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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 22 May 2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation
Attention is directed to MPEP 904.01 [R-08.2012].
The breadth of the claims in the application should always be carefully noted; that is, the examiner should be fully aware of what the claims do not call for, as well as what they do require. During patent examination, the claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2111 - § 2116.01 for case law pertinent to claim analysis.
It is noted with particularity that narrowing limitations found in the specification cannot be inferred in the claims where the elements not set forth in the claims are linchpin of patentability. In re Philips Industries v. State Stove & Mfg. Co, Inc., 186 USPQ 458 (CA6 1975). While the claims are to be interpreted in light of the specification, it does not follow that limitations from the specification may be read into the claims. On the contrary, claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. See Ex parte Oetiker, 23 USPQ2d 1641 (BPAI, 1992). In added support of this position, attention is directed to MPEP 2111 [R-11.2013], where, citing In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969), is stated:
The court explained that “reading a claim in light of the specification, to thereby interpret limitations explicitly recited in the claim, is a quite different thing from ‘reading limitations of the specification into a claim,’ to thereby narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no express basis in the claim.” The court found that applicant was advocating the latter, i.e., the impermissible importation of subject matter from the specification into the claim.
Additionally, attention is directed to MPEP 2111.01 [R-01.2024], wherein is stated:
II. IT IS IMPROPER TO IMPORT CLAIM LIMITATIONS FROM THE SPECIFICATION
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Attention is also directed to MPEP 2111.02 II [R-07.2022]. As stated herein:
II. PREAMBLE STATEMENTS RECITING PURPOSE OR INTENDED USE
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claim preamble must be read in the context of the entire claim. The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use "can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the [record] to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim" as drafted without importing "'extraneous' limitations from the specification." Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9 USPQ2d at 1966. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the preamble in one patent’s claim is limiting but is not in a related patent); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation")… (Emphasis added)
Attention is directed to MPEP 2111 [R-10.2019]. As stated therein:
During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard:
The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must "conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description." 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). (Emphasis added).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, (b) / Second Paragraph
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.
Standard for Definiteness.
Attention is directed to MPEP 2171 [R-11.2013]:
Two separate requirements are set forth in 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, namely that:
(A) the claims must set forth the subject matter that the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention; and
(B) the claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant.
The first requirement is a subjective one because it is dependent on what the inventor or a joint inventor for a patent regards as his or her invention. Note that although pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, uses the phrase "which applicant regards as his invention," pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.41(a) provides that a patent is applied for in the name or names of the actual inventor or inventors.
The second requirement is an objective one because it is not dependent on the views of the inventor or any particular individual, but is evaluated in the context of whether the claim is definite — i.e., whether the scope of the claim is clear to a hypothetical person possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art.
Attention is directed to MPEP 2173.02 I [R-07.2015]:
During prosecution, applicant has an opportunity and a duty to amend ambiguous claims to clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. The claim places the public on notice of the scope of the patentee’s right to exclude. See, e.g., Johnson & Johnston Assoc. Inc. v. R.E. Serv. Co., 285 F.3d 1046, 1052, 62 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc). As the Federal Circuit stated in Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008):
“We note that the patent drafter is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims, and it is highly desirable that patent examiners demand that applicants do so in appropriate circumstances so that the patent can be amended during prosecution rather than attempting to resolve the ambiguity in litigation.”
***
During examination, after applying the broadest reasonable interpretation to the claim, if the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clear, the claim is indefinite and should be rejected. Packard, 751 F.3d at 1310 (“[W]hen the USPTO has initially issued a well-grounded rejection that identifies ways in which language in a claim is ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention, and thereafter the applicant fails to provide a satisfactory response, the USPTO can properly reject the claim as failing to meet the statutory requirements of § 112(b).”); Zletz, 893 F.2d at 322, 13 USPQ2d at 1322.
