Detailed Office 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 .
Status of the Claims
Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt and entry of the communication filed 08 November, 2023. Claims 1-18 are pending in the instant application.
37 C.F.R. § 1.98
The information disclosure statement filed 05 June, 2025, has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
37 C.F.R. § 1.84
The drawings filed 08 November, 2023, have been reviewed and are acceptable.
35 U.S.C. § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 101 which 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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception [e.g., law of nature, natural phenomenon, product of nature, abstract idea] without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See M.P.E.P. § 2106. In particular, the claims reference a composition comprising a messenger ribonucleic acid RNA (mRNA) comprising an open reading frame (ORF) encoding a varicella zoster virus (VZV) glycoprotein E (gE). Claims 2 and 3 reference mRNAs encoding sequences comprising a soluble form of sgE (SEQ ID NO.: 1) and full-length gE (SEQ ID NO.: 2). These sequences correspond to the naturally-occurring VZV Oka strain (Tillieux et al., November, 2008, Complete DNA Sequences of Two Oka Strain Varicella-Zoster Virus Genomes, J. Virol. 82(22):11023-11044). During viral replication, mRNAs are produced comprising ORFs encoding sgE and gE. Thus, the claimed invention reads on a naturally-occurring product. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed mRNAs do not appear to be markedly different from their naturally-occurring counterparts. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Moreover, the inclusion of a carrier (e.g., water or PBS) (claim 14) does not markedly change the characteristics of the mRNA product. The utilization of a carrier is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. Accordingly, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 133 S. Ct. 2107, 186 L. Ed. 2d 124, 106 U.S.P.Q.2d 1972, 81 U.S.L.W. 4388 (2013), the Court concluded that claims directed toward isolated DNAs are not patent-eligible because they read on isolated naturally-occurring DNA that is a "product of nature." The Court held that simply isolating a "gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention."
35 U.S.C. § 112(d)
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.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d), 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. Claims 6 and 7, from which these claims depend, reference mRNA vaccines comprising SEQ ID NOS. 3 or 4, respectively. However, claims 12 and 13 encompass variants of these sequences that do not include SEQ ID NOS.: 3 or 4. Upwards of 20% nucleotide sequence variation is allowed in the dependent claims. Thus, the claims fail to further limit the subject matter. 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.
35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
The following is a quotation 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.
Written Description
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi, 872 F.3d 1367, 124 U.S.P.Q.2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2017). AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1780 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., Inc., 358 F.3d 916, 920, 69 U.S.P.Q.2d 1886, (Fed. Cir. 2004). Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 296 F.3d 1316, 63 U.S.P.Q.2d 1609, (Fed. Cir. 2002). Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 43 U.S.P.Q.2d 1398, (Fed. Cir. 1997). Fiers v. Revel Co., 984 F.2d 1164, 25 U.S.P.Q.2d 1601, (Fed. Cir. 1993). Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 18 U.S.P.Q.2d 1016, (Fed. Cir. 1991). In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 U.S.P.Q. 323 (C.C.P.A. 1981). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 U.S.P.Q. 90 (C.C.P.A. 1976).
The crux of the statutory requirement governing written description is whether one skilled in the art, familiar with the practice of the art at the time of the filing date, could reasonably have found the later claimed invention in the specification as filed. In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 U.S.P.Q. 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1520 222 U.S.P.Q. 349, 372 (Fed. Cir. 1984, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1209 (1985). Texas Instruments, Inc. v. International Trade Comm’n, 871 F.2d 1054, 1063, 10 U.S.P.Q.2d 1257, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Moreover, the courts have stated that the evaluation of written description is highly fact-specific, and that broadly articulated rules are inappropriate. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 263, 191 U.S.P.Q. 90, 97 (C.C.P.A. 1976). In re Driscoll, 562 F.2d 1245, 1250, 195 U.S.P.Q. 434, 438 (C.C.P.A. 1977). It is also important to remember that the true issue in question is not whether the specification enables one of ordinary skill in the art to make the later claimed invention, but whether or not the disclosure is sufficiently clear that those skilled in the art will conclude that the applicant made the invention having the specific claim limitations. Martin v. Mayer, 823 F2d 500, 505, 3 U.S.P.Q.2d 1333, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
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 has 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. An applicant shows possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 U.S.P.Q.2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 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. A lack of adequate written description issue also arises if the knowledge and level of skill in the art would not permit one skilled in the art to immediately envisage the product claimed from the disclosed process. Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571, 39 U.S.P.Q.2d 1895, 1905 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Determination of adequate written description requires the Examiner to read and analyze the specification for compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). In particular, each claim should be analyzed to determine its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with written description. Each claim should be evaluated to determine if sufficient structures, acts, or functions are recited to make clear the scope and meaning of the claim, including the weight to be given the preamble. The entire application should be reviewed including the specific embodiments, figures, and sequence listings, to understand how applicant provides support for the various features of the claimed invention. The analysis of whether the specification complies with the written description requirement calls for the examiner to compare the scope of the claim with the scope of the description to determine whether applicant has demonstrated that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Such a review is conducted from the standpoint of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed (see, e.g., Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 865, 26 USPQ2d 1767, 1774 (Fed. Cir. 1993)) and should include a determination of the field of the invention and the level of skill and knowledge in the art. Finally, the Examiner should determine whether there is sufficient written description to inform a skilled artisan that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention as a whole at the time of filing.
