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 with traverse of Group I, Species Group A: SEQ ID NO: 305, Species Group B: SEQ ID NO: 15 and 16, Species Group C: SEQ ID NO: 258, Species Group D: SEQ ID NO: 8, and Species Group E: SEQ ID NO: 267 in the reply filed on 19 February 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Examiner has not cited evidence showing that the present claims have achieved a separate status in the art or would require a different field of search. This is not found persuasive.
In response to the election of species. The restriction requirement is directed to a plurality of distinct species encompassed by the claims. The requirement is not based upon a finding that the species have achieved separate status in the art. Rather, the requirement is based upon the presence of multiple disclosed and/or claimed species that are patentably distinct and whose examination would impose a serious burden. The presently claimed sequences differ in their structural characteristics and require separate consideration as to novelty, obviousness, etc. Each sequence potentially implicates different prior art references. Consequently, examination of all disclosed species would require a materially expanded search and examination effort.
In response to the restriction between inventions, Invention I and Invention II are actually related as subcombination (Invention I) and combination (invention II). The nucleic acid of Invention I has utility independent of the vector of Invention II because it can be used in alternative vectors and expression systems. Examination of the nucleic acid and the vector would require consideration of different prior art and patentability issues, creating a serious search and examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Accordingly, claims 2, 11-13, 22, and 25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 19 February 2025.
Claims 1, 3-9, 17-19, 21 and 23-24 are pending and being examined on the merits.
Priority
The application claims priority to 63/336,062 filed 04/28/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 04/08/2023, 02/08/2024, and 11/20/2024 have been considered.
The use of the terms Miltenyi Biotec, ThermoFisher Scientific, to name a few, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1, 4-6, and 24 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.
Claims 1, 4 and 6 recites, “at least about”. This term is a relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “at least about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Furthermore, the term “at least about” does not define the lower limit of percentages listed.
Claim 5 recite “in particular”. This phrase renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 and 24 require that the nucleic acid sequence encoding the at least one TCR polypeptide and at least one CD8 polypeptide is least about 90-100% identical to the nucleic acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 267. The specification teaches that SEQ ID NO: 267 is a CD8b3.CD8a.TCR.WPREmut2 construct nucleotide sequence. It is unclear how a nucleic acid sequence encoding the at least one TCR polypeptide and at least one CD8 polypeptide, only (as defined by the claim, can additionally comprise a WPRE element.
Those claims identified in the statement of rejection but not explicitly referenced in the rejection are also rejected for depending from a rejected claim but failing to remedy the indefiniteness therein.
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, 3-9, 17-19, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For claims drawn to a genus, MPEP § 2163 states 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, reduction to drawings, 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 applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406.
Claim 1 is directed to a nucleic acid encoding a polypeptide comprising a sequence at least about 95% identical to SEQ ID NO: 305. Because SEQ ID NO: 305 is 224 amino acids in length, the claim encompasses proteins differing from SEQ ID NO: 305 by approximately eleven amino acid residues as well as nucleic acids encoding such variants. The claim therefore encompasses a substantial genus of undisclosed protein and nucleic acid species.
The specification discloses SEQ ID NO: 305 but does not disclose a representative number of species falling within the claimed 95%-identity genus. The specification further fails to identify conserved residues, permissible substitution sites, consensus motifs, mutagenesis data, structure-function relationships, or other common structural characteristics sufficient to demonstrate possession of the claimed genus. Nor does the specification provide representative variant sequences spanning the breadth of the claimed genus.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the CD8a chain is SEQ ID NO: 7, 258, 259, 262, or a variant thereof”. While the specification describes the specific amino acid sequences corresponding to SEQ ID NOs: 7, 258, 259, and 262, the specification does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors were in possession of the full scope of the claimed genus of “variants” encompassed by the claims as of the filing date.
The term “variant thereof” expands the scope of the claims beyond the expressly disclosed sequences to encompass an undefined genus of modified CD8α polypeptides. However, the specification fails to identify structural features common to the claimed variant genus, fails to disclose a representative number of variant species, and fails to provide guidance establishing which amino acid substitutions, insertions, deletions, truncations, or other modifications are encompassed by the claimed variants. Nor does the specification describe any sequence identity boundaries, consensus motifs, conserved residues, or other structural characteristics sufficient to demonstrate possession of the full breadth of the claimed variant genus.
The unpredictability of amino acid substitutions in proteins was well known in the art. For example, Bowie (Bowie et al., Science, 247:1306-1310 (1990)), demonstrated that amino acid substitutions may be tolerated at certain positions while substantially affecting structure or function at other positions [see pg. 247].
Accordingly, in view of the limited amount of guidance provided by the specification and the art, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that Applicant was not in possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-9, 17-19, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a nucleic acid encoding a polypeptide comprising a sequence at least 100% identical to SEQ ID NO: 305, does not reasonably provide enablement for a nucleic acid encoding a polypeptide comprising a sequence at least about 95% identical to SEQ ID NO: 305. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Nature of the Invention
Claim 1 broadly encompasses nucleic acids encoding polypeptides having at least 95% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 305. Because SEQ ID NO: 305 is 224 amino acids in length, the claim encompasses protein differing from SEQ ID NO: 305 by approximately 11 amino acid residues. The claim therefore covers a substantial number of undisclosed variants.
State of the Art
The art recognized that amino acid substitutions are not uniformly tolerated throughout a protein sequence. Bowie et al., Science 247:1306-1310 (1990), reported that some amino acid positions accommodate numerous substitutions whereas other positions tolerate few substitutions and that patterns of conservation and variation are related to the local environment of each residue [see pg. 247]. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to predict, without substantial experimentation, which of the numerous variants encompassed by the claim possess the characteristics attributed to the disclosed protein.
Breadth of the claims
Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, a nucleic acid encoding a polypeptide having at least 95% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 305.
Guidance of the Specification
The specification discloses SEQ ID NO: 305 but provides little or no guidance regarding which amino acid substitutions may be introduced, which residues are conserved, which positions tolerate variation, or how sequence changes affect the properties of the encoded protein. The specification likewise fails to provide representative examples spanning the breadth of the claimed genus. Furthermore, the specification attributes a specific biological function to the protein. The specification discloses that a dnTGFPRII polypeptide comprises SEQ ID NO: 305 comprising one, two, three, four, or five amino acid substitutions. In embodiments, (i) function(s) of dnTGFpRII, such as, but not limited to, the ability of dnTGFbRII to bind TGFb, are preserved and/or enhanced in a mutated dnTGFPRII polypeptide; (ii) one or more decrease or lack of function(s) of dnTGFPRII, such as, but not limited to, the decreased or eliminated signaling of the C-terminal portion of dnTGFPRII, one or more mutation in and/or deletion of a C-terminal portion of dnTGFPRII, or any combination thereof, are preserved and/or decreased in a mutated dnTGFPRII polypeptide; or (iii) any combinations thereof may be found in a mutated dnTGFpRII polypeptide [00254].
Experimentation Required
Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to practice the full scope of the claimed invention would be required to generate numerous sequence variants and experimentally evaluate each variant for retention of binding and signaling activity through routine but extensive biological testing. Such testing would include expression of variant proteins, binding assays, signaling assays, and comparison of activity relative to the disclosed protein. The amount of experimentation required is substantial because the specification provides insufficient guidance for predicting which substitutions will preserve the disclosed biological functions throughout the full scope of the claimed genus. The need for extensive screening and characterization of numerous variants constitutes undue experimentation under the factors set forth in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The Supreme Court has further explained that a specification must enable the full scope of the claimed genus. See Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi. Because the present disclosure requires substantial screening to identify operative members of the claimed genus that retain the disclosed binding and signaling activities, the specification does not enable the full scope of claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a nucleic acid of claim 3 wherein the CD8a chain is SEQ ID NO: 7, 258, 259, 262, does not reasonably provide enablement for a nucleic acid of claim 3 wherein the CD8a chain is SEQ ID NO: 7, 258, 259, 262, or a variant thereof. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Nature of the Invention
Claim 5 encompass not only a CD8a chain of SEQ ID NOs: 7, 258, 259, and 262, but also unspecified “variants” thereof. The claim therefore covers a substantial number of undisclosed variants.
State of the Art
CD8α is a functional cell-surface glycoprotein involved in T-cell signaling and interaction with major histocompatibility complex class I molecules. Changes in amino acid sequence may affect protein folding, surface expression, heterodimerization, ligand binding, signaling capability, stability, and biological activity. The art recognized that amino acid substitutions are not uniformly tolerated throughout a protein sequence. Bowie et al., Science 247:1306-1310 (1990), reported that some amino acid positions accommodate numerous substitutions whereas other positions tolerate few substitutions and that patterns of conservation and variation are related to the local environment of each residue [see pg. 247].
Breadth of the claims
The breadth of this claim language potentially encompasses a vast number of CD8α molecules containing amino acid substitutions, insertions, deletions, truncations, domain alterations, or other sequence modifications.
Guidance of the Specification
The specification does not provide sufficient guidance for determining which modifications will yield variants falling within the scope of the claims. The specification does not identify which residues are critical, which residues may be modified without loss of function, or what degree of sequence divergence is permissible. Nor does the specification provide predictive principles allowing a skilled artisan to determine, without extensive screening and experimentation, which of the potentially numerous variants would retain the properties necessary to function as the claimed CD8α chain.
Experimentation Required
Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be required to generate and test substantial numbers of candidate variants to determine whether they fall within the scope of the claims. Such experimentation would constitute undue experimentation in view of the breadth of the claims and the limited guidance provided in the specification.
Accordingly, the specification does not enable the full scope of the claimed genus of CD8α variants.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim 17 is drawn to cell and/or natural killer (NK) cell transduced with the nucleic acid of claim 1. The instant specification the T cells and/or natural killer cells described herein can be made into a pharmaceutical composition or made into an implant appropriate for administration in vivo, with pharmaceutically acceptable carriers or diluents [0343]. Therefore, the claims read on a cell in a human being comprising the nucleic acid of claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 17-19, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (WO 2021/011864).
Regarding claims 1 and 21, Li teaches that the present disclosure provides compositions and methods for adoptive cell therapy comprising engineered helper T cells that express a dominant negative TGF-b receptor II [00229]. Li teaches transgenes can be useful expressing, e.g., overexpressing, exogenous dominant negative genes at a level greater than background [00234]. Li teaches that expression of dominant negative transgenes can suppress expression and/or function of a wild-type counterpart of the dominant negative transgene [00232]. Li teaches that a helper T cell comprising a dominant negative TGF-b receptor II transgene can have similar phenotypes compared to a different helper T cell in which the expression of the TGF-b receptor II is suppressed [00232]. Li teaches that in some embodiments, the engineered helper T cells comprises a transgene that encodes a dominant negative TGF-b receptor II (e.g., a transgene encoding SEQ ID NOs: 37-42) [00234]. LI teaches that a transgene of a dominant negative TGF-b receptor II can refer to a transgene comprising a nucleotide sequence encoding the dominant negative TGF-b receptor 11 [00234]. Li teaches SEQ ID NO: 40 as TGF-bRIIB lacking the kinase domain & juxtamembrane region [00233]. SEQ ID NO: 40 is 100% identical to the current application SEQ ID NO: 305.
Regarding claims 4 and 23, SEQ ID NO: 312 comprises a sequence that is 100% identical to SEQ ID NO: 40 of Li.
Regarding claim 7 and 9, Li teaches a vector that encodes a dominant negative TGF-b receptor II having an amino acid sequence of any one of SEQ ID NOs: 15-17 or 37-42 [0073; 00279], where the vector can be a plasmid vector or viral vector [00273].
Regarding claim 17, Li teaches T cells engineered to comprise a transgene that encodes a dominant negative TGF-b receptor II [00274].
Regarding claim 18, Li teaches compositions comprising engineered helper T cells that either express a dominant negative TGF-b receptor II [00229].
Regarding claim 19, Li teaches administering the engineered helper T cell to a subject with cancer for inhibiting tumor growth or metastasis and further administering a cytokine agonist or antagonist such as IL-2, interferon alpha, interferon beta, IL-7, IL-12, and IL-23 [00275; 00277].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-9, 17-19, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (WO 2021/011864) in view of Mata (WO 2020/243134).
Regarding claims 1 and 21, Li teaches that the present disclosure provides compositions and methods for adoptive cell therapy comprising engineered helper T cells that express a dominant negative TGF-b receptor II [00229]. Li teaches transgenes can be useful expressing, e.g., overexpressing, exogenous dominant negative genes at a level greater than background [00234]. Li teaches that expression of dominant negative transgenes can suppress expression and/or function of a wild-type counterpart of the dominant negative transgene [00232]. Li teaches that a helper T cell comprising a dominant negative TGF-b receptor II transgene can have similar phenotypes compared to a different helper T cell in which the expression of the TGF-b receptor II is suppressed [00232]. Li teaches that in some embodiments, the engineered helper T cells comprises a transgene that encodes a dominant negative TGF-b receptor II (e.g., a transgene encoding SEQ ID NOs: 37-42) [00234]. Li teaches that a transgene of a dominant negative TGF-b receptor II can refer to a transgene comprising a nucleotide sequence encoding the dominant negative TGF-b receptor 11 [00234]. Li teaches SEQ ID NO: 40 as TGF-bRIIB lacking the kinase domain & juxtamembrane region [00233]. SEQ ID NO: 40 is 100% identical to the current application SEQ ID NO: 305.
Regarding claims 4 and 23, SEQ ID NO: 312 comprises a sequence that is 100% identical to SEQ ID NO: 40 of Li.