Attention is also directed to MPEP 2173.02 III B [R-07.2015], which states in part:
To comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, applicants are required to make the terms that are used to define the invention clear and precise, so that the metes and bounds of the subject matter that will be protected by the patent grant can be ascertained. See MPEP § 2173.05(a), subsection I. It is important that a person of ordinary skill in the art be able to interpret the metes and bounds of the claims so as to understand how to avoid infringement of the patent that ultimately issues from the application being examined. See MPEP § 2173.02, subsection II (citing Morton Int ’l, Inc. v. Cardinal Chem. Co., 5 F.3d 1464, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1993)); see also Halliburton Energy Servs., 514 F.3d at 1249, 85 USPQ2d at 1658 (“Otherwise, competitors cannot avoid infringement, defeating the public notice function of patent claims.”). Examiners should bear in mind that “[a]n essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.” Zletz, 893 F.2d at 322, 13 USPQ2d at 1322 [Fed. Cir. 1989]. (Emphasis added)
Attention is also directed to MPEP 2173.04 [R-07-2015], which states in part:
A broad claim is not indefinite merely because it encompasses a wide scope of subject matter provided the scope is clearly defined. But a claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear. For example, a genus claim that covers multiple species is broad, but is not indefinite because of its breadth, which is otherwise clear. But a genus claim that could be interpreted in such a way that it is not clear which species are covered would be indefinite (e.g., because there is more than one reasonable interpretation of what species are included in the claim).
Holding and Rationale
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, 11, 13, 16, 20-24, 26-28, 30-34, and 36-39 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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, 11, 13, 16, 20-24, 26-28, 30-34, and 36-39 are indefinite with respect to just which tissue(s), from which species of organisms are the tissue sections obtained.
The term “plurality” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “plurality” 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.
Claims 2, 5, 7-8, 11, 13, 16, 20-24, 26-28, 30-34, and 36-39, which depend from claim 1, fail to overcome this issue and are similarly rejected.
The term “unique” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “unique” 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 term “complementary” in claims 22 and 31 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “complementary” is not defined by the claims, 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. Claims 23 and 24, which depend from claim 22, fail to overcome this issue and are similarly rejected.
The term “complement” in claim 39 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “complement” 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.
Response to traversal
Applicant’s representative, at pages 7-12 of the response of 23 September 2025 traverses the rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(b).
Applicant’s representative, at page 9 of the response, traverses the rejection of claims as it relates to what constitutes the metes and bounds of the species of organisms encompassed by the claimed method and which are used as the source of the tissue(s). As asserted to therein:
The source of the tissue section, i.e., from which mammal, does not reasonably prevent one skilled in the art from practicing the entire scope of the claimed method for in situ polyadenylation of an RNA in a tissue section. Applicant submits that, in view of the description in the specification and the knowledge at the time of the invention, one skilled in the art would understand the metes and bounds of an RNA in a tissue section in the context of the instant method claims. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection.
The above argument has been considered and has not been found persuasive towards the withdrawal of the rejection. The question is not what a member of the public may interpret the term and practice the claimed method. Rather, the question is what are the metes and bounds of the claimed method that applicant is seeking to patent and therein identify that which applicant does not seek to patent and which a member of the public could practice and would not be infringing.
At page 9 of the response said representative asserts that the term “more” does not render the claim indefinite as the term means “more than one”. This argument has been considered and has not been found persuasive as it is unclear as to just what does constitute the upper limit of “more than 1”. Given such, and in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary, the rejection is maintained.
At page 11 of the response said representative traverses the rejection of claims as it relates to what constitutes the metes and bounds of “complementary” and “complement”. As asserted to therein:
In light of the specification and the state of the art at the time of filing, the ordinary and customary meaning of the terms "complementary" and "complement" informs those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, the terms "complementary" and "complement" not indefinite. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection.
This argument has been fully considered and has not been found persuasive. Attention is directed to MPEP 2145 I [R-01.2024].
An argument by the applicant is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection. See MPEP § 2129 and § 2144.03 for a discussion of admissions as prior art.
Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of applicant statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration.
