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 .
Priority
This application is a non-provisional utility application filed on 05/26/2023.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of: Group II, claims 1-9 and species of ASIC1a inhibitor, claims 1-4, 7 and 8 read on the elected species - in the reply filed on 01/09/2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue search burden between the groups. This is not found persuasive for the following reasons: the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process. See MPEP § 806.05(h); the product as claimed can be used in a materially different method. See MPEP § 806.05(f); and the method of use in the instant case are mutually exclusive. See § 806.05(j). The species as claimed are not obvious variants of each other and applicant provides no structure of acid sensing ion channel inhibitor for search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/29/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Examiner respectfully requests the deletion of a space between “ASIC1” and “a”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: ‘step of administering’ in claim 3, ‘step of administering’ in claim 4, ‘step of administering’ in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-9 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claimed invention is directed to a method of treating brain cancer in a tumorigenic subject. Embodiments of the specification disclose “treating” to encompass prophylactic and/or therapeutic purpose, whereby treatment reduces the likelihood of the disease or disorder [0029], reduces injury resulting from brain cancer [0047]. Thus, the scope of “treating” encompasses prevention of disease to reduction of disease progression to alleviation of symptoms of the disease. “Tumorigenic subject” as disclosed in the embodiments of the specification, is any person or animal [0048] wherein said animal includes animal with a bloodstream [0049].
The specification reduces to practice experiments to teach PcTX1 peptide to block ASIC1a ([0107] page 32), and cellular endpoints upon PcTX1 treatment [0109] [0110] [0111] [0112], in vitro. The Applicant does not reduce to practice a method of treating brain cancer in a tumorigenic subject, with the desired result of reducing injury as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, the claimed invention is directed to a method of treatment, wherein the ASIC1a inhibitor is an amiloride derivative.
In addition to reasons noted above, embodiments of the specification do not teach a method of treating brain cancer in a tumorigenic subject wherein ASIC1a inhibitor is an amiloride derivative.
Regarding claim 7, the specification does not provide a disclosure of the second inhibitor in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention (see MPEP § 2181).
With the teachings of a method of treatment as disclosed in the specification, the Applicant fails to present specific guidance on how the treatment of brain cancer in a subject can be achieved by administering the ASIC1a inhibitor or the method of treatment wherein the ASIC1a inhibitor is an amiloride derivative. In the absence of an adequate written description and a reference to a potential method for practicing it, a person skilled in the art at the time the application was filed would not have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the invention as claimed in view of the disclosure of the application as filed. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement. "Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002). See MPEP §2163.03.
Claims 3-6, 8 and 9 incorporate by dependency the failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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 6 and 7 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 claim 6, the Examiner interprets the disjunctive conjunctive ‘or’ as presenting a set of alternatives. So, the Examiner interprets “or” in the claims as -at least one: “deletion” or “substitution” or “addition” of one or more amino acids. As such, numerous possibilities of derivative can be generated from the peptide of SEQ ID NO:1 as claimed. Therefore, it is unclear how the length and sequence can affect specificity/function as claimed. An artisan of ordinary skill would be unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of the presently claimed invention with respect to the composition of derivative.
Regarding claim 7, the term “at least one other channel” gives rise to numerous possibilities and ambiguity arises. An artisan of ordinary skill would be unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of the other channel that is not a member of the acid sensing ion channel family as claimed.
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.
Claim limitation “step of administering” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is insufficient disclosure of the corresponding structure of a second inhibitor to perform the function as claimed. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
(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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Benos et al, hereinafter Benos (US2007/0092444A1, published 26 April 2007).