The claims are broadly directed toward a vaccine composition comprising mRNA sequences that comprise “at least 80% identity” to SEQ ID NOS. 5 (1,929 nt) and 6 (2,164 nt) (claims 12 and 13, respectively). These sequences correspond to mRNAs encoding sgE (SEQ ID NO.: 1, 547 aa) and gE (SEQ ID NO.: 2, 623 aa), respectively. These mRNAs comprise the following structure: 5’ UTR-ORF-3’ UTR-poly(A) tail. Introducing upwards of 20% nucleotide sequence variation to these molecules would encompass an inordinate number of nucleic acid and amino acid variants. Changes to the nucleotide sequence can alter mRNA transport, stability, and expression. In particular, Jin et al. (2025, mRNA vaccine sequence and structure design and optimization: Advances and challenges, J. Biol. Chem. 301(1):1-17) note that several significant hurdles still remain including insufficient antigen expression, intrinsic thermal stability, and the reactogenicity of artificial mRNAs and their delivery carriers. The disclosure fails to describe a single mRNA variant. Moreover, these changes may also alter the coding potential of each ORF in an unpredictable manner. Berarducci et al. (January 2009, Deletion of the First Cysteine-Rich Region of the Varicella-Zoster Virus Glycoprotein E Ectodomain Abolishes the gE and gI Interaction and Differentially Affects Cell-Cell Spread and Viral Entry, J. Virol. 83(1):228-240) demonstrate that perturbations in the gE structure can abrogate function. Once again, the disclosure fails to identify and characterize any suitable sgE/gE variants.
Accordingly, when all the aforementioned factors are considered in toto, the skill artisan would reasonably conclude that Applicants were not in possession of a sufficient number of variant nucleic acid sequences to support the claim breadth.
35 U.S.C. § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Ciaramella et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 11,643,441 B1, issued 09 May, 2023, and claiming priority to Prov. No. 62/245,031, filed 22 October, 2015; hereinafter referred to as “Ciaramella et al. (2023)”). The claims reference a vaccine comprising a mRNA encoding a VZV gE (claim 1) or method of inducing an immune response against shingles comprising administering said mRNA. Vaccine formulations comprising lipid nanoparticles are also covered (claims 14 and 15). Methods of immunization using the recited vaccine are recited in claim 16. Ciaramella et al. (2023) disclose mRNA vaccines encoding various VZV gE immunogens and their use to induce an immune response against the shingles virus (see claims and Example 15) The VZV gE mRNA vaccine also comprises lipid nanoparticles. This teaching clearly meets all of the claimed limitations.
Joint Inventors, Common Ownership Presumed
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-13, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ciaramella et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 11,643,441 B1, issued 09 May, 2023, and claiming priority to Prov. No. 62/245,031, filed 22 October, 2015; hereinafter referred to as “Ciaramella et al. (2023)”). The claims are directed toward a composition comprising a mRNA encoding a VZV gE protein. Claim 2 is directed toward a gE comprising SEQ ID NO.: 1 and claim 3 is directed toward a gE comprising SEQ ID NO.: 2. Claims 4 and 5 reference nucleic acids encoding these respective proteins. Claims 6 and 7 are directed toward mRNAs encoding these respective proteins (corresponding to SEQ ID NOS.: 5 and 6, respectively). Claims 8 and 9 reference mRNAs with poly(A) tails of 50 to 250 nucleotides. Claims 10 and 12 reference mRNAs comprising SEQ ID NO.: 5 and claims 11 and 13 reference mRNAs comprising SEQ ID NO.: 6. Claims 17 and 18 are directed toward immunization methods utilizing the mRNAs of claims 12 and 13.