A review of the response fails to find where any affidavit or declaration has been provided.
In view of the above analysis and in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary, the rejection is maintained.
At page 11 of the response said response said representative traverses the rejection of claims as it relates to what constitutes the metes and bounds of “unique”. As asserted to therein:
… the metes and bounds of the term "unique" is not indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to clearly understand the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, the term "unique" is not indefinite.
The above argument has been considered and has not been found persuasive as it is conclusory in nature and no evidence has been presented showing what applicant had intended the term to encompass and how a member of the public would come to the same conclusion. Therefore, and in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, Written Description
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.
Standard for Written Description.
Attention is directed to MPEP 2163.02 Standard for Determining Compliance With the Written Description Requirement [R-07-2022]:
An objective standard for determining compliance with the written description requirement is, "does the description clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that he or she invented what is claimed." In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Under Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991), to satisfy the written description requirement, an 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, and that the invention, in that context, is whatever is now claimed. (Emphasis added)
Attention is also set directed to MPEP 2161.01 I [R-07-2022], wherein is stated:
For instance, generic claim language in the original disclosure does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349-50, 94 USPQ2d at 1171 ("[A]n adequate written description of a claimed genus requires more than a generic statement of an invention’s boundaries.") (citing Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1405-06); Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that generic claim language appearing in ipsis verbis in the original specification did not satisfy the written description requirement because it failed to support the scope of the genus claimed); Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 1170, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (rejecting the argument that "only similar language in the specification or original claims is necessary to satisfy the written description requirement").
As set forth in Fiers v. Revel 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1604-5 (CAFC, January 1993):
We thus determined that, irrespective of the complexity or simplicity of the method of isolation employed, conception of a DNA, like conception of any chemical substance, requires a definition of that substance other than by its functional utility.
Fiers' attempt to distinguish Amgen therefore is incorrect. We also reject Fiers' argument that the existence of a workable method for preparing a DNA establishes conception of that material. (Emphasis added)
Conception of a substance claimed per se without reference to a process requires conception of its structure, name, formula, or definitive chemical or physical properties...
The difficulty that would arise if we were to hold that a conception occurs when one has only an idea of a compound, defining it by its hoped-for function, is that would-be inventors would file patent applications before they had made their inventions and before they could describe them. That is not consistent with the statute or the policy behind the statute, which is to promote disclosure of inventions.
As set forth in the en banc decision in Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company, 94 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2010) at 1171:
We held that a sufficient description of a genus instead requires the disclosure of either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can “visualize or recognize” the members of the genus. Id. at 1568-69. We explained that an adequate written description requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, physical properties, or other properties, of species falling within the genus sufficient to distinguish the genus from other materials. Id. at 1568 (quoting Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 1171 [25 USPQ2d 1601] (Fed. Cir. 1993)). We have also held that functional claim language can meet the written description requirement when the art has established a correlation between structure and function. See Enzo, 323 F.3d at 964 (quoting 66 Fed. Reg. 1099 (Jan. 5, 2001)). But merely drawing a fence around the outer limits of a purported genus is not an adequate substitute for describing a variety of materials constituting the genus and showing that one has invented a genus and not just a species.
***
In Fiers, we rejected the argument that “only similar language in the specification or original claim is necessary to satisfy the written description requirement.” 984 F.2d at 1170 (emphasis added). Rather, we held that original claim language to “a DNA coding for interferon activity” failed to provide an adequate written description as it amounted to no more than a “wish” or “plan” for obtaining the claimed DNA rather than a description of the DNA itself. Id. at 1170-71. That Fiers applied § 112, first paragraph, during an interference is irrelevant for, as we stated above, the statute contains no basis for ignoring the description requirement outside of this context. And again in Enzo we held that generic claim language appearing in ipsis verbis in the original specification does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed. 323 F.3d at 968. We concluded that “[a] claim does not become more descriptive by its repetition, or its longevity.” Id. at 969.
