DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-3, 5-10, 14 and 19), drawn to a peptide, and Applicants’ election without traverse of species of diabetic retinopathy, in the reply filed on July 28, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 14 and 19 are hereby examined on the merits.
Claims 11, 18, and 20-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 28, 2026.
Priority
The present application is a 371 of PCT/GB2022/051943, filed July 25, 2022. Applicants claim for the benefit of a prior-filed foreign application UNITED KINGDOM 2110693.5, filed July 26, 2021, is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 14, and 18-25 are pending. Claims 11, 18, and 20-25 are withdrawn for further consideration. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 14 and 19 are currently examined on the merits herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on April 30, 2024, and April 29, 2024, were considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
The use of the terms Millipore, Corning, and Thermo Fisher Scientific, which are trade names or a marks used in commerce, have been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , ® or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-7, 27-31, 46, 48, 51, and 61 are drawn to the elected species SEQ ID NO:1.
BRI of claim 1: Claim 1 recites “a peptide comprising an amino acid sequence having at least 70% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1….”
The use of “comprising” implies the scope of the elected species having an amino acid sequence is being interpreted as open-ended requiring 100% identity to the amino acid sequence.
Further, by virtue of their dependency on claim 1 or SEQ ID NO: 1, claims 2, 5, 7, 8-10 are interpreted similarly.
BRI of claim 14: Claim 14 recites “a pharmaceutical composition comprising a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier and a peptide according to claim 1, or a nucleic acid construct encoding the peptide” is being interpreted as pharmaceutically acceptable carrier and peptide, where peptide is (i) synthetically prepared or (ii) recombinantly expressed with nucleic acid construct encoding the protein.
BRI of claim 19: Claim 19 recites “a pharmaceutical composition comprising a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier and the peptide or nucleic acid construct” is being interpreted as pharmaceutically acceptable carrier and peptide, where peptide is (i) synthetically prepared or (ii) recombinantly expressed with nucleic acid construct encoding the protein.
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 5 and 7-10 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.
Regarding claims 5 and 7: The recitation “the peptide of claim 1,wherein the heterologous peptide comprises an amino acid sequence having at least 70% identity to SEQ ID NO: 3 or SEQ ID NO: 4, optionally wherein the peptide comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 19 or SEQ ID NO: 20”; “the peptide of claim 1, wherein the heterologous peptide comprises an amino acid sequence having at least 70% identity to SEQ ID NO: 3 or SEQ ID NO: 4, optionally wherein the peptide comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 21 or SEQ ID NO: 22” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. It is unclear what “comprises an amino acid sequence having at least 70% identity to SEQ ID NO: 3 or SEQ ID NO: 4, optionally wherein the peptide comprises the amino acid sequence …” is referred to. BRI of this limitation includes multiple, plausible combinations: (a) SEQ ID NO: 3 only, (b) SEQ ID NO: 4 only, (c) SEQ ID NO: 19 only, (d) SEQ ID NO: 20 only; OR (e) a mixture of SEQ ID NO: 3 and SEQ ID NO: 19, (f) mixture of SEQ ID NO: 3 and SEQ ID NO: 20, (g) mixture of SEQ ID NO: 3 and SEQ ID NO: 21 or (h) mixture of SEQ ID NO: 3 and SEQ ID NO: 22; OR (i) SEQ ID NO: 19 only, (j) SEQ ID NO: 20 only, (k) SEQ ID NO: 21 only, or (l) SEQ ID NO: 22 only.
For the sake of compact prosecution, the claims have been interpreted broadly, i.e., the examiner has selected the species for examination, which is, LPLPLTTVA (SEQ ID NO: 1) (by the virtue of dependency on claim 1) or PAEEDTNVYTEKHSDSLF (SEQ ID NO: 3).
Regarding claims 8-10: The recitation “combination of two peptides…..” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. It is unclear what “combination” is referred to. BRI of this limitation includes multiple, plausible combinations: (a) SEQ ID NO: 3 only, (b) SEQ ID NO: 4 only; OR (c) a mixture of SEQ ID NO: 3 and SEQ ID NO: 1, (d) a mixture of SEQ ID NO: 4 and SEQ ID NO: 1; OR (e) a mixture of SEQ ID NO: 3 and SEQ ID NO: 5 or SEQ ID NO: 6, or (f) (d) a mixture of SEQ ID NO: 4 and SEQ ID NO: 5 or SEQ ID NO: 6.
For the sake of compact prosecution, the claims have been interpreted broadly, i.e., the examiner has selected the species for examination, which is, LPLPLTTVA (SEQ ID NO: 1) and/or PAEEDTNVYTEKHSDSLF (SEQ ID NO: 3).Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a natural product) without significantly more.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 14, and 19 are drawn to peptides comprising Syndecan-3 and/or Syndecan-2.
