Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
1. Currently, claim 1 is pending and consideration.
Priority
2. The application has a priority date of February 28, 2023. This application is a continuation of foreign application number 202341005688 on 2/28/23 in INDIA.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609 A(1) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the Examiner on form PTO-892 or Applicant on form PTO-1449 has cited the references they have not been considered.
Specification
4. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The first line of the specification should list "foreign application number 202341005688 filed on 2/2/8/23 in INDIA”. Appropriate correction is required. If applicant desires to claim the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c), the instant application must contain, or be amended to contain, a specific reference to the prior-filed application in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78.
Sequence Non-Compliance
5. This application contains sequence disclosures that are encompassed by the definitions for nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences set forth in 37 CFR 1.821(a)(1) and (a)(2). However, this application fails to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 through 1.825 for the reason(s) set forth below or on the attached Notice To Comply With Requirements For Patent Applications Containing Nucleotide Sequence And/Or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures. The specification should be updated to include sequence identification numbers. For example, see figure15.
Applicant is given THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter within which to comply with the sequence rules, 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825. Failure to comply with these requirements will result in ABANDONMENT of the application under 37 CFR 1.821(g). Extensions of time may be obtained by filing a petition accompanied by the extension fee under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no case may an applicant extend the period for reply beyond the SIX MONTH statutory period. Direct the reply to the undersigned. Applicant is requested to return a copy of the attached Notice to Comply with the reply.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claims utilize several acronyms “mRNA, DNA, and HIV” without first defining what it represents in the independent claim. While the claims can reference acronyms, the material presented by the acronym must be clearly set forth at the first use of the acronym. For example, HIV is defined as “Human Immuno-deficiency Virus in section 0002 of the specification. However, Applicant is cautioned not to introduce new matter into the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
7. Claim 1 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.
A. Claim 1 is vague and indefinite because it is not clear as to what is intended in the claimed composition. As recited the claim necessitates both protein and DNA constructs. In fact, the claim recites a construct that is simultaneously a protein, mRNA, and DNA. The disclosure teaches compositions involving protein or DNA (for example see section 0018). Does Applicant intend to mean a nucleic acid that encodes the protein? The claim also contains independent and distinct sequences for protein/nucleic acid structures. This makes the claim ambiguous as to what the claim encompasses.
As recited the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. Does Applicant intend to claim the protein or the nucleic acid? It is suggested that separate claims are recited for each composition in order to obviate the rejection. Appropriate correction is required.
B. Claim 1 is vague and indefinite because it does not include sequence identification numbers. The sequence identification numbers clearly match the claimed sequences to the sequences submitted in the computer readable format. Please add the SEQ ID Nos to the claim.
C. Claim 1 is vague and indefinite in not utilizing the correct transitional phrase “comprising” or “consisting of”. The claim reads on “the sequence given by”. However, this wording does not clearly identify the composition.
Will the claimed sequences require just the protein, just the nucleic acid, a combination of both proteins and nucleic acids, are other compositions containing the recited sequences to be included, and in what order if any will the fused sequences be presented? It is suggested that “comprising” or “consisting of” with the appropriate sequence configuration is added to the claim in order to obviate the rejection. Please clarify.
D. Claim 1 is vague and indefinite because it is not clear if the claims are directed to natural products that are found in nature. It is suggested the that claims include the term “isolated” or “purified” in order to obviate the rejection.
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.
8. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
9. Claim 1, as written, do not sufficiently distinguish over compounds that exist naturally because the claims do not particularly point out any non-naturally occurring differences between the claimed products and the naturally occurring products.
In the absence of the hand of man, the naturally occurring products are considered non-statutory subject matter. See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 206 USPQ 193 (1980). The claims should be amended to indicate the hand of the inventor, e.g., by insertion of "Isolated" or "Purified". See MPEP 2105.
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.
10. Claim 1 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claim is directed to a composition that includes a nucleic acid and protein. In fact, the claim recites a protein, mRNA, and DNA:
Claim 1. A protein, mRNA and DNA of immunogenic recombinant HIV- derived Topoisomerase Il beta kinase as an immunogen for HIV vaccine, wherein the Nucleotide sequence is given by: cacttgtggagatgggggtggaaatggggcaccatgctcctgggatattgatgatctgtagtgctacagaaaaatgt gggtcacagtctattatggggtacctgtgtggaaggaagcaaccaccactctatttgtgcatcagatgctaaagcatat gatacagaggtacataatgtttgggccacacatgcctgtgtacccacagaccccaacccacaagaagtagtatggta aatgtgacagaaaatttaacatgtggaaaaatgacatggtagaacagatgcatgaggatataatcagttatgggatc aaagcctaaagccatgtgtaaaattaaccccactctgtgtagttaaagtgcactgatttgaagaatgatactaatacca atagtagtagcgggagaatgataatggagaaaggagagataaaaaactgctctcaatatcagcacaagcataaga gataaggtgcagaaagaatatgcattctttataaacttgatatagtaccaatagataataccagctataggttgataagtt gtaacacctcagtcattacacaggcctgtcca
And Amino Acid Sequence:
HLWRWGWKWGTMLLGILMICSATEKLWVTVYYGVPVWK EATTTLFCASDAKAYDTEVHNVWATHACVPTDPNPQEVVLVNVTENEN MWKNDMVEQMHEDISLWDQSLKPCVKLTPLCVSLKCTDLKNDTNTNSS SGRMIMEKGEIKNCSFNISTSIRDKVQKEYAFFYKLDIVPIDNTSYRLISCN T SVITQACP
However, Applicant does not appear to disclose a composition that is simultaneously a protein, mRNA, and DNA with the sequences recited in the claim. The claim additionally recites that the composition is an immunogenic recombinant HIV- derived Topoisomerase Il beta kinase, an immunogen for HIV vaccine. However, the prior art does not appear to recognize that the framework regions and constant regions were generally known at the time the application was filed.
The prior art has demonstrated that an immunogenic or antibody structure is highly variable in the CDR regions. Lloyd et al. (2009, Protein Eng Des Sel., 22(3):159-168.) found that on average, about 120 different antibodies in a library can bind to a given antigen. Additionally, Coleman et al. (Research in Immunology, 1994; 145(1): 33-36) teach single amino acid changes in an antigen can effectively abolish antibody antigen binding.
Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) decided Amgen v. Sanofi, 872 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017), which concerned adequate written description for claims drawn to immunogenic compositions or antibodies.
In view of the Amgen decision, adequate written description of a newly characterized antigen alone should not be considered adequate written description of a claimed antibody to that newly characterized antigen, even when preparation of such an antibody is routine and conventional.
In this case, the specification lacks complete antigens comprising proteins, mRNA, and DNA with sequences given by claim 1. Additionally, deposit information for the deposit of hybridoma cell lines and antibodies (immunogenic compositions) in accordance with 37 CFR1.801-1.809 have not been identified.
Because it does not appear that the antigens, antibodies, and their corresponding hybridoma cell lines, are known and publicly available or can be reproducibly isolated from nature without undue experimentation, a suitable deposit of the hybridoma cell lines and antibodies for patent purposes is required.
If the deposits have not been made under the provisions of the Budapest Treaty, then in order to certify that the deposits comply with the criteria set forth in 37 CFR § § 1.801-1.809, assurances regarding availability and permanency of deposits are required.
Such assurance may be in the form of an affidavit or declaration by applicants, assignees or a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number stating that the deposit has been accepted by an International Depository Authority under the provisions of the Budapest Treaty, that all restrictions upon public access to the deposit will be irrevocably removed upon the grantof a patent on this application and that the deposit will be replaced if viable samples cannot be dispensed by the depository is required.
This requirement is necessary when a deposit is made under the provisions of the Budapest Treaty as the Treaty leaves this specific matter to the discretion of each State.
Amendment of the specification to recite the current practice requiring that a statement concerning all restrictions upon public access to the deposit will be irrevocably removed upon the grant of a patent on this Application and that the deposit will be replaced if viable samples cannot be dispensed by the depository made in the instant Application.
Without such a statement, it would be impossible for the skilled artisan to practice the invention of claim 1 because the specific deposits cannot be placed into the hands of the artisan because other clones made from the source material have no predictable reasonable expectation of success of being identical to the single clone deposited.
Furthermore, unless the deposit was made at or before the time of filing, a declaration filed under 37 C.F.R. 1.132 is necessary to construct a chain of custody.
The declaration, executed by a person in a position to know should identify the deposited hybridomas and monoclonal antibodies by its depository accession number, establishes that the deposited hybridomas and antibodies are the same as that described in the specification, and establish that the deposited hybridomas and antibodies were in applicants’ possession at the time of filing.