***
The written description requirement also ensures that when a patent claims a genus by its function or result, the specification recites sufficient materials to accomplish that function—a problem that is particularly acute in the biological arts.
Attention is also directed to MPEP 2163 Guidelines for the Examination of Patent Applications Under the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, “Written Description” Requirement [R-01-2024], at part II ii):
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 (see i)(A) above), reduction to drawings (see i)(B) above), or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the inventor was in possession of the claimed genus (see i)(C) above). See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. See Juno Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kite Pharma, Inc., 10 F.4th 1330, 1337, 2021 USPQ2d 893 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ( "[T]he written description must lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand that the inventor possessed the entire scope of the claimed invention. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1353–54 ('[T]he purpose of the written description requirement is to ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor's contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.' (internal quotation marks omitted).") (Emphasis added)
Attention is also directed to the decision of University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co. (CA FC, July 1997) 43 USPQ2d 1398 wherein is stated:
In claims involving chemical materials, generic formulas usually indicate with specificity what the generic claims encompass. One skilled in the art can distinguish such a formula from others and can identify many of the species that the claims encompass. Accordingly, such a formula is normally an adequate written description of the claimed genus. In claims to genetic material, however, a generic statement such as “vertebrate insulin cDNA” or “mammalian cDNA,” without more, is not an adequate written description of the genus because it does not distinguish the claimed genus from others, except by function. It does not specifically define any of the genes that fall within its definition. It does not define any structural features commonly possessed by members of the genus that distinguish them from others. One skilled in the art therefore cannot, as one can do with a fully described genus, visualize or recognize the identity of the members of the genus. A definition by function, as we have previously indicated, does not suffice to define the genus because it is only an indication of what the gene does, rather than what it is See Fiers, 984 F.2d at 1169-71, 25 USPQ2d at 1605-06 (discussing Amgen). It is only a definition of a useful result rather than a definition of what it achieves as a result. Many such genes may achieve that result. The description requirement of the patent statute requires a description of an invention, not an indication of a result that one might achieve if one made that invention. See In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 222 USPQ 369, 372-373 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (affirming rejection because the specification does “little more than outlin[e] goals appellants hope the claimed invention achieves and the problems the invention will hopefully ameliorate.”). Accordingly, naming a type of material generally known to exist, in the absence of knowledge as to what that material consists of, is not a description of that material.
Thus, as we have previously held, a cDNA is not defined or described by the mere name cDNA,” even if accompanied by the name of the protein that it encodes, but requires a kind of specificity usually achieved by means of the recitation of the sequence of nucleotides that make up the cDNA. See Fiers, 984 F.2d at 1171, 25 USPQ2d at 1606.
Holding and Rationale
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, 11, 13, 16, 20-24, 26-28, 30-34, and 36-39 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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 26, and 36 are deemed to be representative and, for convenience, are reproduced below.
PNG
media_image2.png
354
549
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
44
532
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
49
533
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
48
509
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As evidenced above, the claims are drawn to “a method for in situ polyadenylation of an RNA in a tissue section”. Claim 1, the sole independent claim pending, does not limit the source of the tissue, nor limit the type of RNA to be treated. However, as seen in claim 2,”the RNA comprises one or more of mRNA, miRNA, siRNA, tRNA, and snRNA.” As seen in claim 5, “the RNA comprises mammalian RNA and viral RNA.”
As evidenced above, it is essential that one use “a nucleic acid capture probes that “comprises: (i) a spatial barcode and (ii) a capture domain… wherein the spatial barcode comprises a sequence that correlates a location on the substrate to a location of the RNA in the tissue section…”
It is noted that claim 1, 2, 7-8, 11, 13, 16, 20-24, 27, 28, 30-34, and 36-39 do not limit the RNA to that found in mammalian cells.
Claims 5 and 26 do limit the RNA to that of mammals. Attention is directed to the following publications which teach of the enormity of the genera of mammals, and species encompassed by the subfamily Murinae as the in situ polyadenylation of any and all RNA sequences from all members of the various genera are encompassed by the instant claims.
