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
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on July 08, 2026 is acknowledged.
2. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 08, 2026.
3. Claims 1-10 are under examination.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1, 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims recite “αSyn” without first providing the full name of the term. It is suggested that the term be spelled out at its first use and in all independent claims so that it is clearly understood what it stands for. Appropriate correction is suggested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claims 1-10 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.
6. Claim 1 is vague and ambiguous for reasons that follow. First, the claim encompasses a method of monitoring Parkinson’s disease (PD) or Dementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB) progression without any reference to any subject or subjects, such as setting up a preamble that is strictly theoretical. Second, and similarly to the first point, step (i) is devoid of any reference to the source of the sample. Thus, by broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim encompasses a method to detect αSyn in any sample comprising αSyn oligomers, and not necessarily a sample in any way related to PD and/or DLB. This makes the claim so broad that it is meaningless. Finally, the claim fails to specifically recite the step that leads to achieving the goal set forth within the claim’s preamble. Alternatively, it is not clear and cannot be determined from the claim or the specification as filed how a single step of measuring the amount of αSyn relates to monitoring progression of PD or DLB. Applicant is advised to rewrite the claim to better achieve the claimed subject matter.
7. Applicant is advised that one of the purposes of the 112, second paragraph is to provide a clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement of the patent (see, e.g., Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 216 F.3d 1372, 1379, 55 USPQ2d 1279, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is whether “those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification.” Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F .2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citations omitted).
In precedential decision Ex parte Kenichi Miyazaki, Appeal 2007-330, BPAI stated “In particular, rather than requiring that the claims are insolubly ambiguous, we hold that if a claim is amendable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.”
Further, the federal Circuit stated in Halliburton Energy Servs.:
When a claim limitation is defined in purely functional terms, the task of determining whether that limitation is sufficiently definite is a difficult one that is highly dependent on context (e.g., the disclosure in the specification and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art area). 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 examiner 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.
Halliburton Energy Servs. V. M-ILLC 514 F .3d 1244, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (emphasis added).
8. Claims 3 and 6 recite the limitation a “sample, which is seeded.” The art does not recognize the term, and the specification does not specifically define what stands for a seeded CSF or BH sample. Therefore, an artisan would not be able to distinguish a sample of CSF or BH, which otherwise meets all the claim limitations, from the “seeded” sample. This renders the claims indefinite.
9. Claims 4 and 5 recite the limitation "the seeding of the sample" in claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
10. Claims 7 and 8 recite the limitation "the seeding of the sample" in claim 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
11. Claim 10 recites the limitation "levels of CSF seeded αSyn oligomers" in claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
12. Claims 2 and 9 are indefinite for being dependent from indefinite claim.
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.
13. Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 specifically requires possession of the antibodies that recognize αSyn oligomers or αSyn aggregates and do not recognize αSyn monomers. The claim does not require that these antibodies possess any particular clearly disclosed structure, conserved structure or other disclosed distinguishing feature. Thus, the claim is drawn to a genus of antibodies that is defined only by reference to the binding epitope. However, disclosing an antigen does not satisfy the written description requirement for an antibody.
Section 112 states that “[t]he specification shall contain a written description of the invention … in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains . . . to make and use the same . . . .” This requirement ensures “that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). To show invention, a patentee must convey in its disclosure that it “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Id. at 1350. Demonstrating possession “requires a precise definition” of the invention. Id. To provide this “precise definition” for a claim to a genus, a patentee must disclose “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.
MPEP 2163, II A3(a)(ii) states,
For each claim drawn to a genus:
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 applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see i)(C) above). See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406.
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 gen[us]”. See AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1300, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
In the instant case, the specification provides the description of the binding antigen; however, knowing that an antibody binds to a particular amino acid does not tell you anything at all about the structure of the antibody.
To provide adequate written description and evidence of possession of a claimed genus, the specification must provide sufficient distinguishing identifying characteristics of the genus. The factors to be considered include disclosure of complete or partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics, structure/function correlation, methods of making the claimed product, or any combination thereof. In this case, the only factor present in the claim is a reference to the partial structure of the binding substrate. There is no identification of any particular portion of the structure of what is actually in the claim, the recited antibodies. The specification does not provide a complete structure of those antibodies that recognize αSyn oligomers or αSyn aggregates and do not recognize αSyn monomers, and fails to provide a representative number of species within the recited genus Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient recitation of distinguishing identifying characteristics, the specification does not provide adequate written description of the recited genus.
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 antibodies, 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 Fiddes v. Baird, 30 USPQ2d 1481 at 1483. In Fiddes, claims directed to mammalian FGF’s were found to be unpatentable due to lack of written description for that broad class. The specification provided only the bovine sequence.
Applicant is reminded that Vas-Cath makes clear that the written description provision of 35 U.S.C. §112 is severable from its enablement provision (see page 1115).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
14. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Method claim(s) 1-10, directed to monitoring the progression of PD or DLB, set forth laws of nature by reciting relationship between changes in the levels of naturally occurring factors, αSyn aggregates, and the pathology itself. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons that follow.
The subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 of natural products (i.e., whether the claimed product is a non-naturally occurring product of human ingenuity that is markedly different from naturally occurring products) was confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court decisions including Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. , 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116, 106 USPQ2d 1972 (2013), and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012). "[L]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas" are not patentable. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U. S. 175, 185 (1981); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U. S. (2010). "Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work." Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U. S. 63, 67 (1972).
In brief, in Prometheus, a method of optimizing therapeutic efficacy for treatment of an immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder is the focus. This method comprises a) administering 6-thioguanine to patients and b) determining the level of 6-thioguanine in the patients and c) correlate the level of 6-thioguanine, i.e. a certain level/red blood cells, with the decision whether a need for increase or decrease the amount of 6-thioguanine treatment in said patients.
In Prometheus, the Court found that "[i]f a law of nature is not patentable, neither is a process reciting a law of nature, unless that process has additional features that provide practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the law of nature itself." Additionally, "conventional or obvious" "[pre]solution activity" is normally not sufficient to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law." Flook, 437 U. S., at 590; see also Bilski, 561 U. S., ("[T]he prohibition against patenting abstract ideas 'cannot be circumvented by'.., adding 'insignificant post-solution activity'" (quoting Diehr, supra, at 191-192)).
The Court also summarized their holding by stating "[t]o put the matter more succinctly, the claims inform a relevant audience about certain laws of nature; any additional steps consist of well understood, routine, conventional activity already engaged in by the scientific community; and those steps, when viewed as a whole, add nothing significant beyond the sum of their parts taken separately."
Thus, if the claim recites or involves a judicial exception, such as a law of nature/natural principle or natural phenomenon (e.g., the law of gravity, F=ma, sunlight, barometric pressure, etc.), and/or something that appears to be a natural product (e.g., a citrus fruit, uranium metal, nucleic acid, protein, etc.), then the claim only qualifies as eligible subject matter if the claim as a whole recites something significantly different than the judicial exception itself.
In the instant case, based upon an analysis with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 1-10 are determined to be directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The rationale for this determination is explained below in view of controlling legal precedent set forth in 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (79 FR 74618) dated December 16, 2014 and 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (84 FR 50) dated January 07, 2019.
The instant claims 1-10 are directed to a process. (Step 1: Yes).
Next, Step 2, is the two-part analysis from Alice Corp. (also called the Mayo test) to determine whether the claim is directed to laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas (the judicially recognized exceptions). (In Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) the Supreme Court sets forth a two-step test for determining patent eligibility. First, determine if the claims encompass a judicial exception (a natural phenomenon/law of nature/abstract idea). If so, then ask whether the remaining elements/steps, either in isolation or combination with the other non-patent-ineligible elements, are sufficient to ‘“transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297). Put another way, there must be a further “inventive concept” to take the claim into the realm of patent eligibility. Id. at 2355. In the recent Myriad v Ambry case, the CAFC found claims (drawn to methods comprising obtaining tissue samples, analyzing sequences of cDNA and comparing germline sequences of a gene to wild-type sequences) to encompass the abstract mental processes of ‘comparing’ and ‘analyzing’. Recitation of specific techniques (in Myriad claims 7 and 8 further recited hybridization and PCR) were deemed not “enough” to make the claims patent-eligible since the claims contained no otherwise new process. The elements/steps recited in addition to the judicial exception did nothing more than spell out what practitioners already knew). The instant claims 1-10 encompass changes in the levels of aggregated αSyn during pathology of PD or DLB, the process that is governed by a law of nature, and thus is a judicial exception. The αSyn is a naturally occurring factor that undergoes the process of aggregation during pathology of PD and DLB apart from any human action. The relation between the levels of aggregation of the αSyn and pathology of PD and DLB exists in principle and is a consequence of the ways this factor is metabolized by the body, entirely natural process, a natural phenomenon, and thus a judicial exception (Step 2A/1: Yes). Next, prong two of Step 2A requires identifying whether there are additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s) and evaluating those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. “Integration in to a practical application” requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such as the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. In the instant case, the claims do not recite any additional elements to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because all the steps of the claimed methods are limited to only those that measure naturally occurring factors during a naturally occurring pathology. (Step 2A/2: No).
Finally, claims 1-10 do not recite any elements, or combinations of elements to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception because the active steps of the claims—detection of αSyn using a well-known SAA assay, measuring the amount of αSyn using ELISA—represent routine steps and encompass well-understood and purely conventional routine techniques in the art. (Step 2B: No).
Thus, for reasons fully explained above, claims 1-10 do not satisfy the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101 and are therefore rejected.
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.
15. Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21 and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 9,534,044, 2017. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are broadly drawn to practicing a method of detection of αSyn aggregates in relation to PD and DLB, which is the subject matter of the claims for which patent protection has been already granted.
Conclusion
16. No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLGA N CHERNYSHEV whose telephone number is (571)272-0870. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM to 5:30PM, Monday to Friday.
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, Jeffrey Stucker can be reached at (571)272-0911. 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.
/OLGA N CHERNYSHEV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1675
July 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights