CTNF 18/484,908 CTNF 97534 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION Claim status Claims 1-5 are under consideration in the instant Office Action. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 01/22/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is a typo in the word “conformational”, which was spelled “confirmational” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-5 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. Instant claims 1-5 recite “an antibody or an antibody fragment, which specifically binds to a conformational epitope on a human CD38 consisting of 4 to 20 amino acid residues of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 304…”. The claim language does not ascertain whether the sequence listed is for the antibody or antibody fragment, or if it is the sequence for the human CD38 epitope. Additionally, the “or” in the fourth line of instant claim 1 renders it unclear as it introduces ambiguity to which group of amino acid positions are occurring to the claim sequence. Instant claim 4 depends from itself, and instant claim 5 depends from instant claim 4. As such, the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear as the dependencies are redundant. It is unclear if the heavy and light chain variable region sequences depend from the antibody or antibody fragment of claim 1, or if claim 4 does not depend from any preceding claim and instead sets forth new limitations. Instant claim 5 recites “… wherein the antibody or antigen-binding fragment is capable of inhibiting the binding to human CD38 the antibody of claim 4.” The intent behind this claim is very unclear as the language does not clearly convey the function of the antibody or antibody fragment. It is unclear whether the antibody binds to the conformational epitope, inhibits the binding of an unnamed structure to the epitope, binds to another antibody or antibody fragment, or if it binds to human CD38, etc. 07-36 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 07-36-01 AIA Claim s 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Instant claim 4 depends from itself, and instant claim 5 depends from instant claim 4. This results in an improper claim dependency that is redundant . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 07-30-01 AIA 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. 07-31-01 Claims 1-5 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 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. Claims 1-5 are directed to any antibody or antibody fragment that binds a confirmational epitope of human CD38. As such, the claim is directed to an antibody defined entirely by function (binding). See MPEP §2163(I)(A) which states: "The claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described where an invention is described solely in terms of a method of its making coupled with its function and there is no described or art recognized correlation or relationship between the structure of the invention and its function. A biomolecule sequence described only by a functional characteristic, without any known or disclosed correlation between that function and the structure of the sequence, normally is not a sufficient identifying characteristic for written description purposes, even when accompanied by a method of obtaining the claimed sequence.” In this case, antibodies generally share certain characteristics such as Fc regions or hinge regions. However, these structures are not correlated with the binding function of the antibody. The hyper variable regions (HVRs), i.e., complementarity determining regions (CDRs) of an antibody, are well established in the art as the portion of the binding region which imparts the specificity of an antibody. However, there is no way to a priori look at an antigen sequence (human CD38) and envisage the combination of six CDRs that will bind that antigen. First, even highly related CDRs may not bind the same target. See for example Kussie (instant PTO-892) who demonstrates that a single amino acid change in the heavy chain of an antibody which binds p-axophenylarsonate (Ars) completely abrogates the ability of the antibody to bind Ars but adds the functionality of binding the structurally related p-azophenylsulfonate (e.g., abstract). Second, even when provided with several related antibodies that bind the desired target, this does not represent the astronomical and potentially unknowable breadth of all possible amino acid sequences which will result in the desired binding properties. This is exemplified by the Court decision in Abbvie (Abbvie v Janssen 759 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2014)), where Abbvie developed over 200 antibodies that shared 99.5% identity in the variable regions (p.7) and which bound the target, but in no way allowed one to envisage the unique structure of Centocor’s antibodies which bound the same target but shared only 50% sequence similarity (see table on page 11). Thus, the art recognizes that the CDRs define the binding properties of an antibody and that even single amino acid changes to this region can completely abrogate the binding specificity of an antibody. As a further example, see Chen et al., 1995 (instant PTO-892) which demonstrates single amino acid changes in the VH CDR2 sequence can increase binding, decrease binding, destroy binding, or have no effect on binding when compared to the wild-type antibody. See also Koenig 2017 (instant PTO-892), which provides a large mutation analysis study where every amino acid in both variable regions are substituted with every other amino acid. Looking at figure 1 of Koenig, the bottom half of each section (labeled VEGF) relates to the ability of the mutant to bind the original target, with blue meaning a reduced affinity and black meaning a complete loss of binding ability. In VH-CDR2, for example, mutating any given residue to cysteine, which is encompassed by the instant claims, resulted in reduced binding at 12 residues and a complete loss of binding at 5 residues. That is, at 100% of the positions, mutation to cysteine reduced or ablated the antibody’s ability to bind the target. Looking at a specific position, in 100% of the mutations of residue 55, binding was reduced (15/19) or eliminated (4/19). While residues 56-65 appear more tolerant of change, residues 50-55 are generally intolerant of change. It is appreciated that Koenig is studying one specific antibody and there is no evidence that the instant antibodies would react in the same way. However, this is part of the problem. It is entirely unclear from the specification which residues of Applicant’s CDRs are tolerant or intolerant to change, and whether those tolerant positions are only tolerant to conservative mutations. The fact that some residues might tolerate mutation does not convey to the skilled artisan that Applicant knew which of the claimed residues were tolerant of such, i.e., does not convey that Applicant was in possession of those sequences