Ciaramella et al. (2023) disclose mRNA vaccines encoding various VZV gE immunogens encapsulated with lipid nanoparticles and their use to induce an immune response against the shingles virus (see claims and Example 15). This teaching does not disclose the actual production of mRNAs comprising SEQ ID NOS.: 2-6. However, this teaching does disclose multiple VZV gE that are suitable for vaccine use, including a truncated soluble version comprising SEQ ID NO.: 1 (see Table 2, SEQ ID NO.: 18 from the ‘441 patent; Appendix A) and full-length version comprising SEQ ID NO.: 2 (see Table 14, SEQ ID NO.: 52 from the ‘441 patent; Appendix B). The inventors clearly teach that mRNAs comprise a CAP-5’UTR-ORF-3’UTR-poly(A) tail. The poly(A) tail is typically 40-200 nt depending upon the processivity. See Examples 5-7. Formulations comprising lipid nanoparticles are set forth in Example 10. Different truncated and soluble gE variants, as well as, full-length gE, that can be employed in the vaccine preparation are set forth in Example 13. The variant of SEQ ID NO.: 18 is of particular interest because it displays reduced localization. Methods of immunization using the recited mRNAs are set forth in Examples 15-21. Nucleic acids (including mRNAs) encoding these sgE and gE are set forth in SEQ ID NOS.: 35 (corresponding to SEQ ID NO.: 3), 27 (corresponding to SEQ ID NO.: 4), 20 (corresponding to SEQ ID NO.: 5), and 96 (corresponding to SEQ ID NO.: 6). SEQ ID NOS.: 35 and 27 display >99% sequence identity with the claimed nucleic acids. SEQ ID NOS.: 20 and 96 display >93% sequence identity with the claimed nucleic acids.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare VZV mRNA vaccines encoding sgE (SEQ ID NO.: 18) and gE (SEQ ID NO.: 52). One of ordinary skill in the art could readily prepare these mRNA vaccines using the coding sequences set forth in SEQ ID NOS.: 35 and 27, respectively. Finally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to prepare mRNAs comprising the following structure: Cap-5’UTR-ORF-3’UTR-poly(A), corresponding to the mRNAs set forth in SEQ ID NOS.: 20 and 96. Both of these SEQ ID NOS.: encode the identical sgE and gE proteins set forth in SEQ ID NOS.: 18 and 52, respectively. Moreover, while there is some variation within the nucleotide sequences, nevertheless they do not affect the coding potential or mRNA properties. Accordingly, these sequences appear to be obvious variants of the claimed sequences. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected these mRNAs to induce robust immune responses against VZV sgE and gE.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Jeffrey S. Parkin, Ph.D., whose telephone number is (571) 272-0908. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM. A message may be left on the Examiner's voice mail service. 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 are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Michael Allen, Ph.D., can be reached at (571) 270-3497. Direct general status inquiries to the Technology Center 1600 receptionist at (571) 272-1600.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from the Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through the Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, 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.
Respectfully,
/JEFFREY S PARKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1671 25 June, 2026
Appendix A
US-15-767-587-18
Sequence 18, US/15767587
Patent No. 11643441
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/15/767,587
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2018-04-11
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 134
SEQ ID NO 18
LENGTH: 561
TYPE: PRT
Query Match 100.0%; Score 2983; Length 561;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 547; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 MGTVNKPVVGVLMGFGIITGTLRITNPVRASVLRYDDFHIDEDKLDTNSVYEPYYHSDHA 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 MGTVNKPVVGVLMGFGIITGTLRITNPVRASVLRYDDFHIDEDKLDTNSVYEPYYHSDHA 60