Applicant's attention is directed to In re Lundak, 773 F.2d. 1216, 27 USPQ 90 (CAFC1985) and 37 CRF §§ 1.801-1.809 for further information concerning deposit practice.
Vas-Cath Inc. V. Mahurkar, 19 USPQ2d 1111, clearly states 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). 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 115).
Without a deposit and removal of public restrictions, the skilled artisan cannot envision the detailed structure of the claimed antibody/immunogenic compositions, thus conception is not achieved until reduction to practice has occurred, regardless of the complexity or simplicity of the method of production and or isolation.
An adequate description requires more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and a reference to a potential method of isolating it.
The court indicated that while Applicants are not required to disclose every species encompassed by a genus, the description of a genus is achieved by the recitation of a representative number of molecules falling within the scope of the claimed genus.
Therefore the full breadth of the claim, reading on the claimed "Protein, mRNA, and DNA compositions being vaccines for HIV, does not meet the written description provision of 35 USC 112, first paragraph.
11. Claim 1 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Enablement requires that the specification teach those in the art to make and use the invention without undue experimentation. Factors to be considered in determining, whether a disclosure would require undue experimentation include 1) the nature of the invention, 2) the state of the prior art, 3) the predictability or lack thereof in the art, 4) the amount of direction or guidance present, 5) the presence or absence of working examples, 6) the quantity of experimentation necessary, 7) the relative skill of those in the art, and 8) the breadth of the claims.
In particular, claim 1 is drawn to compositions that specifically and simultaneously includes a nucleic acid and protein. In fact, the claim recites a protein, mRNA, and DNA:
Claim 1. A protein, mRNA and DNA of immunogenic recombinant HIV- derived Topoisomerase Il beta kinase as an immunogen for HIV vaccine, wherein the Nucleotide sequence is given by: cacttgtggagatgggggtggaaatggggcaccatgctcctgggatattgatgatctgtagtgctacagaaaaatgt gggtcacagtctattatggggtacctgtgtggaaggaagcaaccaccactctatttgtgcatcagatgctaaagcatat gatacagaggtacataatgtttgggccacacatgcctgtgtacccacagaccccaacccacaagaagtagtatggta aatgtgacagaaaatttaacatgtggaaaaatgacatggtagaacagatgcatgaggatataatcagttatgggatc aaagcctaaagccatgtgtaaaattaaccccactctgtgtagttaaagtgcactgatttgaagaatgatactaatacca atagtagtagcgggagaatgataatggagaaaggagagataaaaaactgctctcaatatcagcacaagcataaga gataaggtgcagaaagaatatgcattctttataaacttgatatagtaccaatagataataccagctataggttgataagtt gtaacacctcagtcattacacaggcctgtcca
And Amino Acid Sequence:
HLWRWGWKWGTMLLGILMICSATEKLWVTVYYGVPVWK EATTTLFCASDAKAYDTEVHNVWATHACVPTDPNPQEVVLVNVTENEN MWKNDMVEQMHEDISLWDQSLKPCVKLTPLCVSLKCTDLKNDTNTNSS SGRMIMEKGEIKNCSFNISTSIRDKVQKEYAFFYKLDIVPIDNTSYRLISCN T SVITQACP
As recited, the compositions may involve "peptides, fragments, fragments thereof, nucleic acid sequences, and amino acid sequences”. Therefore the invention reads on various unspecified compositions. And the actual isolated peptide (antigen) and its immunogen have not been identified. Also, the employed antibodies/immunogen have not been deposited (produced) or demonstrated in the claimed composition. The antigen/antibody production and utility method (HIV) that Applicant intends to claim is ambiguous and has not been identified by the specification.
The disclosure does not appear to teach compositions simultaneously having a nucleic acid and protein sequences as presently claimed; the actual (fusion or encoded) structure is not provided. There is no construct with the combined sequences further being an immunogen for a HIV vaccine. The claims and specification fail to provide the identity or structure of an immunogen/antibody recognition site for the claimed constructs.
The specification does not state the identity to a deposited antibody, amino acid sequence, nucleic acid sequence, or any structural characteristics of immunogens/antibodies that has the claimed characteristics. The claims recite protein, RNA, and DNA compositions that are specific and simultaneous. Moreover, there is no evidence that any immunogen/antibody with specificity of the combined protein, mRNA, DNA sequences”; will further have differential measurement or utility as a HIV vaccine.
