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 .
Claim Status
Applicant’s preliminary amendments and remarks, filed 06/01/2023, are acknowledged.
Claims 1-24 are pending.
As such, claims 1-24 are pending examination and currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/21/2024 and 10/21/2024 are acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The references lined through were not considered because the references were not properly cited including date and author (if any) (see 37 CFR 1.98(b)), a copy of the references were not provided (see 37 CFR 1.98(a)) and/or the cited references were duplicated in the IDS.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figure 22: “(malignant))” should read “(malignant)”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Priority listing on page 1: “62/657,661 filed April 18, 2018” should read “62/657,661 filed April 13, 2018”.
[0036]: “glyopeptide” should read “glycopeptide”.
[0289]: “AlexaFluor” should read “Alexa Fluor”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term IMGT, Thermo Fisher, IRDye, Gleevec, EasySep, Sigma-Aldrich, ATCC, GE Healthcare, Agilent, Millipore, Promega, ExpressPro, Alexa Fluor, CellTiter-Glo, Schott Nexterion, and Perkin-Elmer, 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 Objections
Claims 7, 13, 16, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 7 and 16: “wherein the monoclonal antibody binds Tn antigen expressed by a cancer cell” should read “wherein the monoclonal antibody binds to a Tn carbohydrate antigen expressed by a cancer cell”.
Claims 13 and 22: “Auristatin” should read “auristatin”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner acknowledges that “Thomsen-nouvelle (Tn) carbohydrate antigen” refers to the monosaccharide structure N-acetylgalactosamine (GalNAc) linked to serine or threonine by a glycosidic bond (GalNAcα-O-serine/threonine) or other biologically derived macromolecules (see [0071]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-24 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.
Claim 1 requires complementarity determining regions (CDRs) from heavy and light chain sequences without actually setting forth the CDR sequences. There are several well-established methods to determine CDRs. Using common methods to identify the CDRs produces variable CDR sequences. For example, numbering by the Chothia method produces CDRs that differ in residues than numbering by the Kabat method. Therefore, the methods do not name the same CDRs, and one of skill in the art would not know which of these embodiments would meet the requirements of the claims. The differences in CDRs may have different affinities that would not be capable of the required functions. As such, claims 1-4 are rejected.
Claims 5 and 6 recite “an amino acid sequence consisting of” and “comprises the amino acid sequence of”. The language is inconsistent and renders the claims unclear. As such, claims 5, 6, and their dependent claims are rejected.
Claims 10 and 19 recite “IgG1 subclass” which render the claims indefinite. While the specification defines “subclass” as minor differences in amino acid sequences of the heavy chains that differentiate the subclasses, wherein there are two subclasses of IgA and four subclasses of IgG (see [0057]). The claims nor the specification define “IgG1 subclass” and one would not be apprised as to what differences would be considered an “IgG1 subclass”.
The term “modifies” in claims 11 and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “modifies” 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. The claims nor specification define what is being modified in relation to a given biological response or a cytotoxin nor is a standard to compare provided. Thus, one would not be apprised as to what is encompassed by the term. As such, claims 11 and 20, and their dependent claims, are rejected.
Further, it is unclear whether the chemotherapeutic or Auristatin molecule recited in claims 12, 13, 21, and 22 is the therapeutic agent recited in claims 11 and 20, or if the therapeutic agent is a completely different agent.
The phrase “a given biological response or a cytotoxin” in claims 11 and 20 is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “a given” 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. It is unclear what “a given” means in reference to the biological response and one would not be apprised as to what Applicant is encompassing in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 11-13, 15, 20-22, and 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.
The MPEP states that the purpose of the written description requirement is to ensure that the inventor had possession, as of the filing date of the application, of the specific subject matter later claimed. The MPEP lists factors that can be used to determine if sufficient evidence of possession has been furnished in the disclosure of the application. These include “level of skill and knowledge in the art, partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics alone or coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between structure and function, and the method of making the claimed invention.”
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, disclosure of drawings, or by disclosure of relevant identifying characteristics, for example, 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 Applicants were in possession of the claimed genus. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406.
Claim 11 is drawn to a conjugate comprising the monoclonal antibody of claim 5 conjugated or recombinantly fused to a therapeutic agent wherein the therapeutic agent is an agent that modifies a given biological response or a cytotoxin.
Claim 12 is drawn to the conjugate of claim 11, wherein the cytotoxin is a chemotherapeutic.
Claim 13 is drawn to the conjugate of claim 12, wherein the chemotherapeutic is an Auristatin molecule.
Claim 15 is drawn to a pharmaceutical composition comprising the conjugate of claim 11 and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.
Claim 20 is drawn to a conjugate comprising the monoclonal antibody of claim 6 conjugated or recombinantly fused to a therapeutic agent wherein the therapeutic agent is an agent that modifies a given biological response or a cytotoxin.
Claim 21 is drawn to the conjugate of claim 20, wherein the cytotoxin is a chemotherapeutic.
Claim 22 is drawn to the conjugate of claim 21, wherein the chemotherapeutic is an Auristatin molecule.
Claim 24 is drawn to a pharmaceutical composition comprising the conjugate of claim 20 and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.
The specification discloses that a “therapeutic agent” refers to any agent that can be used with an antibody or functional fragment disclosed herein, when conjugated or recombinantly fused with the antibody or functional fragment, in the treatment, management or amelioration of a disease associated with expression of Tn antigen or sTn antigen and/or a symptom related thereto (see [0079]). Further, the specification discloses that the claimed antibody can be conjugated or recombinantly fused to a therapeutic agent such as a cytotoxin including an Auristatin molecule (e.g., auristatin PHE, bryostatin 1, solastatin 10, monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE) and monomethylauristatin F (MMAF)) (see [0203]). Additionally, the specification discloses that the antibody or functional fragment herein can be conjugated or recombinantly fused to a therapeutic agent that is an agent that modifies a given biological response wherein therapeutic agents are not to be construed as limited to classical chemical therapeutic agents (see [0204]).
However, the specification fails to disclose Applicant’s possession of conjugates as claimed. Specifically, the specification fails to disclose Applicant’s possession of the claimed antibody conjugated or fused to a large genus of therapeutic agents.
Although the specification discloses examples of Auristatin molecules (see [0203]), the claims are not limited to these agents, and are inclusive of any therapeutic agent that modifies a given biological response or a cytotoxin. This indicates that there are thousands of possible therapeutic agents encompassed by the claims. Thus, the claims encompass a vast genus of therapeutic agents that have the claimed functions. However, the specification provides limited guidance on the structure and steps required for maintaining the claimed function(s). Therefore, the specification does not provide adequate written description to identify the broad and variable genus of therapeutic agents because, inter alia, the specification does not disclose a correlation between the necessary structure of the agent and the function(s) recited in the claims; and thus, the specification does not distinguish the claimed genus from others, except by function. Further, the specification fails to provide method steps that result in modifying a given biological response. Accordingly, the specification does not define any structural features commonly possessed by the members of the genus, because while the description of an ability of the claimed substance may generically describe the molecule’s function, it does not describe the substance itself. A definition by function does not suffice to define the genus because it is only an indication of what the substance does, rather than what it is; therefore, it is only a definition of a useful result rather than a definition of what achieves the result. In addition, because the genus of substances is highly variable (i.e. each substance would necessarily have a unique structure, See MPEP 2434), the generic description of the substance is insufficient to describe the genus. Thus, the specification does not provide substantive evidence for possession of this large and variable genus, encompassing a potentially massive number of therapeutic agents and variants thereof claimed only be a functional characteristic(s) and/or partial structure.
A biomolecule sequence described only by a functional characteristic, without any known or disclosed correlation between that function and the structure of the sequence, normally is not sufficient identifying characteristics for written description purposes, even when accompanied by a method of obtaining the agent. The specification does not adequately describe the correlation between the chemical structure and function of the genus, such as structural domains or motifs that are essential and distinguish members of the genus from those excluded. Thus, the genus of antibodies has no correlation between their structure and function.
MPEP § 2163.03(V) states:
While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. 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 or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). 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).
Applicant has not shown possession of a representative number of species of immunoconjugates. The disclosure of only one or two species encompassed within a genus adequately describes a claim directed to that genus only if the disclosure "indicates that the patentee has invented species sufficient to constitute the gen[us]." See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 966, 63 USPQ2d at 1615; Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1508, 1514 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[A] patentee of a biotechnological invention cannot necessarily claim a genus after only describing a limited number of species because there may be unpredictability in the results obtained from species other than those specifically enumerated.") (MPEP 2163).
The instant claims do not fully describe the structure of the therapeutic agent to achieve the required function. Accordingly, the specification also does not provide adequate written description to identify the broad genus of immunoconjugates, claimed only by a function characteristic(s) and not structures per se, because inter alia, it does not describe a sufficient number and/or a sufficient variety of representative species to reflect the breadth and variation within the claimed genus. Consequently, based on the lack of information within the specification, there is evidence that a representative number and a representative variety of the numerous immunoconjugates had not yet been identified and thus, the specification represents little more than a wish for possession. Therefore, one of skill in the art would not conclude that Applicant was in possession of the broad and highly variable genus of immunoconjugates claimed only by a partial structure and functional characteristic(s). Thus the immunoconjugates described by the instant claims encompasses an overly broad genus, the structure of therapeutic agent, and the functional outcome.
In Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 124 USPQ2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2017), relying upon Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lily & Co., 94 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed Cir. 2010), it is noted that to show invention, a patentee must convey in its disclosure that is “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. Demonstrating possession “requires a precise definition” of the invention. To provide this precise definition” for a claim to a genus, a patentee must disclose “a representative number of species within the scope of the genus of structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can visualize or recognize the member of the genus” (see Amgen at page 1358). Also, it is not enough for the specification to show how to make and use the invention, i.e., to enable it (see Amgen at page 1361). An adequate written description must contain enough information about the actual makeup of the claimed products — “a precise definition, such as structure, formula, chemic name, physical properties of other properties, of species falling with the genus sufficient to distinguish the gene from other materials”, which may be present in “functional terminology when the art has established a correlation between structure and function” (Amgen page 1361). Most significant to the present case, the Court held that "knowledge of the chemical structure of an antigen [does not give] the required kind of structure-identifying information about the corresponding antibodies" (Amgen at 1361). The idea that written description of an antibody can be satisfied by the disclosure of a newly-characterized antigen “flouts basic legal principles of the written description requirement” as it “allows patentees to claim antibodies by describing something that is not the invention, i.e., the antigen... And Congress has not created a special written description requirement for antibodies” (Amgen at page 1362).
Abbvie v. Centocor (Fed. Cir. 2014) is also relevant to the instant claims. In Abbvie, the Court held that a disclosure of many different antibodies was not enough to support the genus of all neutralizing antibodies because the disclosed antibodies were very closely related to each other in structure and were not representative of the full diversity of the genus. The Court further noted that functionally defined genus claims can be inherently vulnerable to invalidity challenge for lack of written description support especially in technology fields that are highly unpredictable where it is difficult to establish a correlation between structure and function for the whole genus or to predict what would be covered by the functionally claimed genus.
The instant case has many similarities to AbbVie above. The claims attempt to define the genus of immunoconjugates by the vast functions of therapeutic agents recited in claims 11-13 and 20-22. As noted by AbbVie above, functionally defined genus claims can be inherently vulnerable to invalidity challenge for lack of written description. Second, there is no information in the specification based upon which one of skill in the art would conclude that the disclosed species for which applicant has identified as having the recited functions would be representative of the entire genus. The specification discloses no structure to correlate with the function. Therefore, the specification provides insufficient written description to support the genus encompassed by the claim.
Furthermore, regardless whether a compound is claimed per se or a method is claimed that entails the use of the compound, the inventor cannot lay claim to that subject matter unless he can provide a description of the compound sufficient to distinguish infringing compounds from non-infringing compounds, or infringing methods from non-infringing methods. Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920-23, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1890-93 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 19 USPQ2d 1111, makes clear that "applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the 'written description' inquiry, whatever is now claimed." (See page 1117.) The specification does not "clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed." (See Vas-Cath at page 1116.)
Further, the skilled artisan cannot envision the detailed chemical structure of the encompassed immunoconjugates, regardless of the complexity or simplicity of the method of isolation. Adequate written description requires more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method for isolating it. The nucleic acid and/or protein itself is required. See Fiers v. Revel, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (CAFC 1993) and Amgen Inc. V. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., 18 USPQ2d 1016. In Fiddes v. Baird, 30 USPQ2d 1481, 1483, claims directed to mammalian FGF's were found unpatentable due to lack of written description for the broad class. The specification provided only the bovine sequence.
Finally, University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1404. 1405 held that: ... To fulfill the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe an invention and does so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that "the inventor invented the claimed invention." Lockwood v. American Airlines Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (1997); In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (" [T]he 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." Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1966.
