DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I and the flu protein of M2 (claim 2), the peptide sequence of SEQ ID NO: 9 (claim 5), the bacterial protein of Diphtheria toxoid (claim 6), the adjuvant of ALFQ (claim 10), the bacterial species of Staphylococcus (claim 14), the peptide sequence of SEQ ID NOs: 6 and 55 (claim 26/27) in the reply filed on 16 January, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no serious search burden is evident as all three groups fall into similar searching categories and that for the species election, search of elected species will identify the same documents as unelected species. However, this is not found persuasive at least because Groups I-III are written independently from each other and the Groups have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classifications and the separate species also require additional search parameters, as each species in unique and recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 15-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 16 January, 2026.
Specification
The Specification is objected to because of the following informalities: “SEQ ID NOs.” should read “SEQ ID NOs:” . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 26-27, and 31-32 are objected to because of the following informalities: “SEQ ID NOs.” should read “SEQ ID NOs:” . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-14, 22-25, and 28-30are 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 written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, reduction to drawings, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the inventor was in possession of the claimed genus. See, e.g., Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1340, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2010); University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 43 USPQ2d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1997) at 1406; 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).").
A “representative number of species” means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. See AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1300, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The issue is whether the skilled artisan would understand inventor to have invented, and been in possession of, the invention as claimed.
The Federal Circuit has clarified the application of the written description requirement to inventions in the field of biotechnology. See University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568,43 USPQ2d l398, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Court stated that a written description of an invention requires a precise definition, one that defines the structural features of the chemical genus that distinguishes it from other chemical structures. A definition by function does not suffice to define the genus because it is only an indication of what the genus does, rather than what it is. Further, the Court held that to adequately describe a claimed genus, an applicant must describe a representative number of species of the claimed genus, and that one of skill in the art should be able to “visualize or recognize the identity of the members of the genus.”
Instant claims 1-4, 6-14, 22-25, and 28-30broadly encompass an immunogenic composition comprising a peptide of a viral or bacterial pathogen containing multiple epitopes that, upon administration to a mammal generates an immune response to the pathogen, wherein at least one epitope is a composite epitope. An immunogenic composition inherently requires the function of immune stimulation/modulation.
Instant claims 1-4, 6-14, 22-25, and 28-30are rejected as lacking adequate support for stimulating an immune response to any infection from any viral or bacterial pathogen in any mammal by using multiple epitopes with at least one being any composite antigen.
While the instant claims are drawn to a genus that comprises innumerable permutations of any composite antigen from any bacterial or viral pathogen, the Specification only discloses examples for which the composite antigen is obtained from influenza or coronavirus proteins and examples that show antibody responses only include influenza proteins. No examples show prevention of infection from influenza or any other viral or bacterial pathogen. Other than influenza and coronavirus, no other composite antigens have been generated or tested. The composite antigens generated have not been tested for their ability to inhibit or prevent infection from any other non-influenza related pathogen. Thus, the Specification failed to provide sufficient examples of species within the broadly claimed genus.
Claim 6 is rejected as lacking adequate support for the possession of immunogenic compositions containing the diphtheria toxoid or a fragment, derivative, or modification thereof. The Specification does not support the claimed species as all working examples include the tetanus toxoid rather than the diphtheria toxoid. The Specification has also failed to sufficiently describe the structural features that must be retained by the members of the claimed genus (diphtheria toxoid or fragment, derivative, or modification thereof) as to establish a stricture-function relationship with respect to the T-cell stimulation. “[O]r a fragment, derivative, or modification thereof” encompasses a large pool of variants when accounting for all fragments, derivatives, or modifications and the Specification does not adequately describe the necessary epitope that must remain for the toxoid to stimulate T-cells.
Further, while the claims provide both a structure and a function, the Specification failed to draw a correlation between the two (i.e., there is no evidence that any composite antigen can still retain the ability to raise a therapeutic immune response against a related or unrelated pathogen). Moreover, no correlation has been made as to which sequences from which antigens from which pathogens are required in order to achieve the claimed therapeutic effect (e.g., it is not clear if said antigens must only be derived from linear epitopes that elicit CD4 or CD8 responses, etc.). It is not clear what sequence on the N and C terminal ends is, or is not, required to ensure a therapeutic response, as the composite antigens may have multiple additional amino acids on each end. Lastly, the Specification does not establish any additional composite antigens from any other pathogen that appear to have the same therapeutic effect as claimed.
Thus, in view of the above, there would have been significant uncertainty as to which composite antigens from which viral or bacterial pathogens would be able to confer the claimed therapeutic function. In view of this uncertainty and lack of sufficient examples of the broadly claimed genera, the claims are rejected for lack of adequate description support.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phrase “a sequence” in claim 5 is indefinite. The phrase is not defined in the claim or the specification. One of ordinary skill would not be able to reasonable ascertain the invention. For example, “the peptide contains a sequence of” may include sequences that are shorter than the claimed sequence. “[T]he sequence” is the appropriate terminology which would fix the indefiniteness of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-14, 22-24, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fischer, et al. (US 9,598,462 B2, US-IDS, filed, 02/13/2024, hereinafter “Fischer”).