“Mammal,” (Wikipedia.com; accessed 08 September 2023) teaches:
According to Mammal Species of the World, which is updated through periodic editions, 5,416 species were identified in 2006. These were grouped into 1,229 genera, 153 families and 29 orders.[5]
“Murinae,” (Wikipedia.com, accessed 10 June 2024) teaches:
The Old World rats and mice, part of the subfamily Murinae in the family Muridae, comprise at least 519 species. Members of this subfamily are called murines. In terms of species richness, this subfamily is larger than all mammal families except the Cricetidae and Muridae, and is larger than all mammal orders except the bats and the remainder of the rodents.
Attention is directed to “Eukaryotic Genome Complexity” (Pray, Nature Education, 1(1):36, 2008, pages 1-4.). As seen therein, a table of estimated protein encoding genes in different genomes is provided.
PNG
media_image6.png
403
540
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As is evidenced above, the claimed method fairly encompasses the in situ polyadenylation of RNA found in millions of different organisms, each of which comprises tens of thousands of protein encoding genes, and which would arguably be transcribed into RNA.
A review of the disclosure does identify a Sequence Listing. Said Sequence Listing has been found to comprise a total of 5 sequences, each of which is identified as being DNA and a “synthetic construct”. Said DNA molecules range in size from 10 to 32 nucleotides.
The disclosure has not been found to provide the nucleotide sequence for any RNA, much less those RNA molecules that have a specific and substantial utility under 35 USC 101.
Such nondisclosure by applicant has not been found to reasonably suggest that applicant, as of the effective filing date (10 January 2020), was in possession of the claimed invention.
Attention is directed to the decision of University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co. (CA FC, July 1997) 43 USPQ2d 1398 wherein is stated:
In claims involving chemical materials, generic formulas usually indicate with specificity what the generic claims encompass. One skilled in the art can distinguish such a formula from others and can identify many of the species that the claims encompass. Accordingly, such a formula is normally an adequate written description of the claimed genus. In claims to genetic material, however, a generic statement such as “vertebrate insulin cDNA” or “mammalian cDNA,” without more, is not an adequate written description of the genus because it does not distinguish the claimed genus from others, except by function. It does not specifically define any of the genes that fall within its definition. It does not define any structural features commonly possessed by members of the genus that distinguish them from others. One skilled in the art therefore cannot, as one can do with a fully described genus, visualize or recognize the identity of the members of the genus. A definition by function, as we have previously indicated, does not suffice to define the genus because it is only an indication of what the gene does, rather than what it is See Fiers, 984 F.2d at 1169-71, 25 USPQ2d at 1605-06 (discussing Amgen). It is only a definition of a useful result rather than a definition of what it achieves as a result. Many such genes may achieve that result. The description requirement of the patent statute requires a description of an invention, not an indication of a result that one might achieve if one made that invention. See In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 222 USPQ 369, 372-373 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (affirming rejection because the specification does “little more than outlin[e] goals appellants hope the claimed invention achieves and the problems the invention will hopefully ameliorate.”). Accordingly, naming a type of material generally known to exist, in the absence of knowledge as to what that material consists of, is not a description of that material.
Thus, as we have previously held, a cDNA is not defined or described by the mere name “cDNA,” even if accompanied by the name of the protein that it encodes, but requires a kind of specificity usually achieved by means of the recitation of the sequence of nucleotides that make up the cDNA. See Fiers, 984 F.2d at 1171, 25 USPQ2d at 1606.
Acknowledgement is made of the fact that the claims are to a method and not to a product. However, it is well settled that in order to satisfy the written description for a method, one must also disclose the molecules required to perform the method. In support of this position attention is directed to University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co. 68 USPQ2D 1424 (W.D.N.Y. 2003) at 1433 (affirmed; University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co. 69 USPQ2d 1886 (Fed. Cir. 2004)):
Plaintiff also argues that the requirements for written descriptions of claims to chemical compounds are irrelevant to this case because the '850 patent does not claim a compound, but a method of treatment by targeting PGHS-2 activity over PGHS-1 activity. Virtually any compound claim could be transformed into a method claim, however, simply by means of wording the claim in terms of a method of using the compound. With respect to the issue before the Court, then, this is little more than a semantic distinction without a difference. The claimed method depends upon finding a compound that selectively inhibits PGHS-2 activity. Without such a compound, it is impossible to practice the claimed method of treatment. It means little to “invent” a method if one does not have possession of a substance that is essential to practicing that method. Without that substance, the claimed invention is more theoretical than real; it is, as defendants argue, akin to “inventing” a cure for cancer by utilizing a substance that attacks and destroys cancer cells while leaving healthy cells alone. Without possession of such a substance, such a “cure” is illusory, and there is no meaningful possession of the method.
***
What the inventors did not do, however, is succeed in taking the last, critical step of actually isolating such a compound, or at least of developing a process through which one skilled in the art would be directly led to such a compound. Absent that step, their discoveries, valuable though they might have been, did not blossom into a full-fledged, complete invention. Scientific discoveries, and theories based on those discoveries, frequently lay the groundwork for later inventions, but that does not make the discoverer the inventor as well.
Attention is also directed to the decision in Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.
(Fed. Cir. 2010) 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1175, which teaches:
In accordance with Rochester, the ?516 patent must adequately describe the claimed methods for reducing NF-?B activity, including adequate description of the molecules that Ariad admits are necessary to perform the methods. (Emphasis added)
In view of the above analysis and in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary, claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, 11, 13, 16, 20-24, 26-28, 30-34, and 36-39 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.
Response to traversal
Applicant’s representative, at pages 12-14 of the response, traverses the rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(a) for not satisfying the written description requirement.
As evidenced at page 14 of the response, said representative traverses the rejection and directs attention to the decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeals Board. These argument have been considered and have not been found persuasive as decision of the Board do not overrule decisions in University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co. 68 USPQ2D 1424 (W.D.N.Y. 2003) at 1433 (affirmed; University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co. 69 USPQ2d 1886 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) and the decision in Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. (Fed. Cir. 2010) 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1175, which teaches:
In accordance with Rochester, the ?516 patent must adequately describe the claimed methods for reducing NF-?B activity, including adequate description of the molecules that Ariad admits are necessary to perform the methods. (Emphasis added)
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s representative identifying the decision of the Board in U.S. Appl. No. 14/381,366 as one where the Board had reversed a rejection as it relates to satisfaction of the written description requirement. This assertion has been considered and has not been found persuasive. Upon review of the decision, the Board only considered a rejection of clams under 35 USC 103, and then they affirmed the rejection (06/28/2022), and a notice of abandonment was mailed 09/16/2022.
In view of the above analysis and in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 (Utility) & 112 (Enablement)
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 1-2, 5, 7-8, 11, 13, 16, 20-24, 26-28, 30-34, and 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a specific, substantial, and credible asserted utility or a well-established utility.
Standard for Utility
Attention is directed to the decision in In re Langer (CCPA, 1974) 183 USPQ 288, at 297:
As a matter of Patent Office practice, a specification which contains a disclosure of utility which corresponds in scope to the subject matter sought to be patented must be taken as sufficient to satisfy the utility requirement of § 101 for the entire claimed subject matter unless there is reason for one skilled in the art to question the objective truth of the statement of utility or its scope. Assuming that sufficient reason to question the statement of utility and its scope does exist, a rejection for lack of utility under § 101 will be proper on that basis; such a rejection can be overcome by suitable proofs indicating that the statement of utility and its scope as found in the specification are true. Cf. In re Marzocchi, 58 CCPA 1069, 1073, 439 F.2d 220, 223, 169 USPQ 367, 369 (1971) (involving the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph). (Emphasis added)
Attention is also directed to MPEP 2107.02 I [R-07.2022], which states in part:
The claimed invention is the focus of the assessment of whether an applicant has satisfied the utility requirement. Each claim (i.e., each “invention”), therefore, must be evaluated on its own merits for compliance with all statutory requirements… Only where it can be established that other species clearly encompassed by the claim do not have utility should a rejection be imposed on the generic claim. In such cases, the applicant should be encouraged to amend the generic claim so as to exclude the species that lack utility. (Emphasis added)
Attention is also directed to MPEP 2106 II [R-10.2019], which states in part:
A claim whose BRI covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Such claims fail the first step (Step 1: NO) and should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, for at least this reason.