which are mutated yet preserve the claimed function. In other words, the specification fails to convey possession of an invention commensurate in scope with what is now claimed and therefore fails to meet the written description requirement. Looking at Koenig figure 2A, ~200 mutations in the CDR region of the VH chain completely abrogates any binding. While 2B appears to indicate that the CDRs of VL are more tolerant of change than the heavy chain CDRs, still over half of the mutations reduce binding compared to the parent. Thus, making changes to the CDR sequence of an antibody is a highly unpredictable process and the skilled artisan could not a priori make any predictions regarding such mutations with any reasonable expectation of success nor envisage the breadth of structurally unrelated CDR combinations that would still possess the required functions. The specification discloses two antibodies which comprises, as the heavy and light chain variable region sequences SEQ ID NOs: 57 and 10 and SEQ ID NOs: 61 and 10. However, as discussed above, without any way to determine how broad the genus of such antibodies are, there is no way to determine if these antibodies represent the full breadth of what is claimed. The instant claims are claiming an antibody by the antigen it binds to, which encompasses a far greater number of potential antibodies than Applicant has support for in the instant specification. The disclosure of these specific antibodies would not convey to the artisan that Applicant was in possession of the full genus of all antibodies which possess the required functions nor does it allow the skilled artisan to envisage the specific structure of such antibodies. Additionally, instant claim 1 recites that 4 to 20 amino acid residues of SEQ ID NO: 304, which is the sequence for the human CD38 antigen, may be substituted at a number of amino acid residues at the conformational epitope. This broadens the scope of the claims because while the antibody or antibody fragment was already undefined and broad as it was only claimed by its epitope, the inclusion of epitope variants broadens the scope even further to encompasses a vast, unknown number of antibodies that can now bind to an undefined epitope which Applicant has not provided adequate support for its identity. Applicant is advised to indicate which substitutions occur at which point of a particular sequence so that the epitope and antibody or antibody fragment are fully defined. Instant claim 4 recites an antibody that binds human CD38, wherein the antibody comprises “a heavy chain of amino acid sequence at least 80% identical to the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 61 or 57, and/or a light chain of amino acid sequence at least 80% identical to the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 10.” The instant claim encompasses a genus of heavy and/or light chain variable regions comprising variability (e.g., 80% identical) in both the heavy and/or light chain variable regions which are claimed as having the function of specifically binding to CD38. This means that the variability in sequence identity can also occur in the CDRs, the domains that are critical for the antibody binding to its target, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to result in unpredictable binding characteristics with no reasonable expectation of maintaining antigen binding. Also, the claim recites the heavy and light chain variable regions in an “and/or” fashion, which conveys that the heavy or light chain variable regions are needed to complete an antibody. As discussed above, a fully defined antibody requires both the heavy and light chain variable region sequences. As such, the instant disclosure does not provide an adequate number of species of the claimed genus nor does the disclosure provide a structure-function correlation that would allow for a person of ordinary skill in the art to envision what variation can occur to the light and heavy chains, particularly in the CDR regions, such that the obtained structure would result in the claimed functions. Further note the decision in Amgen v. Sanofi 2017, where the Court supported previous decisions (Centocor 2011; Abbvie 2014) that defining an antibody solely by what it binds does not satisfy the written description requirement, stating that this would allow patentees to “claim antibodies by describing something that is not the invention, i.e., the antigen”. This decision has precipitated guidance to the Office instructing that the portion of MPEP 2163 regarding the “newly characterized antigen test” (indicating a well-characterized antigen is sufficient to satisfy written description for antibodies which bind that antigen) should no longer be used and that contrary materials should not be relied upon as reflecting the current state of the law. It is appreciated that certain claims do include at least one sequence, e.g., claim 4 requires SEQ ID NOs: 57, 61, and 10. However, the claim also includes a number of “variants” of those sequences, a variant being defined as noted above to include only 80% similarity to a claimed sequence and leaves 20% of the sequence undefined so long as the function is retained. However, as above, arbitrarily altering any amino acid in the CDR of an antibody is unpredictable and the specification does not convey possession of any CDRs other than those of the disclosed antibodies. Further, it is well-known in the art that specificity of an antibody stems from the interaction of six CDRs. Moreover, CDRs are not generally recognized as interchangeable, such that using one CDR from one antibody would not be reasonably expected to confer the same binding properties or even the same binding target when combined with two to five CDRs from other antibodies. For example, WO 2008068048 (instant PTO-892) discloses an antibody with a heavy chain comprising three CDRs (SEQ ID NO: 2) that binds secreted aspartyl protease from Candida sp. US 20170355756 (instant PTO-892) describes the same three CDRs in the heavy chain (C10-VH3) combined with a different light chain that binds human TDP-43. There is no evidence in the instant specification that a single CDR placed in the context of two to five other CDRS, regardless of what those other CDRs are, would result in the required function, nor that a single chain is correlated to the required function when combined with any other chain. As such, the specification fails to set forth a structure-function correlation sufficient to claim all possible antibodies defined by function and one-three CDRs or alterations thereof. As such, the disclosure of two antibody sequences does not convey possession of other antibodies with the same binding properties; possession of the precisely defined sequence of six CDRs is required. With respect to product claims 1-5, it is recognized that information which is well known in the art need not be described in detail in the specification (MPEP §2163(II)(A)(2)). See, e.g., Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1379-80, 231 USPQ 81, 90 (Fed. Cir. 1986). However, sufficient information must be provided to show that the inventor had possession of the invention as claimed. MPEP §2163(II)(A)(3)(a) also discusses Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 927, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1894-95 (Fed. Cir. 2004), where a method of using a PGHS-2 inhibitor did not meet the written description as the inhibitor itself was not sufficiently described, clearly indicating that written description of the compound is still required in a method of using that compound. In this case, it is clear from the specification that the invention is in a new antibody, or at the least disclosure of a new antibody that could not have been envisaged from the prior art indicates that the prior art was not in possession of all “human anti-CD38 antibodies”. Thus, the prior art cannot provide sufficient written description of this genus of compounds and the specification as filed, disclosing one antibody, does not sufficiently describe the genus either as there is an unknown amount of structurally distinct antibodies in this genus (see Amgen and Centocor decisions discussed above). To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc., v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1116. The claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described where an invention is described solely in terms of a method of its making coupled with its function and there is no described or art-recognized correlation or relationship between the structure of the invention and its function. An antibody described only by functional characteristic, such as antibody that binds CD38 or one of the claimed epitopes, without any known or disclosed correlation between that function and the structure of the sequence, is not a sufficient identifying characteristic for written description purposes, even when accompanied by a method of obtaining the biomolecule of interest. In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552, 34 U.S.P.Q.2d 1210 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In the instant case, the specification provides insufficient direction or guidance concerning the relationship between the structure of the possible antibody to demonstrate possession of the breadth of the genus of human CD38 antibodies encompassed by the instant claims, especially in view of the unpredictability of such an endeavor. The prior art as evidenced by Edwards et al., 2003 (instant PTO-892) teaches there is a substantially huge antibody diversity produced to one single antigen target. Edwards provides evidence that over 1000 antibodies, all different amino acid sequences, were generated towards one single protein antigen target (see abstract). Without a correlation between structure and function, the claims do little more than define the claimed invention by function. That is not sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406 (“definition by function … does not suffice to define the genus because it is only an indication of what the gene does, rather than what it is”). Without this guidance or direction the skilled artisan would not consider applicant to be in possession of the claimed genus of antibodies because the skilled artisan recognizes that even seemingly minor changes made without guidance or direction as to the relationship between the particular amino acid sequence of the instantly claimed antibody and its ability to bind antigen, can dramatically affect antigen-antibody binding. Applicant has not described the claimed invention sufficiently to show they had possession of the claimed genus of an antibody that binds human CD38. Possession may not be shown by merely describing how to obtain possession of members of the claimed genus or how to identify their common structural features. See University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 69 USPQ2d 1886 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 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 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. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. What constitutes a "representative number" is an inverse function of the skill and knowledge in the art. Satisfactory disclosure of a "representative number" depends on whether one of skill in the art would recognize that the applicant was in possession of the necessary common attributes or features of the elements possessed by the members of the genus in view of the species disclosed. 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. To provide adequate written description and evidence of possession of the 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 the instant case, the only factors present in the claims are a recitation of one generic, broad genus that encompassed a diverse and huge number of possible antibodies that bind the disclosed epitope. The specification does not provide a consistent structure for all of the possible antibodies and fails to provide a representative number of species for the claimed genus. Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient recitation of distinguishing identifying characteristics, the specification does not provide adequate written description of the claimed genus. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar , 19USPQ2d 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 they invented what is claimed.” (See Vas-Cath at page 1116). With the exception of specifically disclosed antibodies with specific sequences, the skilled artisan cannot envision the detailed chemical structure of all of the encompassed 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 product 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. 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). Therefore, claims 1-5 do not meet the written description requirement. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SELAM BERHANE whose telephone number is (571)272-6138. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9-5. 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. /SELAM BERHANE/Examiner, Art Unit 1675 /AURORA M FONTAINHAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1675 Application/Control Number: 18/484,908 Page 2 Art Unit: 1675 Application/Control Number: 18/484,908 Page 3 Art Unit: 1675 Application/Control Number: 18/484,908 Page 4 Art Unit: 1675 Application/Control Number: 18/484,908 Page 5 Art Unit: 1675 Application/Control Number: 18/484,908 Page 6 Art Unit: 1675 Application/Control Number: 18/484,908 Page 7 Art Unit: 1675 Application/Control Number: 18/484,908 Page 8 Art Unit: 1675 Application/Control Number: 18/484,908 Page 9 Art Unit: 1675 Application/Control Number: 18/484,908 Page 10 Art Unit: 1675 Application/Control Number: 18/484,908 Page 11 Art Unit: 1675 Application/Control Number: 18/484,908 Page 12 Art Unit: 1675 Application/Control Number: 18/484,908 Page 13 Art Unit: 1675