Regarding claim 1, Fischer discloses a composite antigen comprising a peptide with a contiguous amino acid sequence derived from a plurality of antigenic epitopes of one or more pathogens that induces an immune response in a mammal that is protective against infection by the one or more pathogens and that one or more of the epitopes are composite epitopes (pg. 24, column 6, lines 27-49.
Regarding claim 2, Fischer discloses that one or more of the antigenic epitopes are amino acid sequences of M2 (pg. 24, column 6, lines 27-49).
Regarding claim 3, Fischer discloses the composite sequence of reference SEQ ID NO: 8, which is a composite sequence of reference SEQ ID NO: 4 (an HA epitope) and reference SEQ ID NO: 5 (an HA epitope), making reference SEQ ID NO:8 a composite epitope that is a combination of two similar (HA) epitopes (pg. 24, column 6, lines 27-49, SEQ ID NO:8).
Regarding claim 4, Fischer discloses the composite sequence of reference SEQ ID NO: 66, which is a composite sequence or reference SEQ ID NOs: 6 (an HA epitope), 54 (an HA epitope), and 8 (an NA epitope), making reference SEQ ID NO: 66 a composite epitope that is a combination of two dissimilar (HA and NA) epitopes (pg. 24, column 6, lines 27-49, SEQ ID NO: 66).
Regarding claim 5, Fischer discloses the composite epitope of Instant SEQ ID NO: 9 (Reference SEQ ID NO: 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
179
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Fischer discloses that the composite antigen includes one or more T-cell stimulating epitopes, including the diphtheria toxoid (Pg. 28, column 14, lines 6-20).
Regarding claim 7, Fischer discloses the T-cell stimulating epitope at the C-terminus of the peptide, reference SEQ ID NO: 47 contains an M2e epitope and the tetanus toxoid at the C-terminus of the peptide (QYIKANSKFIGITE), a T cell stimulating epitope (SEQ ID NO: 47).
PNG
media_image2.png
74
603
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Fischer discloses multiple influenza viral epitopes (pg. 24, column 6, lines 27-49) and multiple T-cell stimulating epitopes (Pg. 28, column 14, lines 6-20).
Regarding claim 9, Fischer discloses an immunogenic composition including an adjuvant (Pg. 28, column 14, lines 36-50).
Regarding claim 11, Fischer discloses that composition is protective against influenza virus (pg. 24, column 6, lines 27-49).
Regarding claim 12, Fischer discloses that the virus is Influenza A (pg. 24, column 6, lines 27-49, SEQ ID NO: 66).
Regarding claim 13-14, Fischer discloses that the composite antigen protects against Staphylococcus (Pg. 27, column 12, lines 25-40 and 51-67 and pg. 28, column 13, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 22, Fischer discloses an immunogenic composition comprising viral and/or bacterial nucleic acids that encode a peptide sequence of a pathogen, containing multiple epitopes, where at least one epitope is a composite epitope (pg. 24, column 6, lines 27-49, SEQ ID NO: 70, Pg. 29, column 15, lines 48-67 and column 16, lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 23, Fischer discloses that the immunogenic composition induces an immune response in a mammal that is protective against infection by the one or more pathogens (pg. 24, column 6, lines 27-49).
Regarding claim 24, Fischer discloses that composition is protective against influenza virus (pg. 24, column 6, lines 27-49).
Regarding claim 28, Fischer discloses that the nucleic acid is DNA (pg. 24, column 6, lines 27-49, SEQ ID NO: 70, Pg. 29, column 15, lines 48-67 and column 16, lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 29, Fischer discloses that the nucleic acid is RNA (Pg. 29, column 15, lines 48-67 and column 16, lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 30, Fischer discloses that the immunogenic composition can be a DNA vaccine against a pathogen (Pg. 29, column 16, lines 20-36).
Accordingly, Fischer anticipates the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer as applied to claims 1-9, 11-14, 22-24, and 28-30 above, and further in view of Alving, et al. (Expert Rev Vaccines. 2020 Mar;19(3):279-292., hereinafter “Alving”).
As discussed above, claims 1-9, 11-14, 22-24, and 28-30 were anticipated by Fischer.