Benos teaches methods of treating glial-derived tumors such as gliomas [0034]. Benos teaches that glial-derived tumors are primary brain tumors, astrocytomas, glioblastomas, or oligodendrocytomas [0035]. Benos teaches that the method of treating involves administering to a subject in need of such treatment, a therapeutically effective amount of a pharmaceutical composition containing a compound that inhibits the activity of the Na+ channel [0039]. Benos teaches, that the inhibition occurs by blocking the activity of the ASIC component, such as an ASIC1 component ([0039] line 15; [0054 line 10). Benos teaches that the method of treating involves administering to a subject a compound linked to a cytotoxic agent or inhibitors of tumor growth ([0040] see lines 10-12). Compounds maybe employed alone or with other compounds (see[0043] line 15). Benos teaches amiloride treatment of human gliobastoma multiforme, and blocking of Na+ channel by amiloride treatment [0059], Fig 4D. In example 3 (page 7), Benos teaches that amiloride inhibits ASIC1 regardless of the absence or presence of ASIC2. Benos teaches that alternatively, such a compound may be PcTX1 (Psalmatoxin), or a variant of PcTX1 [0039].
Claim 1 is directed to a method of treating brain cancer comprising administering an ASIC1a inhibitor to a subject.
Benos teaches a method of treating brain tumors [0034], that involve administering to a subject in need of such treatment, a therapeutically effective amount of a pharmaceutical composition containing a compound that inhibits the activity of the Na+ channel mediating a constitutive inward Na+ current. Benos teaches, that the inhibition occurs by blocking the activity of the ASIC component, such as an ASIC1 component ([0039] line 15; [0054 line 10).
Regarding claim 2, Benos teaches amiloride and amiloride derivative phenamil and benzamil ([0077] and see Fig 2B, Fig 4B, Fig 4D, Fig 7B, Fig 16 A-C, Fig 17).
Regarding claim 3, Benos teaches a pharmaceutical composition containing a compound that inhibits the activity of the Na+ channel mediating a constitutive inward Na+ current [0039]. Benos teaches, that the inhibition occurs by blocking the activity of the ASIC component, such as an ASIC1 component ([0039] line 15; [0054 line 10). Benos teaches in example 3 (page 7), that amiloride inhibits ASIC1 regardless of the absence or presence of ASIC2 (see Fig 8A and 8B).
Regarding claims 4, 5 and 9, Benos teaches pharmaceutical compositions such as PcTX1 in combination with a suitable pharmaceutical carrier for administration. Such pharmaceutical compositions comprise polypeptide or compound. Compounds are employed alone or in conjunction with other compounds [0043]. Benos discloses compounds which bind to or inhibit amiloride-sensitive inward Na+ conductance [0054]. Benos teaches that direct inhibition is inhibitory to the function of the ASIC1 component ([0054] line 9). Benos teaches that Psalmatoxin 1 (PcTX1) is a 40 amino acid peptide possessing 6 cysteine residues linked by three disulphide bridges [0042]. Benos teaches that compounds that bind the Na+ channel mediating a constitutive inward Na+ current may be conjugated to a protein sequence [0041]. SEQ ID NO: 1 as taught in Benos has 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 6, Benos teaches variants of SEQ ID NO: 1 that retain the activity of the peptide. The variants differ in amino acid sequence by one or more substitutions, additions, deletions in any combination (see [0042] line 15; see SEQ ID NO: 2).
Regarding claim 7, embodiments of the specification provide no corresponding structure for ‘second inhibitor’ to limit the means-(or step-)plus- function limitation. Therefore, the Examiner interprets an equivalent as any element that performs the specified function (see MPEP § 2185). Benos teaches the method of treating, that involves administering to a subject a compound linked to a cytotoxic agent or inhibitors of tumor growth ([0040] see lines 10-12). Compounds maybe employed alone or with other compounds (see[0043] line 15).
Regarding claim 8, Benos teaches that PcTX1 inhibited inward currents mediated by ASIC1a and not the inward Na+ currents mediated by ASIC2 [0081], Fig 20. Benos also teaches in Fig 8A and Fig 8B, amiloride-sensitive inward Na+ currents (at -60 mV) in cells expressing either ASIC1 or ASIC2 at pH 4.0. Inward peak (Ip) was greatest for ASIC1a and least for ASIC2. Inhibitory concentration is 400 µM amiloride [0065].
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, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No.US8030442B2 in view of Mrinal K. Ghosh et al., hereinafter Ghosh (Ghosh, M.K., Chakraborty, D., Sarkar, S. et al. The interrelationship between cerebral ischemic stroke and glioma: a comprehensive study of recent reports. Sig Transduct Target Ther 4, 42 (2019)). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, reference patent (U.S. Patent No.US8030442B2), claims a method of treating brain injury comprising administering an acid sensing ion channel peptide inhibitor (see claim 1 in the reference patent). Reference patent specification discloses treating to encompass “treating” or “preventing” (see column 7). Reference patent does not treat brain cancer.
Ghosh teaches clinical reports and case studies that indicate glioblastoma, with a mortality rate that is threefold higher in postischemic patients, compared to control cohort (see section: Interplay between cerebral ischemia and glioma: what do clinical reports reveal; see Fig 1 and Fig 2). Ghosh teaches that several drugs are commonly used to treat both glioma and ischemia due to the counteracting effect on common signaling pathways shared by these conditions (see Fig 4; see section Therapeutic approaches for ischemia and glioma).
Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to
produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (discussing rationale underlying the motivation-suggestion-teaching test as a guard against using hindsight in an obviousness analysis).
Consequently, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to administer an acid sensing ion channel peptide inhibitor for treating ischemic brain injury as taught by the reference patent (U.S. Patent No.US8030442B2) and modify it to treat brain cancer in a tumorigenic subject as taught by Ghosh.
One motivated to do so would have a reasonable expectation of success, as Ghosh teaches common signaling pathways in glioma and ischemia and their treatment to counteract the effect of common signaling pathways using drugs sanguinarine, glycyrrhizin, piroxicam, salidroside, astragaloside, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, etc. (see Fig 4; see section Therapeutic approaches for ischemia and glioma). Thus, one would have recognized that applying the teaching of the reference patent to the teachings of Ghosh would have yielded predictable results and improved the ability of acid sensing ion channel peptide inhibitor in the treatment of brain cancer (See MPEP §2143).
Claim 1 in the instant application is directed to a method of treating (see claim interpretation in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (pre-AIA ), first paragraph), comprising administering an acid sensing ion channel inhibitor. In the instant application, claim 1 is directed to a genus of acid sensing ion channel inhibitors, which can encompass a multitude of inhibitors. This is a generic claim. Reference patent claim is directed to a species or sub-genus of acid sensing ion channel inhibitors. Here, the entire scope of, species or sub-genus of acid sensing ion channel inhibitors falls within the scope of the examined claim. Therefore, a patent to the genus of acid sensing ion channel inhibitors would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus (SEQ ID NOs: 1-5), should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 1052, 29 USPQ2d 2010, 2015-16 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claims 4 and 5 are dependent on claim 1, and are not patentably distinct from the reference patent claim 1 and claim 2. SEQ ID 1 in the reference patent claim is identical to instantly claimed SEQ ID NO: 1. As noted above, using the obviousness analysis of claim 1, the method can be practiced in a tumorigenic subject, to treat brain cancer.
Claim 6 is directed to a genus of peptides that is a derivative of SEQ ID NO: 1. This is a generic claim. Reference patent claims 1-6, claim a species or sub-genus of peptide. Here, the entire scope of a species or sub-genus of peptide, falls within the scope of the genus in the examined claim. Additionally, as noted above, using the obviousness analysis of claim 1, the method can be practiced in a tumorigenic subject, to treat brain cancer.
Claim 7 is not patentably distinct from the reference patent claim because, the claim is obvious to claim 11 in the reference patent. As noted, per the obviousness analysis of claim 1, the method can be practiced in a tumorigenic subject, to treat brain cancer.
Claim 9 is not patentably distinct from the reference patent claim because the claim is obvious to reference patent claims 1-6. As previously noted, per the obviousness analysis of claim 1, the method can be practiced in a tumorigenic subject, to treat brain cancer.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARCHANA VARADARAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-2366. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00am-5:00pm.
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 5712707430. 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.
/ARCHANA VARADARAJ/ Examiner, Art Unit 1658
/LIANKO G GARYU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1654 18324461