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 .
1. Claims 1, 8, 9 and 29-33, and 35-46 as amended on January 17, 2024 are pending and under consideration.
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.
2. 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 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.
MPEP § 2163 states that 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, 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. A “representative number of species” means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. See, e.g., AbbVie Deutschland GMBH v. Janssen Biotech, 759 F.3d 1285, 111 USPQ2d 1780 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus to provide a "representative number” of species. The “structural features common to the members of the genus” needed for one of skill in the art to ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus takes into account the state of the art at the time of the invention. “Functional” terminology may be used “when the art has established a correlation between structure and function” but “merely drawing a fence around the outer limits of a purported genus is not an adequate substitute for describing a variety of materials constituting the genus and showing one has invented a genus and not just a species.” Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F3d 1336, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1171 (Fed Cir. 2010).
Scope of the claimed genus
Claim 1 is drawn to an isolated antibody that specifically binds to complement factor D (CFD) comprising a heavy chain variable region amino acid sequence having at least 90%, 95%, 98%, or 99% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 5, 27, 29, 34 or 36; and/or a light chain variable region amino acid sequence having at least 90%, 95%, 98%, or 99% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 6, 8, 26, 28, 35 or 37. Thus claim 1 is broadly drawn to an isolated antibody that specifically binds to CFD with multiple mutations in the heavy and/or light chain, including the CDR regions, and potentially only one of the disclosed heavy or light chains. Thus, the claim 1 encompasses a large genus of variants of the disclosed antibodies that bind CFD.
State of the Relevant Art
US Pat. No. 10,179,821 (Kelley et al. Jan 15, 2019, IDS), US 2018/0334496 (Perloth et al. Nov. 22, 2018,IDS) and US 2019/0161755 (Erickson et al. May 30, 2019) teach antibodies to CFD.
As was well-known in the antibody art, antibodies as a class share an overall structure generally comprising two heavy chain polypeptides that each comprises a heavy chain variable region (VH) and a heavy chain constant region made up of several domain (CH1, hinge, CH2, CH3, and for some antibodies, a CH4). Each of the heavy chains pairs with a light chain polypeptide that comprises a light chain variable region (VL) and a constant region. But while this overall structure is shared amongst antibodies from a wide variety of sources (human, rat, mouse, rabbit), the structure each antibody uses to bind its particular epitope on an antigen is structurally distinct and is formed by a recombination event that results in high variability at the amino acid sequence level. By the time the invention was made, it is well established in the art that the formation of an intact antigen-binding site in an antibody usually required the association of the complete heavy and light chain variable regions of a given antibody, each of which consists of three “complementarity determining regions” (“CDRs”) which provide the majority of the contact residues for the binding of the antibody to its target epitope. See Almagro & Fransson, Frontiers in Bioscience 2008; 13:1619-33 (see Section 3) “Antibody Structure and the Antigen Binding Site” and Figure 1). Chimeric antibodies comprise the heavy and light chain variable regions of a rodent antibody linked to human constant regions and preserve the entirety of the VH and VL of the parent antibody. Id. at 1619-20. Humanized antibodies comprise only the CDRs, or in some cases an abbreviated subset of residues within the CDRs, of a parental rodent antibody in the context of human framework sequences. Id. at Section 4. All of the CDRs of the heavy and light chain, in their proper order of CDR1, then 2, then 3, and in the context of framework sequences which maintain their required conformation are generally required to produce a humanized antibody in which the heavy and light chains associate to form an antigen-binding region that binds the same antigen as the parental rodent antibody. Id. at Section 4. Almagro provides a detailed discussion regarding various methods of humanization, including rationale design approaches and empirical approaches based on random screening. Almagro, Sections 4 and 5.
Overall, at the time the invention was made, the level of skill for preparing antibodies and then selecting those antibodies with desired functional properties was high. However, even if a selection procedure was, at the time of the invention, sufficient to enable the skilled artisan to identify antibodies with the recited functional properties, the written description provision of 35 U.S.C § 112 is severable from its enablement provision. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Centocor Ortho Biotech Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 97 USPQ2d 1870, 1876 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“The fact that a fully-human antibody could be made does not suffice to show that the inventors of the '775 patent possessed such an antibody.”) Absent the conserved structure provided by all six CDRs of a parental antibody in the context of appropriate VH and VL framework sequences, the skilled artisan generally would not be able to visualize or otherwise predict, a priori, what an antibody with a particular set of functional properties would look like structurally.
Summary of Species disclosed in the original specification
The specification teaches the teaches making two antibodies to CFD (Example 1) (anti-CFD mAb 1 or anti-CFD mAb 2) and several variants thereof as claimed and in Example 2. The specification does not disclose any antibodies with only one of claimed the heavy or light chains or mutations in the CDR regions that can specifically bind to CFD.
Are the disclosed species representative of the claimed genus?
MPEP § 2163 states that 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 specification teaches the teaches making two antibodies to CFD (Example 1) (anti-CFD mAb 1 or anti-CFD mAb 2) and several variants thereof as claimed and in Example 2. The specification does not disclose any antibodies with only one of the claimed heavy or light chains or mutations in the CDR regions that can specifically bind to CFD. Antibodies produced by different methods, such as in different species or in phage or with different epitopes, would have been generally expected to be highly structurally diverse, particularly in the CDR sequences. Thus, while Applicant has described two antibodies to CFD (Example 1) (anti-CFD mAb 1 or anti-CFD mAb 2) and several variants thereof, the claimed genus is very large and there are only limited number of species disclosed. The described species therefore cannot be considered representative of the claimed genus of antibodies that specifically bind CFD. See, e.g., AbbVie Deutschland GMBH v. Janssen Biotech, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Identifying characteristics and structure/function correlation
In the absence of a representative number of species, the written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied 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. To meet this requirement in the instant case, the specification must describe structural features that convey the claimed binding activity, a prerequisite for utility in the recited methods of treating.
As noted above, the art generally accepted that the combination of the CDRs within the VH and VL pair of an antibody were essential for binding specificity. But the specification does not describe what residues within the CDRs confer the binding activity claimed. Accordingly, the skilled artisan would not be able to discern a structure/function correlation for antibodies other than those comprising either all six CDRs (in the context of VH and VL regions) of one parental antibody, or the VH and VL of one parental antibody.
For all of the reasons presented above, one of skill in the art would not know which of the countless antibodies encompassed by claim1 that meet the highly general structural requirements of the claims would also be able to specifically to CFD. Neither the specification nor the dependent claims provide sufficient additional structure or a structure/function correlation to provide an adequate written description of the genus claimed. Therefore, the skilled artisan would not reasonably conclude that the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had full possession of antibodies as broadly claimed. Given the lack of shared structural properties that provide the claimed binding activity, the limited number of species described, and the fact that the species that were described cannot be considered representative of the broad genus, Applicant was not in possession of the invention as claimed.
Related Art
3. Kawakami et al. (Cell Stem Cell Volume 30, Issue 10, 5 October 2023, Pages 1315-1330.e10) teach a new long-acting, pH-sensitive (acid-switched) antibody targeting CFD. In both human and macaque COVID-19 models, this long-acting anti-CFD monoclonal antibody mitigated abnormal complement activation, protected endothelial cells, and curtailed the innate immune response post-viral exposure. See abstract.
Conclusion
4. Claim 1 is rejected. Claims 8, 9 and 29-33, and 35-46 are allowable.
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER J REDDIG whose telephone number is (571)272-9031. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 Eastern Time.
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, Greg Emch can be reached at 571-272-8149. 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.
/PETER J REDDIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1646
Prosecution Insights