Regarding claim 10, Fischer teaches that almost any adjuvant can be used with the immunogenic composition comprising a composite epitope (Pg. 28, column 14, lines 36-50). Fischer does not teach that the adjuvant is ALFQ. However, Alving teaches that the Army Liposome Formulation (ALF) family, including ALFQ, are safe and potent vaccine adjuvants that produce both a Th1 and Th2 response (Abstract and Pg. 7 section 4). The ALFQ adjuvant is the only family member that produces a balanced Th1 and Th2 response (Pg. 7 section 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for one or ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Fischer for an immunogenic composition comprising composite epitope peptides and an adjuvant with the teachings of Alving for the adjuvant ALFQ. Alving provides motivation by teaching that ALFQ produces a balanced Th1 and Th2 response compared to other adjuvants (Pg. 7 section 4). One of skill in the art would have had reasonable expectation of success at combining Fischer and Alving because they both teach vaccines.
Accordingly, the claimed invention was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claims 25-27 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer.
As discussed above, claims 1-9, 11-14, 22-24, and 28-30 were anticipated by Fischer.
Regarding claims 25-27 and 31, Fischer teaches the reference peptide sequences SEQ ID NOs: 6 (HA), 8 (NA), 13 (M), and 54 (HA) which correspond to instant SEQ ID NOs: 6 (HA), 8 (NA), 13 (M), and 55 (HA). Fischer further teaches that these sequences can be coupled (as seen in reference SEQ ID NO: 66, coupling SEQ ID NOs: 6 (HA), 54 (NA), and 8 (HA)) to create a vaccine against multiple epitopes, allowing for a more broadly protective immune response. Fischer also teaches that adding a T-cell stimulating epitope allows for a T-cell response to the vaccine (Description of the Invention). Fischer further teaches reference SEQ ID NO: 60 which corresponds to instant SEQ ID NO: 61 and that this epitope can be coupled to influenza M protein epitopes (SEQ ID NO: 47). Fischer also teaches that the peptide sequence can have any combination of M1, M2, HA, NA, PB1, or PB2 proteins () and multiple M peptide sequences (SEQ ID NOs: 22-48).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for one or ordinary skill in the art to have used the separate teachings of Fischer for a peptide sequence comprising the Influenza peptides HA (REF SEQ ID NO: 6 and 54) and NA (REF SEQ ID NO: 8) with the M ( REF SEQ ID NO: 13) peptide sequence also taught by Fischer and the T-cell stimulating epitope further taught by Fischer (REF SEQ ID NO: 60) to create a single peptide sequence coupling REF SEQ ID NOs: 6, 8, 13, 54, and 60. Fischer provides motivation by teaching that vaccine against multiple epitopes allow for a more broadly protective immune response (Pg. 26, column 9, lines 64-67 and column 10, lines 1-21) and that the T-cell stimulating epitopes induce a T-cell response (Pg. 28, column 14, lines 6-20). One of skill in the art would have had reasonable expectation of success at combining both teachings of Fischer because they are all peptide sequences for immunogenic compositions with composite epitopes..
PNG
media_image3.png
348
704
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the claimed invention was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer as applied to claims 1-9, 11-14, 22-24, and 28-30 above, and further in view of Presnell, et al. (Nucleic Acids Res. 1988 Mar 11;16(5):1693-702., hereinafter “Presnell”).
As discussed above, claims 1-9, 11-14, 22-24, and 28-30 were anticipated by Fischer and claims 25-27 and 31-32 were made obvious over Fischer.
Regarding claim 32, Fischer teaches a composition comprising a peptide comprising the instant sequences of SEQ ID NO. 6, SEQ ID NO. 55, SEQ ID NO. 8, SEQ ID NO. 13, and SEQ ID NO. 61 (see claim 31 above) and immunogenic compositions comprising viral and/or bacterial nucleic acids that encode a peptide sequence of a pathogen, containing multiple epitopes, where at least one epitope is a composite epitope (pg. 24, column 6, lines 27-49, SEQ ID NO: 70, Pg. 29, column 15, lines 48-67 and column 16, lines 1-8).
Fischer does not teach that the composition comprises the nucleic acid sequence that encodes for a peptide comprising the instant sequences of SEQ ID NO. 6, SEQ ID NO. 55, SEQ ID NO. 8, SEQ ID NO. 13, and SEQ ID NO. 61. However, Presnell teaches reverse translation, wherein a nucleic acid sequences can be determined from an amino acid sequence (Abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious before to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Fischer for the peptide sequence with the teachings of Presnell for reverse translation. Presnell provides motivation by teaching that reverse translation facilitates the use of modular mutagenesis (Abstract). One of skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success at combining Fischer and Presnell because they both teach peptide and nucleic acid sequences.
Accordingly, the claimed invention was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9 and 11-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, 14, 16-17, 19-21, 23, 25-28, 30-31, and 41 of U.S. Patent No. 11,866,463 (reference application/conflicting claims).
Regarding instant claim 1, conflicting claims 1, 6, 17, 19-21, and 27 recite an immunogenic composition comprising a peptide of a viral or bacterial pathogen containing multiple epitopes that, upon administration to a mammal generates an immune response to the pathogen, wherein at least one epitope is a composite epitope.
Regarding instant claim 2, conflicting claims 2 and 23 recite that the peptide is obtained from the M2 protein.
Regarding instant claim 3, conflicting claim 41 recites reference SEQ ID NO:19 which is a composite epitope that is a combination of similar epitopes.
Regarding instant claim 4, conflicting claim 16 recites reference SEQ ID NOs:37 and 46-48 which is a composite epitope that is a combination of dissimilar epitopes.
Regarding instant claim 5, conflicting claim 14 recites reference SEQ ID NOs 24: and 28-29 which contain instant SEQ ID NO: 9.
Regarding instant claim 6, conflicting claim 5 recites the composition further comprising a T-cell stimulating epitope obtained from diphtheria toxoid.
Regarding instant claim 7, conflicting claims 4 and 25 recite that the T-cell stimulating epitope is at an N-terminus or a C-terminus of the peptide.
Regarding instant claim 8, conflicting claims 10, 26, and 31 recite multiple influenza virus epitopes and/or multiple T cell stimulating epitopes.
Regarding instant claim 9, conflicting claims 7 and 28 recite an adjuvant.
Regarding instant claim 11, conflicting claims 9 and 30 recite that the composition prevents a viral infection.
Regarding instant claim 12, conflicting claims 9, 14, and 30 recite that the viral infection is Influenza A or B.
Claims 22-24 and 28-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 9, 17, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,866,463 (reference application/conflicting claims) in view of Presnell.
The rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-12 are set forth above.
Regarding instant claims 22-24 and 28-29, conflicting claims 1, 6, and 17 recite an immunogenic composition comprising a peptide of a viral or bacterial pathogen containing multiple epitopes that, upon administration to a mammal generates an immune response to the pathogen, wherein at least one epitope is a composite epitope and the pathogen in influenza . The conflicting claims do not recite that the composition comprises the nucleic acid that encodes the peptide.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conflicting claims with the teachings of Presnell resulting in a nucleic acid sequence encoding the peptide because Presnell teaches reverse translation, wherein a nucleic acid sequence can be determined from an amino acid sequence (Abstract). Presnell provides motivation to modify the conflicting claims by teaching that reverse translation facilitates the use of modular mutagenesis (Abstract).
Regarding instant claim 30, conflicting claim 9 recites that the immunogenic composition is a vaccine.
Claims 1-3, 11-13, 22-24, 28, and 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 7-9, 11-12, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,004,799 (reference application/conflicting claims).
Regarding instant claim 1, conflicting claims 1 and 11 recite an immunogenic composition comprising a peptide of a viral or bacterial pathogen containing multiple epitopes that, upon administration to a mammal generates an immune response to the pathogen, wherein at least one epitope is a composite epitope.
Regarding instant claim 2, conflicting claim 7 recites that the peptide is obtained from M2 protein.
Regarding instant claim 3, conflicting claims 8 and 9 recites that the composite epitope is a combination of similar epitopes.
Regarding instant claims 11-12, conflicting claims 11 and 14 recite a vaccine for Influenza.
Regarding instant claim 13, conflicting claim 6 recites a bacterial peptide composite epitope.
Regarding instant claims 22-24 and 28-30, conflicting claims 1, 12, and 14 recite a DNA vaccine comprising a viral or bacterial pathogen containing multiple epitopes that, upon administration to a mammal generates an immune response to the pathogen, wherein at least one epitope is a composite epitope and the pathogen in influenza.
Claim 29 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10-11 of U.S. Patent No. 10,004,799 (reference application/conflicting claims) in view of Presnell.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 11-13, 22-24, 28, and 30 are set forth above.
Regarding instant claim 29, conflicting claims 1 and 10-11 recite a recombinant polynucleotide vaccine comprising a viral or bacterial pathogen containing multiple epitopes that, upon administration to a mammal generates an immune response to the pathogen, wherein at least one epitope is a composite epitope and the pathogen in influenza. The conflicting claims do not recite that the composition comprises RNA that encodes the peptide.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conflicting claims with the teachings of Presnell resulting in a RNA sequence encoding the peptide because Presnell teaches reverse translation, wherein an RNA sequence can be determined from an amino acid sequence (Abstract). Presnell provides motivation to modify the conflicting claims by teaching that reverse translation facilitates the use of modular mutagenesis (Abstract).
Claims 1-3, 9, and 11-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 15, 25, and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 10,596,250 (reference application/conflicting claims).
Regarding instant claims 1-3 and 11-12, conflicting claims 1-2 and 25-27 recite an immunogenic composition comprising a peptide of a viral or bacterial pathogen containing multiple epitopes that, upon administration to a mammal generates an immune response to the pathogen, wherein at least one epitope is a composite epitope, wherein the peptide is obtained from M2 protein, the composite epitope is a combination of similar epitopes and which treats influenza A.