Regarding claim 7 and 9, Li teaches a vector that encodes a dominant negative TGF-b receptor II having an amino acid sequence of any one of SEQ ID NOs: 15-17 or 37-42 [0073; 00279], where the vector can be a plasmid vector or viral vector [00273].
Regarding claim 17, Li teaches T cells engineered to comprise a transgene that encodes a dominant negative TGF-b receptor II [00274].
Regarding claim 18, Li teaches compositions comprising engineered helper T cells that either express a dominant negative TGF-b receptor II [00229].
Regarding claim 19, Li teaches administering the engineered helper T cell to a subject with cancer for inhibiting tumor growth or metastasis and further administering a cytokine agonist or antagonist such as IL-2, interferon alpha, interferon beta, IL-7, IL-12, and IL-23 [00275; 00277].
Regarding claim 3, Li does not teach where the nucleic acid further comprising a nucleic acid sequence encoding at least one TCR polypeptide, at least one CD8 polypeptide, or at least one TCR polypeptide and at least one CD8 polypeptide.
Mata teaches T cell manufacturing using a multi-cistronic cassette for expressing a plurality of proteins in a single vector [0004]. More specifically, the present disclosure relates to T cell manufacturing of T cells that co-express TCRab and CD8ab and the use thereof in
adoptive cellular therapy [0004]. Mata teaches a nucleic acid construct comprising a 4-in-1 construct with a 5' end to 3' end any direction orientation of CD8b chain, CD8a chain, TCRb chain, and TCRa chain [00109-00111]. Mata teaches viral vectors of the present disclosure may contain sequences encoding TCR alpha chain and TCR beta chain and sequences encoding a TGF-beta inhibitors, e.g., dominant-negative TGF beta receptor (DN TGFbRII) [00112; Fig. 9].
Regarding claim 5, Li does not teach wherein the TCRa chain and the TCRb chain are selected from SEQ ID NOs: 17 and 18; CD8a chain is SEQ ID NO: 258, and CD8b chain is SEQ ID NO: 8. Mata teaches a TCRa chain and a TCRb chain of SEQ ID NOs: 15 and 16 that are 100% identical to the application’s SEQ ID NO: 17 and 18, respectively; a CD8a chain of SEQ ID NO: 11 that is 100% identical to the application’s SEQ ID NO: 258, and a CD8b chain of SEQ ID NO: 12 that is 100% identical to the application’s SEQ ID NO: 8.
Regarding claim 8, Li does not teach the vector may further include a post-transcriptional regulatory element (PRE) sequence selected from a Woodchuck PRE (WPRE) or a hepatitis B virus (HBV) PRE (HPRE). Mata teaches the vector may further include a post-transcriptional regulatory element (PRE) sequence selected from a Woodchuck PRE (WPRE, WPREmut1 or WPREmut2) or a hepatitis B virus (HBV) PRE (HPRE) for improved transcriptional termination and to enhance the expression of the transgene by increasing both nuclear and cytoplasmic mRNA levels [0019, 00197-00198; 00202].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known DN TGFbRII sequence taught by Li into the multicistronic TCR/CD8 constructs of Mata because Mata expressly teaches combining TCR-mediated adoptive cell therapy with dominant-negative TGFβ receptor signaling inhibition for the advantage of improving T-cell performance within immunosuppressive tumor environments.
Regarding claim 6, the specification teaches that the nucleic acid sequence encoding the at least one TCR polypeptide and at least one CD8 polypeptide comprises a CD8b, CD8a, TCR, and WPRE sequence. The teachings of Mata are discussed above as applied to claims 3, 5, and 8. Mata teaches SEQ ID NO: 266 to be the WPREmut2 [00185]. Mata teaches PTE CD8 TCR WPRE (SEQ ID NO: 94) [00204, 00185]. SEQ ID NO: 94 comprises the WPRE element. A substitution of WRPE in SEQ ID NO: 94 for WPREmut2 (SEQ ID NO: 266) results in a nucleic acid sequence that is 97.3% identical to SEQ ID NO: 267. Additionally, SEQ ID NO:267 of the current application was determined to comprise the nucleotide sequence encoding CD8 alpha chain (SEQ ID NO: 11), CD8 beta chain (SEQ ID NO: 12), R11KEA alpha (SEQ ID NO: 13), R11KEA beta chain (SEQ ID NO: 14), and WPREmut2 (SEQ ID NO: 266).
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY N GROOMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3771. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 830-530.
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, Jennifer Dunston can be reached at 571-272-2916. 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.
/TIFFANY NICOLE GROOMS/Examiner, Art Unit 1637
Prosecution Insights