Regarding the encompassed therapeutic agents that are antibodies, the functional characteristics of antibodies (including binding specificity and affinity are dictated on their structure. Amino acid sequence and conformation of each of the heavy and light chain CDRs are critical in maintaining the antigen binding specificity and affinity which is characteristic of the parent immunoglobulin. For example, Vajdos et al. (J Mol Biol. 2002 Jul 5;320(2):415-28 at 416) teaches that, “ … Even within the Fv, antigen binding is primarily mediated by the complementarity determining regions (CDRs), six hypervariable loops (three each in the heavy and light chains) which together present a large contiguous surface for potential antigen binding. Aside from the CDRs, the Fv also contains more highly conserved framework segments which connect the CDRs and are mainly involved in supporting the CDR loop conformations, although in some cases, framework residues also contact antigen. As an important step to understanding how a particular antibody functions, it would be very useful to assess the contributions of each CDR side-chain to antigen binding, and in so doing, to produce a functional map of the antigen-binding site." The art shows an unpredictable effect when making single versus multiple changes to any given CDR. For example, Brown et al. (J Immunol. 1996 May;156(9):3285-91 at 3290 and Tables 1 and 2), describes how the VH CDR2 of a particular antibody was generally tolerant of single amino acid changes, however the antibody lost binding upon introduction of two amino changes in the same region.
The claims encompass an extremely large number of possible therapeutic agents that have specific required functions. In the instant application, neither the art nor the specification provide a sufficient representative number of therapeutic agents or a sufficient structure-function correlation to meet the written description requirements.
Regarding the encompassed therapeutic agents that are proteins and peptides, protein chemistry is one of the most unpredictable areas of biotechnology. This unpredictability prevents prediction of the effects that a given number or location of mutation will have on a protein (such as TNF or a cytokine) as taught by Skolnick et al. (Trends Biotechnol. 2000 Jan;18(1):34-9), sequence-based methods for predicting protein function are inadequate because of the multifunctional nature of proteins (see e.g. abstract). Further, just knowing the structure of the protein is also insufficient for prediction of functional sites (see e.g. abstract). Sequence to function methods cannot specifically identify complexities for proteins, such as gain and loss of function during evolution, or multiple functions possible within a cell (see e.g. page 34, right column). Skolnick advocates determining the structure of the protein, then identifying the functionally important residues since using the chemical structure to identify functional sites is more in line with how a protein actually works (see e.g. page 34, right column).
The sensitivity of proteins to alterations of even a single amino acid in a sequence are exemplified by Burgess et al. (J. Cell Biol. 111:2129-2138, 1990) who teach that replacement of a single lysine reside at position 118 of acidic fibroblast growth factor by glutamic acid led to the substantial loss of heparin binding, receptor binding and biological activity of the protein and by Lazar et al. (Mol. Cell. Biol., 8:1247-1252, 1988) who teach that in transforming growth factor alpha, replacement of aspartic acid at position 47 with alanine or asparagine did not affect biological activity while replacement with serine or glutamic acid sharply reduced the biological activity of the mitogen. These references demonstrate that even a single amino acid substitution will often dramatically affect the biological activity and characteristics of a protein.
Further, Miosge (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Sep 15;112(37):E5189-98) teach that Short of mutational studies of all possible amino acid substitutions for a protein, coupled with comprehensive
functional assays, the sheer number and diversity of missense mutations that are possible for proteins means that their functional importance must presently be addressed primarily by computational inference (see e.g. page E5189, left column). However, in a study examining some of these methods, Miosge shows that there is potential for incorrect calling of mutations (see e.g. page E5196, left column, top paragraph). The authors conclude that the discordance between predicted and actual effect of missense mutations creates the potential for many false conclusions in clinical settings where sequencing is performed to detect disease-causing mutations (see e.g. page E5195, right column, last paragraph). The findings in their study show underscore the importance of interpreting variation by direct experimental measurement of the consequences of a candidate mutation, using as sensitive and specific an assay as possible (see e.g. page E5197, left column, top paragraph). Additionally, Bork (Genome Research, 2000,10:398-400) clearly teaches the pitfalls associated with comparative sequence analysis for predicting protein function because of the known error margins for high-throughput computational methods. Bork specifically teaches that computational sequence analysis is far from perfect, despite the fact that sequencing itself is highly automated and accurate (p. 398, column 1). One of the reasons for the inaccuracy is that the quality of data in public sequence databases is still insufficient. This is particularly true for data on protein function. Protein function is context dependent, and both molecular and cellular aspects have to be considered (p. 398, column 2). Conclusions from the comparison analysis are often stretched with regard to protein products (p. 398, column 3). Further, although gene annotation via sequence database searches is already a routine job, even here the error rate is considerable (p. 399, column 2). Most features predicted with an accuracy of greater than 70% are of structural nature and, at best, only indirectly imply a certain functionality (see legend for table 1, page 399). As more sequences are added and as errors accumulate and propagate it becomes more difficult to infer correct function from the many possibilities revealed by database search (p. 399, paragraph bridging columns 2 and 3). The reference finally cautions that although the current methods seem to capture important features and explain general trends, 30% of those features are missing or predicted wrongly. This has to be kept in mind when processing the results further (p. 400, paragraph bridging cols 1 and 2).