Regarding instant claim 9, conflicting claim 15 recites that the immunogenic composition includes an adjuvant.
Claims 22-24 and 28-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 25, and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 10,596,250 (reference application/conflicting claims) in view of Presnell.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 9, and 11-12 are set forth above.
Regarding instant claims 22-24 and 28-29, conflicting claims 1, 2, 25, and 27 recite an immunogenic composition comprising a peptide of a viral or bacterial pathogen containing multiple epitopes that, upon administration to a mammal generates an immune response to the pathogen, wherein at least one epitope is a composite epitope and the pathogen in influenza . The conflicting claims do not recite that the composition comprises the nucleic acid that encodes the peptide.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conflicting claims with the teachings of Presnell resulting in a nucleic acid sequence encoding the peptide because Presnell teaches reverse translation, wherein a nucleic acid sequence can be determined from an amino acid sequence (Abstract). Presnell provides motivation to modify the conflicting claims by teaching that reverse translation facilitates the use of modular mutagenesis (Abstract).
Claims 1-4 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 5-10 of U.S. Patent No. 9,598,462 (reference application/conflicting claims).
Regarding instant claim 1, conflicting claims 1 and 7-10 recite an immunogenic composition comprising a peptide of a viral or bacterial pathogen containing multiple epitopes that, upon administration to a mammal generates an immune response to the pathogen, wherein at least one epitope is a composite epitope.
Regarding instant claim 2, conflicting claim 5 recites that the peptide is obtained from M2 protein.
Regarding instant claims 3-4, conflicting claim 6 recites that the composite epitope is a combination of similar or dissimilar epitopes.
Regarding instant claim 8, conflicting claims 8-10 recite that the composition multiple influenza epitopes.
Claims 22-24 and 28-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 7-10 of U.S. Patent No. 9,598,462 (reference application/conflicting claims) in view of Presnell.
The rejection of claims 1-4 and 8 are set forth above.
Regarding instant claims 22-24 and 28-29, conflicting claims 1, 4, and 7-10 recite an immunogenic composition comprising a peptide of a viral or bacterial pathogen containing multiple epitopes that, upon administration to a mammal generates an immune response to the pathogen, wherein at least one epitope is a composite epitope and the pathogen in influenza . The conflicting claims do not recite that the composition comprises the nucleic acid that encodes the peptide.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conflicting claims with the teachings of Presnell resulting in a nucleic acid sequence (DNA or RNA) encoding the peptide because Presnell teaches reverse translation, wherein a nucleic acid sequence (DNA or RNA) can be determined from an amino acid sequence (Abstract). Presnell provides motivation to modify the conflicting claims by teaching that reverse translation facilitates the use of modular mutagenesis (Abstract).
Claims 1-2 and 6-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,485,166 (reference application/conflicting claims).
Regarding instant claim 1, conflicting claims 1-2, 10-11, and 19 recite an immunogenic composition comprising a peptide of a viral or bacterial pathogen containing multiple epitopes that, upon administration to a mammal generates an immune response to the pathogen, wherein at least one epitope is a composite epitope.
Regarding instant claim 2, conflicting claims 2 and 11 recite that the peptide is obtained by an M2 protein.
Regarding instant claim 6, conflicting claims 4 and 13 recite that the composition further comprises the diphtheria toxoid.
Regarding instant claim 7, conflicting claims 5 and 14 recite that the T-cell stimulating epitope is at an N- or C- terminus.
Regarding instant claim 8, conflicting claims 3, 6, 12, and 15 recites that composition comprises multiple influenza or T-cell stimulating epitopes.
Regarding instant claim 9, conflicting claims 7 and 16 recite that the composition further comprises and adjuvant
Regarding instant claim 10, conflicting claims 8 and 17 recite that the adjuvant is ALFQ.
Regarding instant claim 11, conflicting claims 9 and 18 recite that the composition prevents or treats viral infection.
Claims 22-24 and 28-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 10-11, and 18 of U.S. Patent No.12,485,166 (reference application/conflicting claims) in view of Presnell.
The rejection of claims 1-2 and 6-11 are set forth above.
Regarding instant claims 22-24 and 28-29, conflicting claims 1-2 and 10-11 recite an immunogenic composition comprising a peptide of a viral or bacterial pathogen containing multiple epitopes that, upon administration to a mammal generates an immune response to the pathogen, wherein at least one epitope is a composite epitope and the pathogen in influenza . The conflicting claims do not recite that the composition comprises the nucleic acid that encodes the peptide.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conflicting claims with the teachings of Presnell resulting in a nucleic acid sequence (DNA or RNA) encoding the peptide because Presnell teaches reverse translation, wherein a nucleic acid sequence (DNA or RNA) can be determined from an amino acid sequence (Abstract).