Attention is also directed to MPEP 2107.01 I [R-07.2022], which states in part:
Specific Utility
A "specific utility" is specific to the subject matter claimed and can "provide a well-defined and particular benefit to the public." In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 1371, 76 USPQ2d 1225, 1230 (Fed. Cir. 2005). This contrasts with a general utility that would be applicable to the broad class of the invention. Office personnel should distinguish between situations where an applicant has disclosed a specific use for or application of the invention and situations where the applicant merely indicates that the invention may prove useful without identifying with specificity why it is considered useful. For example, indicating that a compound may be useful in treating unspecified disorders, or that the compound has "useful biological" properties, would not be sufficient to define a specific utility for the compound. See, e.g., In re Kirk, 376 F.2d 936, 153 USPQ 48 (CCPA 1967); In re Joly, 376 F.2d 906, 153 USPQ 45 (CCPA 1967). Similarly, a claim to a polynucleotide whose use is disclosed simply as a "gene probe" or "chromosome marker" would not be considered to be specific in the absence of a disclosure of a specific DNA target. See In re Fisher, 421 F.3d at 1374, 76 USPQ2d at 1232 ("Any EST [expressed sequence tag] transcribed from any gene in the maize genome has the potential to perform any one of the alleged uses…. Nothing about [applicant’s] seven alleged uses set the five claimed ESTs apart from the more than 32,000 ESTs disclosed in the [ ] application or indeed from any EST derived from any organism. Accordingly, we conclude that [applicant] has only disclosed general uses for its claimed ESTs, not specific ones that satisfy § 101."). A general statement of diagnostic utility, such as diagnosing an unspecified disease, would ordinarily be insufficient absent a disclosure of what condition can be diagnosed. Contrast the situation where an applicant discloses a specific biological activity and reasonably correlates that activity to a disease condition. Assertions falling within the latter category are sufficient to identify a specific utility for the invention. Assertions that fall in the former category are insufficient to define a specific utility for the invention, especially if the assertion takes the form of a general statement that makes it clear that a "useful" invention may arise from what has been disclosed by the applicant. Knapp v. Anderson, 477 F.2d 588, 177 USPQ 688 (CCPA 1973).
B. Substantial Utility
"[A]n application must show that an invention is useful to the public as disclosed in its current form, not that it may prove useful at some future date after further research. Simply put, to satisfy the ‘substantial’ utility requirement, an asserted use must show that the claimed invention has a significant and presently available benefit to the public." Fisher, 421 F.3d at 1371, 76 USPQ2d at 1230. The claims at issue in Fisher were directed to expressed sequence tags (ESTs), which are short nucleotide sequences that can be used to discover what genes and downstream proteins are expressed in a cell. The court held that "the claimed ESTs can be used only to gain further information about the underlying genes and the proteins encoded for by those genes. The claimed ESTs themselves are not an end of [the inventor’s] research effort, but only tools to be used along the way in the search for a practical utility…. [Applicant] does not identify the function for the underlying protein-encoding genes. Absent such identification, we hold that the claimed ESTs have not been researched and understood to the point of providing an immediate, well-defined, real world benefit to the public meriting the grant of a patent." Id. at 1376, 76 USPQ2d at 1233-34). Thus a "substantial utility" defines a "real world" use. Utilities that require or constitute carrying out further research to identify or reasonably confirm a "real world" context of use are not substantial utilities. For example, both a therapeutic method of treating a known or newly discovered disease and an assay method for identifying compounds that themselves have a "substantial utility" define a "real world" context of use. An assay that measures the presence of a material which has a stated correlation to a predisposition to the onset of a particular disease condition would also define a "real world" context of use in identifying potential candidates for preventive measures or further monitoring. On the other hand, the following are examples of situations that require or constitute carrying out further research to identify or reasonably confirm a "real world" context of use and, therefore, do not define "substantial utilities":
(A) Basic research such as studying the properties of the claimed product itself or the mechanisms in which the material is involved;