Claim 1 recites a peptide comprising an amino acid sequence having at least 70% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1. As discussed above (under Claim Interpretation), the claim is open to any oligopeptide so long as it comprises the instant SEQ ID NO: 1. Thus, claims 1 reads on the naturally-occurring proteins, such as:
For SEQ ID NO: 1 and SEQ ID NO: 2
Protein: Syndecan; Organism: Human; Amino acids residues: 346; UniProt ID: B4DIN4_HUMAN,
Protein: Syndecan; Gene: SDC3; Organism: Human; Amino acids residues: 370; UniProt ID: A0A0S2Z4U3_HUMAN,
Protein: Syndecan; Gene: SDC3; Organism: Human; Amino acids residues: 351; UniProt ID: A0A9K3Y886_HUMAN,
Plus other Human Syndecan UniProt entries not listed here.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5-10, 14 and 19 merely recite functional attributes of SEQ ID NO: 1 but do not further limit or differentiate between the oligopeptide of claim 1 and the above listed naturally occurring products. Thus, with no other limitations in claims 1-3, 5-10, 14, and 19, SEQ ID NO: 1 reads on the natural products above and does not add significantly more.
Additionally, claim 2 recites “wherein the peptide comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 2 or 7”. It is to be noted that SEQ ID NO: 7 is drawn to Mouse Syndecan protein. As discussed above (under Claim Interpretation), the claim is open to any oligopeptide so long as it comprises the instant SEQ ID NO: 7. Thus, claim 2 reads on the naturally-occurring proteins, such as:
For SEQ ID NO: 7
Protein: Syndecan 3; Gene: Sdc3; Organism: Mouse; Amino acid residues: 148; UniProt ID: B1ASF6_MOUSE.
Plus other Mouse Syndecan UniProt entries not listed here.
Claims 5 and 7-10 are drawn to Syndecan-2 peptides SEQ ID NO: 3 and/or SEQ ID NO: 4. As discussed above (under Claim Interpretation), the claim is open to any oligopeptide so long as it comprises the instant SEQ ID NO: 3 and /or 4. Thus, claims 5 and 7-10 read on the naturally-occurring proteins, such as:
For SEQ ID NO: 3
Protein: Syndecan 2; Gene: SDC2; Organism: Homo sapiens; Amino acid residues: 136; UniProt ID: E5RJB8_HUMAN,
Protein: Syndecan; Organism: Homo sapiens; Amino acid residues: 81; UniProt ID: B4DT61_HUMAN,
Plus other Human Syndecan UniProt entries not listed here.
For SEQ ID NO: 4
Protein: Syndecan; Gene: Sdc2; Organism: Mus musculus; Amino acid residues: 143; UniProt ID: Q99L05_MOUSE,
Protein: Syndecan; Gene: Sdc2; Organism: Mus caroli; Amino acid residues: 170; UniProt ID: A0A6P5R4G6_MUSCR,
Plus other Human Syndecan UniProt entries not listed here.
Additionally, the corresponding recombinant fusion peptides for Syndecan-3/Syndecan-2 are SEQ ID NO: 19 (Human), SEQ ID NO: 20 (Mouse); or Syndecan-2/Syndecan-3 are SEQ ID NO: 21 (Human), and SEQ ID NO: 22 (Mouse). Therefore, by virtue of their dependency on claim 1, 5, and 7-10, SEQ ID NOs: 19-22 are drawn to the naturally-occurring proteins/peptides.
Further, none of claims 1, 2, 5, and 7-10 integrate SEQ ID NO: 1-4 and 7 into a practical application as they merely recite the polypeptide fragment itself, or functional attributes imbued by the structure of the peptide itself, without significantly more. Additional dependent claims 3, 5, 14, and 19 do integrate SEQ ID NO: 1-4 and 7 into a practical application, wherein SEQ ID NO: 1 and/or SEQ ID NOs: 2, 3, 4, and 7 is included in a preparation, inhibition, or pharmaceutical composition. However, none of the aforementioned claims include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, they do not contain elements added to the judicial exception sufficient to render the claims significantly more than the exception.
Taken together, the claims are drawn to patent ineligible subject matter and are rejected here.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
MPEP § 2163 states that the written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the inventor was in possession of the claimed genus.
Scope of the claims
The claims are drawn to a peptide comprising an amino acid sequence having at least 70% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1, optionally wherein the peptide is fused to a heterologous peptide.
Actual Reduction to Practice
MPEP § 2163 states that the written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice. A “representative number of species” means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus.
In the instant case, several embodiments of the invention were reduced to practice: see Brief description of Sequences (page 7-8), and Figures 3-8.
The specification states that in some embodiments, the amino acid sequence of the fusion of the minimal active amino acid sequence of human Syndecan-3 (SDC3) and amino acid sequence of residues 123-140 of human Syndecan-2 (SDC2). Residues 123-140 of human Syndecan-2 (SDC2) are bound to the C-terminus of the minimal active amino acid sequence of human Syndecan-3 (SDC3) (see [0060]; the amino acid sequence of the fusion of the minimal active amino acid sequence of human Syndecan-3 (SDC3) and amino acid sequence of residues 123-140 of human Syndecan-2 (SDC2). Residues 123-140 of human Syndecan-2 (SDC2) are bound to the N-terminus of the minimal active amino acid sequence of human Syndecan-3 (SDC3) (see [0061]), lacks written description because the instant application does not provide sufficient guidance to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the sequences falling within the scope of the genus or of a recitation of structural features common to the members of the genus. Applicant reduced to practice the sequences listed in Brief description of Sequences (page 7-8), and Figures 3-8. There is no reduction to practice for the full scope of the sequence variants as instantly claimed. Since the disclosure fails to describe the common attributes or characteristics that identify all of the members of the genus or even a substantial portion thereof, the specification is insufficient to teach the entire genus.
Therefore, the instant specification has failed to meet the written description requirement by actual reduction to practice of a representative number of species alone.
Sufficient relevant identifying characteristic
MPEP § 2163 states that the written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination thereof.
i. Complete structure
As stated above, the complete structure of the peptides in Brief description of Sequences (page 7) and Sequences of the invention (page 33) are disclosed.
ii. Partial structure:
The specification states that as a partial structure the peptides must comprise fused heterologous peptide. Brief description of Sequences (page 7) and Sequences of the invention (page 33) discloses numerous peptides that meet this requirement but that in one embodiment, both SDC3 derived peptides performed as well as QM107 and when QM111 and QM107 were used in conjunction endothelial cell migration was inhibited to a greater degree (see [0182]); both human and mouse sequences inhibited angiogenic sprout formation to the same degree as QM107 (FIGS. 4A and B), and as previously a combination of QM111 and QM107 gave a more robust response (see [0183]); QM111T inhibited angiogenesis to the same degree as QM111 and QM107 and as previously observed gave a more robust response when used in combination with QM107 (FIG. 7) (see [0186]). Therefore, it is unclear from the partial structure and/or combination/conjunction of peptides which additional elements are necessary to meet all of the claimed properties of the genus.
iii. Physical and/or chemical properties:
The data presented in the specification raise more questions about the physical properties of the genus than they answer. The data do not suggest the physical basis for the peptide derivatives and therefore do not describe which substitutions, deletions or additions could be made while preserving this conformation. Understanding the physical basis for having anti-angiogenic activity including vascular permeability inhibitory activity is critical to determining which of the sequences that meet the sequence requirements of the genus also meet this additional functional requirement of the genus.
iv. Functional characteristics when coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure:
The specification does not describe a general correlation between sequence and structural coordinates for the claimed genus. As a result, it is impossible to predict, based on the specification, how changing any position will affect the anti-angiogenic activity including vascular permeability inhibitory activity.
v. Method of making the claim invention
Solid state peptide synthesis and the cloning, recombinant expression and purification of proteins is well-known in the art. It is not disputed that one of ordinary skill in the art could isolate, albeit with route experimentation and optimization, a peptide of a given sequence provided that the sequence is known. Where the specification fails to provide description is in the structure of the peptide to make. For all of the reasons presented above, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know which of the countless peptides that meet the sequence requirements of the claims would also have specific structural conformation with expected anti-angiogenic and vascular permeability inhibitory activity. In other words, the specification does not describe which peptides to make.
Conclusion
For these reasons, the skilled artisan would not reasonably conclude that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the full scope of the claimed invention. To fulfill the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe an invention and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that “the inventor invented the claimed invention. The description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.” Thus, an applicant complies with the written description requirement by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious, and by using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that set forth the claimed invention.
While the general knowledge and level of skill in the art for peptide amino acids is evident, this knowledge and level of skill does not supplement the omitted description because specific, not general guidance is needed for one or more fused heterologous peptide sequences with inhibitory properties, for which guidance is not provided at all. Since the disclosure fails to describe common attributes or core sequences that represent all members of the genus, and because the genus of SEQ ID NO: 1 and/or SEQ ID NO: 3 or 4 amino acid residues that correspond to the syndecan3/syndecan2 is vast and variant, the examples in the specification is insufficient to teach the entire genus. One would only conclude that Applicant was in possession of a anti-angiogenic peptide as represented in Brief description of Sequences (page 7-8) and Sequences of the invention (page 33) and not the entirety of sequences within the scope of the instant claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eustace et. al. (“Soluble syndecan-3 binds chemokines, reduces leukocyte migration in vitro and ameliorates disease severity in models of rheumatoid arthritis”; Andrew D. Eustace, Emily F. McNaughton, Sophie King, Oksana Kehoe, Andreas Kungl, Derek Mattey, Angela H. Nobbs, Neil Williams and Jim Middleton; Arthritis Research & Therapy (2019) 21:172; published July 12, 2019; cited in IDS filed April 30, 2024).