In other words the nucleic acid/peptide/antibodies have not yet been fully identified; therefore applicants’ claims directed to the utility as HIV vaccines have not been adequately described.
In view of the lack of evidence, it is apparent that Applicants were not in possession of the claimed compositions, at the time of filing the instant application. It is not clear that Applicant has identified a single nucleic acid-protein configuration that meets the claimed limitations.
The skilled artisan cannot envision the detailed structure of the infinite possible compositions as claimed, thus conception is not achieved until reduction to practice has occurred, regardless of the complexity or simplicity of the method of isolation.
An adequate description requires more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention. The antigen - antibody – immunogen structure is required. See Fires v. Revel, 25 USPQ 2d 1601 at 1606 (CAFC 1993) and Amgen Inc. V. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Lts., 18 USPQ2d 1016.
The antigen-antibody-immunogen activity, characteristics, and tail domain requirements distinguish the compounds only by what it does, i.e., protein activity, which are purely functional distinctions. Even where there is an actual reduction to practice; which may demonstrate possession of an embodiment of an invention, it does not necessarily describe what the claimed invention is.
The instant specification and claims describe a protein production protocol on section 0058, figure 14, and figure 15, however this description does not describe the claimed composition itself (sequences involving protein, mRNA, and DNA). See also, In The Reagents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly (43 USPQ2d 1398-1412), where the court held that a generic statement which defines a genus of a compound/seq.id/etc. by only their functional activity does not provide an adequate written description of the genus.
The court indicated that while Applicants are not required to disclose every species encompassed by a genus, the description of a genus is achieved by the recitation of a representative number of molecules, usually defined by a sequence, falling within the scope of the claimed genus. At section B(1), the court states that "An adequate written description ...'requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties', not a mere wish or plan for obtaining the claimed chemical invention".
Thus a skilled artisan cannot envision all the contemplated recognition sequence sites by the detailed chemical structure of the claimed antigen-immunogen-antibody, therefore conception cannot be achieved until reduction to practice has occurred. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention.
Applicant does not provide guidance for the above noted compositions and provides no guidance as to what modifications or structure are important for the predictable function of the protein, mRNA, and DNA combined structure to allow for an immunogen as an HIV vaccine.
It is known that very different structures may be found on immunogenic antibodies with the same specificity. For example, very different VH chains can combine with the same VL chain to produce antibody binding sites with nearly the same size, shape, antigen specificity, and affinity. A similar phenomenon can also occur when different VH sequences combine with different VL sequences to produce antibodies with very similar properties.
These observations indicate that divergent variable region sequences, both in and out of complementarily determining regions, can be folded to form similar binding site contours, which result in similar immunochemical characteristics. Conversely, similar structure may be found on antibodies having different specificities.
In the recent court decision of Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2004), claims which recite a genus of antibodies that bound to a mouse antigen were found to be unpatentable, because the corresponding human antigen had not been adequately characterized. This is the same issue currently at hand. The antigen (protein-nucleic acid structure) has not been identified in the disclosure.
Accordingly, the art indicates that it would require undue experimentation to formulate and use a successful antigen-immunogen-antibody binding composition without prior demonstration of efficacy.
The instant disclosure has not addressed the issues taught in the prior art as crucial to the discovery and utility of an antigen-immunogen-antibody specific for an HIV vaccine.
The nature of the invention- the invention is directed to an unidentified antigen-immunogen-antibody composition – binding composition.
The state of the prior art- the prior art of record fails to disclose the particular binding composition - antigen-immunogen-antibody meeting the claimed limitations.
The predictability or lack thereof in the art- there is no predictability based on the instant specification that the binding composition - antibody and its structure can be readily identified.
The amount of direction or guidance present- appropriate guidance is not provided by the specification for the claimed binding composition - antigen-immunogen-antibody.
The presence or absence of working examples- working examples are not provided in the specification that identify and/or exemplify the claimed binding composition - antigen-immunogen-antibody.
The quantity of experimentation necessary- it would require undue amount of experimentation for the skilled artisan to make and use the binding composition - antigen-immunogen-antibody as claimed.
The relative skill of those in the art-the level of skill in the art is high.