Qy 61 ESSWVNRGESSRKAYDHNSPYIWPRNDYDGFLENAHEHHGVYNQGRGIDSGERLMQPTQM 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 ESSWVNRGESSRKAYDHNSPYIWPRNDYDGFLENAHEHHGVYNQGRGIDSGERLMQPTQM 120
Qy 121 SAQEDLGDDTGIHVIPTLNGDDRHKIVNVDQRQYGDVFKGDLNPKPQGQRLIEVSVEENH 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 SAQEDLGDDTGIHVIPTLNGDDRHKIVNVDQRQYGDVFKGDLNPKPQGQRLIEVSVEENH 180
Qy 181 PFTLRAPIQRIYGVRYTETWSFLPSLTCTGDAAPAIQHICLKHTTCFQDVVVDVDCAENT 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 PFTLRAPIQRIYGVRYTETWSFLPSLTCTGDAAPAIQHICLKHTTCFQDVVVDVDCAENT 240
Qy 241 KEDQLAEISYRFQGKKEADQPWIVVNTSTLFDELELDPPEIEPGVLKVLRTEKQYLGVYI 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 KEDQLAEISYRFQGKKEADQPWIVVNTSTLFDELELDPPEIEPGVLKVLRTEKQYLGVYI 300
Qy 301 WNMRGSDGTSTYATFLVTWKGDEKTRNPTPAVTPQPRGAEFHMWNYHSHVFSVGDTFSLA 360
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 301 WNMRGSDGTSTYATFLVTWKGDEKTRNPTPAVTPQPRGAEFHMWNYHSHVFSVGDTFSLA 360
Qy 361 MHLQYKIHEAPFDLLLEWLYVPIDPTCQPMRLYSTCLYHPNAPQCLSHMNSGCTFTSPHL 420
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 361 MHLQYKIHEAPFDLLLEWLYVPIDPTCQPMRLYSTCLYHPNAPQCLSHMNSGCTFTSPHL 420
Qy 421 AQRVASTVYQNCEHADNYTAYCLGISHMEPSFGLILHDGGTTLKFVDTPESLSGLYVFVV 480
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 421 AQRVASTVYQNCEHADNYTAYCLGISHMEPSFGLILHDGGTTLKFVDTPESLSGLYVFVV 480
Qy 481 YFNGHVEAVAYTVVSTVDHFVNAIEERGFPPTAGQPPATTKPKEITPVNPGTSPLLRYAA 540
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 481 YFNGHVEAVAYTVVSTVDHFVNAIEERGFPPTAGQPPATTKPKEITPVNPGTSPLLRYAA 540
Qy 541 WTGGLAA 547
|||||||
Db 541 WTGGLAA 547
Appendix B
US-15-767-587-18
Sequence 52, US/15767587
Patent No. 11643441
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/15/767,587
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2018-04-11
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 134
SEQ ID NO 52
LENGTH: 661
Query Match 100.0%; Score 3380; Length 661;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 623; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 MGTVNKPVVGVLMGFGIITGTLRITNPVRASVLRYDDFHIDEDKLDTNSVYEPYYHSDHA 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 39 MGTVNKPVVGVLMGFGIITGTLRITNPVRASVLRYDDFHIDEDKLDTNSVYEPYYHSDHA 98
Qy 61 ESSWVNRGESSRKAYDHNSPYIWPRNDYDGFLENAHEHHGVYNQGRGIDSGERLMQPTQM 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 99 ESSWVNRGESSRKAYDHNSPYIWPRNDYDGFLENAHEHHGVYNQGRGIDSGERLMQPTQM 158
Qy 121 SAQEDLGDDTGIHVIPTLNGDDRHKIVNVDQRQYGDVFKGDLNPKPQGQRLIEVSVEENH 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 159 SAQEDLGDDTGIHVIPTLNGDDRHKIVNVDQRQYGDVFKGDLNPKPQGQRLIEVSVEENH 218
Qy 181 PFTLRAPIQRIYGVRYTETWSFLPSLTCTGDAAPAIQHICLKHTTCFQDVVVDVDCAENT 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 219 PFTLRAPIQRIYGVRYTETWSFLPSLTCTGDAAPAIQHICLKHTTCFQDVVVDVDCAENT 278
Qy 241 KEDQLAEISYRFQGKKEADQPWIVVNTSTLFDELELDPPEIEPGVLKVLRTEKQYLGVYI 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 279 KEDQLAEISYRFQGKKEADQPWIVVNTSTLFDELELDPPEIEPGVLKVLRTEKQYLGVYI 338
Qy 301 WNMRGSDGTSTYATFLVTWKGDEKTRNPTPAVTPQPRGAEFHMWNYHSHVFSVGDTFSLA 360
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 339 WNMRGSDGTSTYATFLVTWKGDEKTRNPTPAVTPQPRGAEFHMWNYHSHVFSVGDTFSLA 398
Qy 361 MHLQYKIHEAPFDLLLEWLYVPIDPTCQPMRLYSTCLYHPNAPQCLSHMNSGCTFTSPHL 420
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 399 MHLQYKIHEAPFDLLLEWLYVPIDPTCQPMRLYSTCLYHPNAPQCLSHMNSGCTFTSPHL 458
Qy 421 AQRVASTVYQNCEHADNYTAYCLGISHMEPSFGLILHDGGTTLKFVDTPESLSGLYVFVV 480
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 459 AQRVASTVYQNCEHADNYTAYCLGISHMEPSFGLILHDGGTTLKFVDTPESLSGLYVFVV 518
Qy 481 YFNGHVEAVAYTVVSTVDHFVNAIEERGFPPTAGQPPATTKPKEITPVNPGTSPLLRYAA 540
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 519 YFNGHVEAVAYTVVSTVDHFVNAIEERGFPPTAGQPPATTKPKEITPVNPGTSPLLRYAA 578
Qy 541 WTGGLAAVVLLCLVIFLICTAKRMRVKAYRVDKSPYNQSMYYAGLPVDDFEDSESTDTEE 600
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 579 WTGGLAAVVLLCLVIFLICTAKRMRVKAYRVDKSPYNQSMYYAGLPVDDFEDSESTDTEE 638
Qy 601 EFGNAIGGSHGGSSYTVYIDKTR 623
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 639 EFGNAIGGSHGGSSYTVYIDKTR 661
Prosecution Insights