(B) A method of treating an unspecified disease or condition;
(C) A method of assaying for or identifying a material that itself has no specific and/or substantial utility;
(D) A method of making a material that itself has no specific, substantial, and credible utility; and
(E) A claim to an intermediate product for use in making a final product that has no specific, substantial and credible utility. (Emphasis added)
Office personnel must be careful not to interpret the phrase "immediate benefit to the public" or similar formulations in other cases to mean that products or services based on the claimed invention must be "currently available" to the public in order to satisfy the utility requirement. See, e.g., Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 534-35, 148 USPQ 689, 695 (1966). Rather, any reasonable use that an applicant has identified for the invention that can be viewed as providing a public benefit should be accepted as sufficient, at least with regard to defining a "substantial" utility.
Rationale.
As presently worded, claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, 11, 13, 16, 20-24, 26-28, 30-34, and 36-39 are drawn to “a method for in situ polyadenylation of an RNA in a tissue section”.
The claims do not require that the nucleic acid to ultimately be contacted and labeled with a polyA sequence even be known at the time of filing, much less require that it be useful under 35 USC 101. Brenner, Comr. Pats. v. Manson, 148 USPQ 689 (U.S. 1966). The case at hand is deemed to be analogous to that set forth in MPEP 2107.01 I B (C) and (D), supra, which teaches that “[a] method of assaying for or identifying a material that itself has no specific and/or substantial utility” and “method of making a material that itself has no specific, substantial, and credible utility” are not considered to have a substantial utility.
For "specific utility", the invention must have a utility specific to the subject matter claimed in contrast with a general utility that would be applicable to the broad class of the invention. According to 35 U.S.C. 101, a specific utility is not a list of potential applications for which the broad class of the invention would also have utility.
While nucleic acids, which satisfy the utility requirements of 35 USC 101, were known at the time of filing, such narrowing limitations have not been read into the claims. See MPEP 2111.01 and Superguide.
Applicant is urged to consider amending the claims such that the claims are drawn to those nucleic acids that unquestionably do have utility under 35 USC 101 and which are adequately supported by the original disclosure.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, 11, 13, 16, 20-24, 26-28, 30-34, and 36-39 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Specifically, since the claimed invention is not supported by either a specific, substantial, and credible asserted utility or a well-established utility for the reasons set forth above, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.
Response to traversal
At pages 15-16 of the response applicant’s representative traverses the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101 and 112(a), asserting that by incorporating a polyA sequence to the RNA, one can now capture the RNA. These arguments have been considered and have not been found persuasive. Clearly, the RNA is unknown in terms of sequence and function. The act of incorporating a known sequence (polyA) may enable one to isolate the population of modified RNAs, but it does not overcome the issue that one still does not know the function of the RNA, which, as seen in claim 2 can be mRNA, miRNA, siRNA, tRNA, snRNA, or a combination of same, and that they can come from any organism that has any form of “tissue”. There is no requirement that one have any prior knowledge of the function of any of the RNA molecules, regardless of type and source. As set forth in the MPEP 2107.01 I, a “method of making a material that itself has no specific, substantial, and credible utility” does not define a substantial utility.
In view of the above analysis and in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary, the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
Objections and/or rejections which appeared in the prior Office action and which have not been repeated hereinabove have been withdrawn.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bradley L. Sisson whose telephone number is (571)272-0751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, from 6:30 AM to 5 PM.
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, Wu-Cheng Shen can be reached at 571-272-3157. 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.
/Bradley L. Sisson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1682