One key issue is the prediction of protein function based on sequence similarity, which could be one way to identify the functional proteins that are useful in the instant claims. Kulmanov et al (Bioinformatics, 34(4), 2018, 660–668), teach that there are key challenges for protein function prediction methods (see e.g. page 661, left column). These challenges arise from the difficulty identifying and accounting for the complex relationship between protein sequence structure and function (see e.g. page 661, left column). Despite significant progress in the past years in protein structure prediction, it still requires large efforts to predict protein structure with sufficient quality to be useful in function prediction (see e.g. page 661, left column). Another challenge is that proteins do not function in isolation. In particular higher level physiological functions that go beyond simple molecular interactions will require other proteins and cannot usually be predicted by considering a single protein in isolation (see e.g. page 661, left column). Due to these challenges it is not obvious what kinds of features should be used to predict the functions of a protein and whether they can be generated efficiently for a large number of proteins, such as the vast genus of proteins and peptides that may be encompassed by the instant claims (see e.g. page 661, left column).
The state of the art regarding the structure-function correlation cannot be relied upon because functional characteristics of any peptide/protein are determined by its structure as evidenced by Greenspan et al. 1999 (Defining epitopes: It's not as easy as it seems; Nature Biotechnology, 17:936-937). Greenspan et al. teach that as little as one substitution of an amino acid (e.g. alanine) in a sequence results in unpredictable changes in the 3-dimenstional structure of the new peptide sequence which, in turn, results in changes in the functional activity such as binding affinity of the peptide sequence (page 936, 1st column). Greenspan et al. teach that contribution of each residue (i.e. each amino acid) cannot be estimated with any confidence if the replacement affects the properties of the free form of the molecule (page 936, 3rd column).
Given not only the teachings of Skolnick et al., Lazar et al., Burgess et al., and Greenspan et al., but also the limitations and pitfalls of using computational sequence analysis and the unknown effects of alternative splicing, post translational modification and cellular context on protein function as taught by Bork, the claimed therapeutic agents could not be predicted based on sequence identity. Clearly, it could not be predicted that a polypeptide or a variant that shares only partial homology with a disclosed protein or that is a fragment of a given SEQ ID NO. will function in a given manner.
Regarding therapeutic agents that are small molecules of a particular protein target, the prediction of binding to a target, much less the inhibitory activity, is highly unpredictable. According to Guido et al. (Curr Med Chem. 2008;15(1):37-46), accurately predicting the binding affinity of new drug candidates remains a major challenge in drug discovery (see page 37). There are a vast number of possible compounds that may bind any particular target, many of which have likely not been discovered. Relying on virtual screening also lends unpredictability to the art regarding identification of molecules that would be capable of the required functions of the instant claims. Guido et al. teach that there are two main complex issues with predicting activity for a small molecule: accurate structural modeling and/or correct prediction of activity (see page 40). As taught by Clark et al. (J. Med. Chem., 2014, 57 (12), pp 5023–5038), even when guided by structural data, developing selective structure-activity relationships has been challenging owing to the similarities of the enzymes (see page 5028). Therefore, it is impossible for one of skill in the art to predict that any particular encompassed small molecule therapeutic would function to inhibit a particular protein, especially a particular protein family member, or treat disease.