Regarding instant claim 30, conflicting claim 18 recites that the immunogenic composition is a vaccine.
Claims 1-2 and 5-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 23-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,331,083 (reference application/conflicting claims).
Regarding instant claim 1, conflicting claims 1 and 13-15 recite an immunogenic composition comprising a peptide of a viral or bacterial pathogen containing multiple epitopes that, upon administration to a mammal generates an immune response to the pathogen, wherein at least one epitope is a composite epitope.
Regarding instant claim 2, conflicting claim 2 recites that the peptide is obtained from an M2 protein.
Regarding instant claim 5, conflicting claim 1 recites that the peptide contains instant SEQ ID NO: 9.
Regarding instant claim 6, conflicting claim 5 recites that the composition further comprises a diphtheria toxoid.
Regarding instant claim 7, conflicting claims 6 and 7 recite that the T-cell stimulating epitope is at the N- or C-terminus of the peptide.
Regarding instant claim 8, conflicting claim 1 recites that there are multiple influenza virus epitopes.
Regarding instant claim 9, conflicting claims 10 and 17 recite that the composition further comprises an adjuvant.
Claims 22-24, and 28-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12-15 of U.S. Patent No.12,331,083 (reference application/conflicting claims) in view of Presnell.
The rejection of claims 1-2 and 5-9 are set forth above.
Regarding instant claims 22-24, and 28-29, conflicting claims 1 and 13-15 recite an immunogenic composition comprising a peptide of a viral or bacterial pathogen containing multiple epitopes that, upon administration to a mammal generates an immune response to the pathogen, wherein at least one epitope is a composite epitope and the pathogen in influenza . The conflicting claims do not recite that the composition comprises the nucleic acid that encodes the peptide.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conflicting claims with the teachings of Presnell resulting in a nucleic acid sequence (DNA or RNA) encoding the peptide because Presnell teaches reverse translation, wherein a nucleic acid sequence (DNA or RNA) can be determined from an amino acid sequence (Abstract).
Regarding instant claim 30, conflicting claim 12 recites that the immunogenic composition is a vaccine.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, 22-24, and 28-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 17, 20, 24, and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 8,821,885 (reference application/conflicting claims).
Regarding instant claim 1, conflicting claims 1, 6, 20, and 28 recite an immunogenic composition comprising a peptide of a viral or bacterial pathogen containing multiple epitopes that, upon administration to a mammal generates an immune response to the pathogen, wherein at least one epitope is a composite epitope.
Regarding instant claim 2, conflicting claim 24 recites that the peptide is obtained from an M2 protein.
Regarding instant claim 5, conflicting claim 1 recites that the peptide contains instant SEQ ID NO: 9.
Regarding instant claim 6, conflicting claim 1 recites that the composition further comprises a diphtheria toxoid.
Regarding instant claim 8, conflicting claim 2-5 recites that there are multiple influenza virus epitopes.
Regarding instant claim 9, conflicting claim 17 recites that the composition further comprises an adjuvant.
Regarding instant claims 22-24 and 28-29, conflicting claims 1, 6-7, 20, and 28 recite an immunogenic composition comprising a polynucleotide of a viral or bacterial pathogen containing multiple epitopes that, upon administration to a mammal generates an immune response to the pathogen, wherein at least one epitope is a composite epitope and the pathogen in influenza .
Claims 1, 6, 8-9, 22-24, and 28-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims XXXXX of U.S. Patent No. 9,388,220 (reference application/conflicting claims).
Regarding instant claim 1, conflicting claims 1 and 17 recite an immunogenic composition comprising a peptide of a viral or bacterial pathogen containing multiple epitopes that, upon administration to a mammal generates an immune response to the pathogen, wherein at least one epitope is a composite epitope.
Regarding instant claim 6, conflicting claim 1 recites that the composition further comprises a diphtheria toxoid.
Regarding instant claim 8, conflicting claim 2-4 recites that there are multiple influenza virus epitopes.
Regarding instant claim 9, conflicting claim 14 recites that the composition further comprises an adjuvant.
Regarding instant claims 22-24 and 28-29, conflicting claims 1 and 6 recite an immunogenic composition comprising a polynucleotide of a viral or bacterial pathogen containing multiple epitopes that, upon administration to a mammal generates an immune response to the pathogen, wherein at least one epitope is a composite epitope and the pathogen in influenza .
Claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, 22-24, and 28-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 9,772,045 (reference application/conflicting claims).
Regarding instant claim 1, conflicting claims 1-2 recite an immunogenic composition comprising a peptide of a viral or bacterial pathogen containing multiple epitopes that, upon administration to a mammal generates an immune response to the pathogen, wherein at least one epitope is a composite epitope.
Regarding instant claim 6, conflicting claim 1 recites that the composition further comprises a diphtheria toxoid.
Regarding instant claim 5, conflicting claim 1 recites that the peptide contains instant SEQ ID NO: 9.
Regarding instant claim 8, conflicting claim 1-2 recites that there are multiple influenza virus epitopes.
Regarding instant claim 9, conflicting claim 10 recites that the composition further comprises an adjuvant.
Regarding instant claims 22-24 and 28-29, conflicting claims 1 and 5 recite an immunogenic composition comprising a polynucleotide of a viral or bacterial pathogen containing multiple epitopes that, upon administration to a mammal generates an immune response to the pathogen, wherein at least one epitope is a composite epitope and the pathogen in influenza .
Claims 1, 6, and 9-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6-8, 12, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,409,214 (reference application/conflicting claims).
Regarding instant claim 1, conflicting claims 1, 6-7, and 12 recite an immunogenic composition comprising a peptide of a viral or bacterial pathogen containing multiple epitopes that, upon administration to a mammal generates an immune response to the pathogen, wherein at least one epitope is a composite epitope.
Regarding instant claim 6, conflicting claim 4 recites that the composition further comprises a diphtheria toxoid.
Regarding instant claim 9, conflicting claims 1 and 14 recite that the composition further comprises an adjuvant.
Regarding instant claim 10, conflicting claim 7 recites that the adjuvant is ALFQ.
Claims 22-24 and 28-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12-15 of U.S. Patent No.12,409,214 (reference application/conflicting claims) in view of Presnell.
The rejection of claims 1, 6, and 9-10 are set forth above.
Regarding instant claims 22-24, and 28-29, conflicting claims 1, 6, 7, and 12 recite an immunogenic composition comprising a peptide of a viral or bacterial pathogen containing multiple epitopes that, upon administration to a mammal generates an immune response to the pathogen, wherein at least one epitope is a composite epitope and the pathogen in influenza . The conflicting claims do not recite that the composition comprises the nucleic acid that encodes the peptide.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conflicting claims with the teachings of Presnell resulting in a nucleic acid sequence (DNA or RNA) encoding the peptide because Presnell teaches reverse translation, wherein a nucleic acid sequence (DNA or RNA) can be determined from an amino acid sequence (Abstract).
Regarding instant claim 30, conflicting claim 8 recites that the immunogenic composition is a vaccine.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 9-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 6-7, 10-11, 22, 26-27, and 31-32 of copending Application No. 17/985,296 (reference application/conflicting claims).
Regarding instant claim 1, conflicting claims 1, 6-7, 22, and 26-27 recite an immunogenic composition comprising a peptide of a viral or bacterial pathogen containing multiple epitopes that, upon administration to a mammal generates an immune response to the pathogen, wherein at least one epitope is a composite epitope.
Regarding instant claim 2, conflicting claim 22 recites that the peptide is obtained from M2 protein.
Regarding instant claim 4, conflicting claims 1-2 and 22-23 recite that the composite epitope is a combination of dissimilar epitopes.
Regarding instant claim 5, conflicting claims 1-2 and 22 recite reference SEQ ID NO: 35 which contains instant SEQ ID NO: 9.
Regarding instant claims 9-10, conflicting claims 10-11 and 31-32 recite an ALFQ adjuvant.
Claims 22-24 and 28-30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-7, 13, 22, 26-27, and 33 of copending Application No. 17/985,296 (reference application/conflicting claims) and in view of Presnell.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 4-5, and 9-10 are set forth above.
Regarding instant claims 22-24 and 28-29, conflicting claims 1-2, 4-5, and 9-10 recite an immunogenic composition comprising a peptide of a viral or bacterial pathogen containing multiple epitopes that, upon administration to a mammal generates an immune response to the pathogen, wherein at least one epitope is a composite epitope and the pathogen in influenza . The conflicting claims do not recite that the composition comprises the nucleic acid that encodes the peptide.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conflicting claims with the teachings of Presnell resulting in a nucleic acid sequence (DNA or RNA) encoding the peptide because Presnell teaches reverse translation, wherein a nucleic acid sequence (DNA or RNA) can be determined from an amino acid sequence (Abstract). Presnell provides motivation to modify the conflicting claims by teaching that reverse translation facilitates the use of modular mutagenesis (Abstract).
Regarding instant claim 30, conflicting claims 13 and 33 recite that the immunogenic composition is a vaccine.
Claims 1-2, 6-14, 22-24, and 28-29 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 15, 19-26, and 35-36 of copending Application No. 19/182,300 (reference application/conflicting claims).
Regarding instant claim 1, conflicting claim 1 recites an immunogenic composition comprising a peptide of a viral or bacterial pathogen containing multiple epitopes that, upon administration to a mammal generates an immune response to the pathogen, wherein at least one epitope is a composite epitope.
Regarding instant claim 2, conflicting claim 15 recites that the peptide is obtained from the M2 protein.
