuki
TITLE OF INVENTION: FGF Growth Factor Analogs
FILE REFERENCE: 30817-Util-860
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/11/361,565B
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2006-02-23
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: 60/656,860
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2005-02-25
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: 10/644,703
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2003-08-19
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: 10/224,268
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2003-08-20
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: 11/064,039
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2005-02-22
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: 11/065,970
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2005-02-24
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 49
SEQ ID NO 7
LENGTH: 15
TYPE: PRT
ORGANISM: Artificial
FEATURE:
OTHER INFORMATION: Synthetic FGF-2 analog
Query Match 100.0%; Score 15; Length 15;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 15; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 YRSRKYSSWYVALKR 15
|||||||||||||||
Db 1 YRSRKYSSWYVALKR 15
11. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANG-YU WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4521. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:00am-5:00pm 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, Jeffrey Stucker can be reached at 571-272-0911. 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.
Chang-Yu Wang
May 25, 2026
/CHANG-YU WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1675
Prosecution Insights