Regarding therapeutic agents that are nucleic acid-based therapeutics, the efficacy of any possible DNA or RNA based therapeutic modality is highly unpredictable. This unpredictability stems from an inability to predict the effects of any particular sequence the expression or function of any target. As taught by Aagaard et al. (Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 59 (2007) 75–86), the development of RNAi based therapeutics faces several challenges, including the need for controllable or moderate promoter systems and therapeutics that are efficient at low doses (see page 79), the ability of an unpredictable number of sequences to stimulate immune responses, such as type I interferon responses (see page 79), competition with cellular RNAi components (see page 83), the side effect of suppressing off targets (see page 80), and challenging delivery (see page 83). The success of antisense strategies, including anti-RNA and anti-DNA strategies are also highly unpredictable. Warzocha et al. (Leukemia and Lymphoma (1997) Vol. 24. pp. 267-281) teach that the efficacy of antisense effects varies between different targeted sites of RNA molecules and three-dimensional RNA structures (see page 269), while DNA-targeting strategies have numerous problems including a restricted number of DNA sequences that can form triple helices at appropriate positions within genes and the inaccessibility of particular sequences due to histones and other proteins (see page 269). These references demonstrate that variation in RNA or DNA based therapeutics will often dramatically affect the biological activity and characteristics of the intended therapeutic. McKeague et al. (J Nucleic Acids. 2012;2012:748913. Epub 2012 Oct 24) teach that aptamers have particular challenges because unlike antibodies or molecular imprinted polymers, their tertiary structure is highly dependent on solution conditions and they are easily degraded in blood. Further, they have less chemical diversity than other antagonist molecules (see page 2), and have issues associated with determining the Kd measurements for a given molecule (see page 13).
Given the teachings of Aagaard et al, Warzocha et al, and McKeague et al, the claimed nucleic acid therapeutics could not be predicted based on the targets selected or similarities to the disclosed example therapeutics. Therefore, it is impossible for one of skill in the art to predict that any particular encompassed nucleic acid based therapeutic, such as oligonucleotide aptamers, RNAi molecules and antisense oligonucleotides, would function to decrease expression or function of a target gene or protein, or treat disease.
The claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described where an invention is described solely in terms of a method of its making coupled with its function and there is no described or art-recognized correlation or relationship between the structure of the invention and its function (see MPEP 2163). A patent specification must set forth enough detail to allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand what is claimed and to recognize that the inventor invented what is claimed. In the case of DNA or proteins, an adequate written description requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties, not a mere wish or plan for obtaining the claimed chemical invention (see Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1566 (quoting Fiers, 984 F.2d 15 1171 ). Because the specification does not describe the amino acid sequences nor any core structures for potentially numerous different antibody amino acid sequences which would have the recited dissociation constant, one of skill in the art would reasonably conclude that applicant was not in possession of the claimed genus of all therapeutic agents.
A key role played by the written description requirement is to prevent “attempt[s] to preempt the future before it has arrived.” Ariad at 1353, (quoting Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d at 1171). Upholding a patent drawn to a genus of antibodies that includes members not previously characterized or described could negatively impact the future development of species within the claimed genus of antibodies.
While "examples explicitly covering the full scope of the claim language" typically will not be required, a sufficient number of representative species must be included to "demonstrate that the patentee possessed the full scope of the [claimed] invention." Lizard tech v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345, 76 USPQ2d 1724,1732 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
In the absence of sufficient recitation of distinguishing characteristics, the specification does not provide adequate written description of the claimed genus. One of skill in the art would not recognize from the disclosure that the applicant was in possession of the claimed immunoconjugates. Possession may not be shown by merely describing how to obtain possession of members of the claimed genus or how to identify their common structural features (see, Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916,927, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1895 (Fed. Cir. 2004); accord Ex Parte Kubin, 2007-0819, BPAI 31 May 2007, opinion at p. 16, paragraph 1). The specification does not clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that he or she invented what is claimed (see Vas-Cath at page 1116).
Without an adequate structural description of the claimed components and descriptive support on how to put them together, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised that Applicant was in possession of the genus of therapeutic agents/immunoconjugates as claimed. Applicant is reminded that Vas-Cath makes clear that the written description provision of 35 U.S.C. 112 is severable from its enablement provision (see page 1115).
Allowable Subject Matter
SEQ ID Nos: 112, 117, and 123 appear to be free of the art. The closest prior art is Babcook et al (US 2005/0049402 A1; publication date: 03/03/2005) which teach of antibodies directed to the antigen TNFα and uses of such antibodies (see Abstract). Specifically, Babcook et al disclose of SEQ ID NO: 262 which shares 86.8% identity to instant SEQ ID Nos: 117 and 123 (see alignment below).
PNG
media_image1.png
348
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANAYA L MIDDLETON whose telephone number is (571)270-5479. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM - 6PM with flex.
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, Vanessa Ford can be reached at (571) 272-0857. 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.
/DANAYA L MIDDLETON/Examiner, Art Unit 1674
/VANESSA L. FORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1674
Prosecution Insights