Regarding instant claim 6, conflicting claim 19 recites that the composition further comprises a diphtheria toxoid.
Regarding instant claim 7, conflicting claim 20 recites that the T-cell stimulating epitope is at an N-terminus or a C-terminus of the peptide.
Regarding instant claim 8, conflicting claim 21 recites that there are multiple influenza virus epitopes.
Regarding instant claim 9, conflicting claim 22 recites that the composition further comprises an adjuvant.
Regarding instant claim 10, conflicting claim 23 recites that the adjuvant is ALFQ.
Regarding instant claims 11 and 13, conflicting claims 24-25 recites that the composition treats or prevents Influenza A.
Regarding instant claim 12 and 14, conflicting claims 24 and 26 recite that the composition treats of prevents Staphylococcus.
Regarding instant claims 22-24 and 28-29, conflicting claims 15 and 35-36 recite an immunogenic composition comprising a polynucleotide of a viral or bacterial pathogen containing multiple epitopes that, upon administration to a mammal generates an immune response to the pathogen, wherein at least one epitope is a composite epitope and the pathogen in influenza .
Claims 1, 2, 5-14. 22-24, and 28-29 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 8-17, and 26-28 of copending Application No. 18/380,479 (reference application/conflicting claims).
Regarding instant claim 1, conflicting claims 1 and 12 recite an immunogenic composition comprising a peptide of a viral or bacterial pathogen containing multiple epitopes that, upon administration to a mammal generates an immune response to the pathogen, wherein at least one epitope is a composite epitope.
Regarding instant claim 2, conflicting claim 4 recites that the peptide is obtained from the M2 protein.
Regarding instant claim 5, conflicting claim 8 recites reference SEQ ID NO: 9 which 100% aligns with instant SEQ ID NO: 9.
Regarding instant claim 6, conflicting claim 9 recites that the composition further comprises a diphtheria toxoid.
Regarding instant claim 7, conflicting claim 10 recites that the T-cell stimulating epitope is at an N-terminus or a C-terminus of the peptide.
Regarding instant claim 8, conflicting claim 11 recites that there are multiple influenza virus epitopes.
Regarding instant claim 9, conflicting claim 13 recites that the composition further comprises an adjuvant.
Regarding instant claim 10, conflicting claim 14 recites that the adjuvant is ALFQ.
Regarding instant claims 11-12, conflicting claims 15-16 recite that the composition treats or prevents Influenza A.
Regarding instant claim 13-14, conflicting claim 17 recites that the composition treats of prevents Staphylococcus.
Regarding instant claims 22-24 and 28-29, conflicting claims 1 and 26-28 recite an immunogenic composition comprising a polynucleotide of a viral or bacterial pathogen containing multiple epitopes that, upon administration to a mammal generates an immune response to the pathogen, wherein at least one epitope is a composite epitope and the pathogen in influenza .
Claims 1, 7, and 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 7-8, and 11 of copending Application No. 19/238,379 (reference application/conflicting claims).
Regarding instant claim 1, conflicting claims 1 and 5 recite an immunogenic composition comprising a peptide of a viral or bacterial pathogen containing multiple epitopes that, upon administration to a mammal generates an immune response to the pathogen, wherein at least one epitope is a composite epitope.
Regarding instant claim 7, conflicting claims 7-8 recite that the T-cell stimulating epitope is at an N-terminus or a C-terminus of the peptide.
Regarding instant claim 9, conflicting claim 11 recites that the composition includes an adjuvant.
Claims 22-24 and 28-29 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of copending Application No. 19/238,379 (reference application/conflicting claims) and in view of Presnell.
The rejection of claims 1, 7, and 9 are set forth above.
Regarding instant claims 22-24 and 28-29, conflicting claims 1 and 5 recite an immunogenic composition comprising a peptide of a viral or bacterial pathogen containing multiple epitopes that, upon administration to a mammal generates an immune response to the pathogen, wherein at least one epitope is a composite epitope and the pathogen in influenza . The conflicting claims do not recite that the composition comprises the nucleic acid that encodes the peptide.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conflicting claims with the teachings of Presnell resulting in a nucleic acid sequence (DNA or RNA) encoding the peptide because Presnell teaches reverse translation, wherein a nucleic acid sequence (DNA or RNA) can be determined from an amino acid sequence (Abstract). Presnell provides motivation to modify the conflicting claims by teaching that reverse translation facilitates the use of modular mutagenesis (Abstract).
Conclusion
NO CLAIMS ARE ALLOWED
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cassandra Senn Grizer whose telephone number is (571)272-2292. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 0630 - 1700 ET.
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, Thomas J. Visone can be reached at 571-270-0684. 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.
/CASSANDRA SENN GRIZER/Examiner, Art Unit 1672
/THOMAS J. VISONE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1672