The breadth of the claims- as recited, the instant claims are directed to binding composition - antigen-immunogen-antibody, but does not teach the actual antigen having both nucleic acid sequences and peptide sequences.
While it is not necessary to show working examples for every possible embodiment, there should be sufficient teachings in the specification that would suggest to the skilled artisan that the breadth of the claimed antigen-immunogen is enabled. This is not the case in the instant specification.
In view of the teachings of In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, it has been determined that the level of experimentation required to enable the breadth of the claims is undue.
Patent protection is granted in return for an enabling disclosure of an invention, not for vague intimations of general ideas that may not be workable. See Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 536, 148 USPQ 689, 696 (1966). While every aspect of a generic claim does not have to be carried out by an inventor, or exemplified in the specification, reasonable detail must be provided in order to enable members of the public to understand and carry out the invention. Genentech Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S (CAFC) 42 USPQ2d 1001.
That requirement has not been met in this specification with respect to the antigen-immunogen-antibody wherein the immunogen is an HIV vaccine.
Therefore, in view of the insufficient guidance in the specification, extensive experimentation would be required to enable the claims and to practice the invention as claimed.
Please note: In order to promote compact prosecution the following prior art rejection is made with respect to a composition that only contains the protein of sequence identification number 3. Since the disclosure appears to teach compositions involving a protein, mRNA, or DNA (For example see sections 0018-0022.), the art is cited to demonstrate the teaching of SEQ ID NO:3 in HIV.
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.
12. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Brien et al. (Nature, 348,69-73,1990).
O’Brien et al. disclose compositions comprising SEQ ID NO:3 having utility in HIV. See sequence alignment below:
RESULT 1
S13288
env protein - human immunodeficiency virus type 1
C;Species: human immunodeficiency virus type 1, HIV-1
C;Date: 19-Mar-1997 #sequence_revision 19-Mar-1997 #text_change 31-Dec-2004
C;Accession: S13288
R;O'Brien, W.A.; Koyanagi, Y.; Namazie, A.; Zhao, J.Q.; Diagne, A.; Idler, K.; Zack, J.A.; Chen, I.S.Y.
Nature 348, 69-73, 1990
A;Title: HIV-1 tropism for mononuclear phagocytes can be determined by regions of gp120 outside the CD4-binding domain.
A;Reference number: S13288; MUID:91043044; PMID:2172833
A;Accession: S13288
A;Status: preliminary
A;Molecule type: DNA
A;Residues: 1-854 <OBR>
A;Cross-references: UNIPROT:Q85582; UNIPROT:Q72502; UNIPROT:O90178; UNIPROT:Q78243; UNIPROT:Q74090; UNIPROT:Q90SM7; UNIPROT:Q74599; UNIPROT:Q78705; UNIPARC:UPI000017861A
Query Match 100.0%; Score 1078; Length 854;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 196; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 HLWRWGWKWGTMLLGILMICSATEKLWVTVYYGVPVWKEATTTLFCASDAKAYDTEVHNV 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 9 HLWRWGWKWGTMLLGILMICSATEKLWVTVYYGVPVWKEATTTLFCASDAKAYDTEVHNV 68
Qy 61 WATHACVPTDPNPQEVVLVNVTENFNMWKNDMVEQMHEDIISLWDQSLKPCVKLTPLCVS 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 69 WATHACVPTDPNPQEVVLVNVTENFNMWKNDMVEQMHEDIISLWDQSLKPCVKLTPLCVS 128
Qy 121 LKCTDLKNDTNTNSSSGRMIMEKGEIKNCSFNISTSIRDKVQKEYAFFYKLDIVPIDNTS 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 129 LKCTDLKNDTNTNSSSGRMIMEKGEIKNCSFNISTSIRDKVQKEYAFFYKLDIVPIDNTS 188
Qy 181 YRLISCNTSVITQACP 196
||||||||||||||||
Db 189 YRLISCNTSVITQACP 204
13. For reasons aforementioned, no claims are allowed.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lisa Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-0816. The examiner works a flexible Part-Time schedule but can normally be reached on Monday, Thursday, and Friday from 9am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Misook Yu, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-0839. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal.
Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
Lisa V. Cook
Art Unit 1641
Remsen - Hoteling
571-272-0816
8/7/26
/LISA V COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1641
Prosecution Insights