Eustace et. al. teaches Syndecan-3 is highly expressed on synovial endothelial cells in
rheumatoid arthritis patients, here it binds pro-inflammatory chemokines with evidence for a role in chemokine presentation and leukocyte trafficking into the joint, promoting the inflammatory response (see Abstract), and elucidates the role that soluble syndecan-3 plays in inflammation through analysing chemokine binding (see page 2, right col, paragraph 3).
For claims 1-3: The peptide sequence of syndecan-3 used by Eustace et. al. is 100% homologous to the instantly claimed peptide sequences SEQ ID NO: 1, 2 and 7 (see Substances: Sequences used Protein (RefSeq) Links for PubMed (Select 16052590) - Protein – NCBI).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5-10, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eustace et. al. (“Soluble syndecan-3 binds chemokines, reduces leukocyte migration in vitro and ameliorates disease severity in models of rheumatoid arthritis”; Andrew D. Eustace, Emily F. McNaughton, Sophie King, Oksana Kehoe, Andreas Kungl, Derek Mattey, Angela H. Nobbs, Neil Williams and Jim Middleton; Arthritis Research & Therapy (2019) 21:172; published July 12, 2019; cited in IDS filed April 30, 2024) in view of WO2016063042 (published on April 28, 2016; cited in IDS filed April 30, 2024).
The teachings of Eustace et. al. is discussed above. Eustace et. al. discloses the peptide sequences of syndecan-3 which are 100% homologous to the instantly claimed peptide sequences SEQ ID NO: 1.
The difference between this reference and the remaining claims is that it does not specify the heterologous peptide comprising an amino acid sequence having at least 70% identity to SEQ ID NO: 3.
WO’042 discloses an anti-angiogenic peptide comprising an amino acid sequence having at least 70% identity to amino acid residues 123-140 of SEQ ID NO: 1 or amino acid residues 24-141 of SEQ ID NO: 2 (see Abstract) where SEQ ID NO: 1 and SEQ ID NO: 2 are 100% homologous to instantly claimed SEQ ID NO: 3 and SEQ ID NO: 4, respectively.
Thus, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Eustace et. al. and WO’042 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by modifying/combining the compositions to arrive at the claimed composition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the amino acid sequence/s of peptide compositions taught by Eustace et. al. along with anti-angiogenic peptide sequences taught by WO’042. Thus, one skilled in the art can adjust the composition of anti-angiogenic peptide sequences so that it is at least 70% identical to the instant SEQ ID NO: 1 and/or the heterologous peptide comprising an amino acid sequence having at least 70% identity to instant SEQ ID NO: 3.
For claims 5 and 7-10: WO’042 discloses amino acid residues 123-140 of SEQ ID NO: 1 or amino acid residues 24-141 of SEQ ID NO: 2 (see Abstract) which are 100% homologous to the instantly claimed SEQ ID NO: 3 and SEQ ID NO: 4, respectively.
For claim 6: WO’042 discloses that in SEQ ID NOs 3 to 5 the amino acid sequence of the GST + linker is shown in underline and in SEQ ID NOs 3 and 5 the 18 amino acid peptide (corresponding to amino acid residues 124-141 of SEQ ID NO: 2) is shown in bold (see Figure 7). Therefore, WO’042 uses peptide linkers with amino acid residues GGS to fuse heterologous peptide variants.
For claims 14 and 19: WO’042 further teaches a pharmaceutical composition comprising a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier and an anti- angiogenic peptide … or a nucleic acid construct (see claim 9); a nucleic acid construct encoding an anti-angiogenic peptide (see claim 6); a pharmaceutical composition .. further comprising an anti-angiogenic compound (see claim 10); an anti-angiogenic peptide.., a nucleic acid construct…, or a pharmaceutical composition … for use in the treatment of a disease associated with angiogenesis (see claim 12). Additionally, WO’042 teaches about a kit comprising an anti-angiogenic peptide …, a nucleic acid construct … or a pharmaceutical composition ..(see claim 18); the kit for use in the treatment of a disease associated with angiogenesis (see claim 19).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KOYELI BANERJEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/KOYELI BANERJEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1658
/Melissa L Fisher/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1658
Prosecution Insights