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 .
Applicant's election with traverse of Group V and species in the reply filed on November 13, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims could be examined together without imposing an undue burden. This is not found persuasive because each bioactive component is a separate protein with different structure and function and would be classified separately. Furthermore, the main function for the bioactive component is the function of the claimed molecule.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Amendment filed November 13, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3-20 are pending. Claim 2 is canceled. Claims 5, 8, 10-12, 14-15 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9, 13, 16-20 are examined.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recite the term “functional portion thereof” which is ambiguous and vague because it is not clear which functional portion there is contemplated. Claim 4 term is encompassed by claims 1, 3, 6-7, 16-20 1.
Claim 4 recite invention not elected and is not clear how the claims encompass non-elected inventions.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 16-20 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims encompass a generic functional derivative of bioactive molecule and cytokine by name only. The specification discloses fusion protein consisting of SEQ ID NO: 69, (specification, page 19). This meets the written description provision of 35 USC 112, (a) or first paragraph. However, the specification does not disclose the broad genus of fusion proteins comprising an Fc fragment of an IgG molecule and all generic bioactive molecule or cytokines, wherein the Fc fragment is a single chain Fc (sFc). The specification does not provide written description to support the genus encompassed by the instant claims. The generic term encompass unlimited changes to the structure and there is no teaching of the structure-function nexus which is predictive of the generic derivative function. The state of the art does not teach IFNalpha Fc fusion structure-function analysis for the genus of bioactive molecules or cytokines (Bonvini et al. (US 2015/0175697). Thus, applicants are not in possession of the broad genus claimed because the specification fails to provide representative species and/or identifying characteristics (e.g. structure/function correlation) of the genus.
Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 19 USPQ2d 1111, makes clear that “applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the ‘written description’ inquiry, whatever is now claimed.” (See page 1117.) The specification does not “clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed” (See Vas-Cath at page 1116).
For inventions in an unpredictable art, adequate written description of a genus which embraces widely variant species cannot be achieved by disclosing only one species within the genus. See, e.g., Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d. Additionally, “a patentee of a biotechnological invention cannot necessarily claim a genus after only describing a limited number of species because there may be unpredictability in the results obtained from species other than those specifically enumerated.” Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
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. The disclosure of only one species encompassed within a genus adequately describes a claim directed to that genus only if the disclosure “indicates that the patentee has invented species sufficient to constitute the gen[us].” See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 966, 63 USPQ2d at 1615; Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1508, 1514 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Fed. Cir. 2004). ("[A] patentee of a biotechnological invention cannot necessarily claim a genus after only describing a limited number of species because there may be unpredictability in the results obtained from species other than those specifically enumerated."). "A patentee will not be deemed to have invented species sufficient to constitute the genus by virtue of having disclosed a single species when … the evidence indicates ordinary artisans could not predict the operability in the invention of any species other than the one disclosed." In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1358, 69 USPQ2d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2004)(Claims directed to PTFE dental floss with a friction-enhancing coating were not supported by a disclosure of a microcrystalline wax coating where there was no evidence in the disclosure or anywhere else in the record showing applicant conveyed that any other coating was suitable for a PTFE dental floss.).
Although the specification supports SEQ ID NO: 69 and provides general teachings concerning IFNalpha-sFc fusion protein (specification, page 19), the specification has not provided sufficient description for the broad genus fusion proteins comprising an Fc fragment of an IgG molecule and a generic bioactive molecule. More specifically, the specification does not describe the sequences comprising fusion proteins comprising an Fc fragment of an IgG molecule and all generic bioactive molecules. The specification does not disclose the structural requirements for the functional definition. In addition, the specification does not teach which bioactive molecule and Fc fragment will form the fusion protein.
Adequate written description requires more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method for isolating it. The polypeptide itself is required. See Fiers v. Revel, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (CAFC 1993) and Amgen Inc. V. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., 18 USPQ2d 1016. One cannot describe what one has not conceived. See Fiddes v. Baird, 30 USPQ2d 1481, 1483. In Fiddes v. Baird, claims directed to mammalian FGF’s were found unpatentable due to lack of written description for the broad class.
Therefore, only SEQ ID NO: 69 IFNalpha, but not the full breadth of the claims meets the written description provision of 35 USC 112, (a) or first paragraph. The species specifically disclosed are not representative of the genus because the genus is highly variant. As a result, it does not appear that the inventors were in possession of various fusion proteins comprising an Fc fragment of an IgG molecule and a bioactive molecule set forth in claims.
It has been well known that minor structural differences even among structurally related compounds can result in substantially different biology, expression and activities. Based on the instant disclosure one of skill in the art would not know which structural regions are essential, which residues are non-essential and what particular sequence lengths identify essential sequences for identifying a ligand encompassed by the claimed specificity. Mere idea of function is insufficient for written description; isolation and characterization at a minimum are required.
The skilled artisan is well aware that assigning functional activities for any particular derivative does not provide structure or structural regions for the functional limitations. Even in situations where there is some confidence of a similar overall structure between ligands, only experimental research can confirm the artisan’s best guess as to function of the structurally related binding parameters.
For inventions in an unpredictable art, adequate written description of a genus, which embraces widely variant species cannot be achieved by disclosing only one species within the genus. See, e.g., Eli Lilly. Description of a representative number of species does not require the description to be of such specificity that it would provide individual support for each species that the genus embraces. If a representative number of adequately described species are not disclosed for a genus, the claim to that genus must be rejected as lacking adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 19USPQ2d 1111, clearly states “applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the ‘written description’ inquiry, whatever is now claimed.” (See page 1117.) The specification does not “clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed.” (See Vas-Cath at page 1116). As discussed above, the skilled artisan cannot envision the detailed chemical structure of the encompassed genus of polypeptides, and therefore conception is not achieved until reduction to practice has occurred, regardless of the complexity or simplicity of the method of isolation. Adequate written description requires more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method of isolating it. The compound itself is required. See Fiers v. Revel, 25 USPQ2d 1601 at 1606 (CAFC 1993) and Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., 18 USPQ2d 1016.
One cannot describe what one has not conceived. See Fiddles v.Baird, 30 USPQ2d 1481, 1483. In Fiddles v. Baird, claims directed to mammalian FGF’s were found unpatentable due to lack of written description for the broad class.
Therefore, the full breadth of the claim does not meet the written description provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Applicant is reminded that Vas-Cath makes clear that the written description provision of 35 USC 112 is severable from its enablement provision. (See page 1115.) Applicants are directed to the Revised Interim Guidelines for the Examination of Patent Applications Under the 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 1 "Written Description" Requirement, Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 244, pages 71427-71440, Tuesday December 21, 1999.
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, 3, 5-7, 9, 13, 16-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-21 of copending Application No. 18/372,942 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3-21 of copending Application No. 18/372,942 (reference application) teach the method of producing the identical fusion protein claimed and thus anticipate the fusion protein claimed.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D PAK whose telephone number is (571)272-0879. The examiner can normally be reached on flexible time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vanessa Ford can be reached on 571-272-0857. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL D PAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1674