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. Formal Matters
Claims 1, 2, 6 and 9-11 are pending and are the subject of this Office Action.
2. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) – written description
A. The rejection of claim 1 regarding the genus of PSGL-1 antagonists has been withdrawn in view of Applicants’ amendment to the claim.
B. Claim 11 remains rejected for the reasons already of record on pages 4-5 of the Office Action dated 10/16/25. The Examiner takes no issue with the case law cited by Applicants. Applicants further argue that the specification defines binding affinity in general terms (e.g. “KD of <1”). While it is true that Applicants are not required to be in possession of “all the recited compounds”, the issue is that Applicants are not “in ‘possession of the invention’ as a whole”. The Examiner takes no issue with the screening methods as argued by Applicants. However, regarding Applicants’ argument that “given their knowledge of the general ranges of binding affinities that antibodies typically have for their target”, the Examiner, in light of the specification, concludes that, given the “general range of binding affinities”, the claimed “superbinders” could potentially be orders of magnitude less than the lower end of this range, which is not typical for antibodies for their targets. While picomolar affinities would be typical, it is noted that there does not appear to be an affinity data in the Examples in the specification. In other words, no affinity appears to have been disclosed. The only data seen is in Table 1, which provides an IC50 value.
3. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The rejection of claims 9 and 10 have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments.
4. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
A. The rejection over Krishnamurthy has been withdrawn in view of Applicants’ amendment to limit claim 1 to an antibody. However, a new rejection under 35 USC 102 appears below.
B. Claims 1, 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muz et al. Instant claim 1 only requires the administration of a PSGL-1 antibody for the treatment of cancer. There is no requirement that the antibody block VISTA (i.e. the claim recites “treating cancer and/or inhibiting binding”).
Muz teaches that humanized (meeting claim 6) monoclonal antibodies to PSGL-1 (meeting claim 1) are able to aid in the treatment of multiple myeloma by increasing their sensitivity to the chemotherapeutic agent bortezomib (meeting claim 2).
5. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
A. The rejection over Wang has been withdrawn in view of Applicants’ amendment to limit claim 1 to an antibody.
B. The rejection over Krishnamurthy has been withdrawn in view of Applicants’ amendment to limit claim 1 to an antibody.
C. Claims 1, 2 and 6 remain rejected over Lin et al. for the reasons already of record on page 8 of the Office Action dated 10/16/25. Applicants’ arguments regarding T cell apoptosis and the differences between this and the instant application have been considered, as have the arguments with regard to Lin not affecting PSGL-1/VISTA binding.
These arguments have been considered, but are not deemed persuasive. Regarding T cells, the claims do not limit the types of cancers. Lin teach that it would be desirable to inhibit overly aggressive T cells, such as in T cell-derived cancers (paragraph [0002]). Therefore, apoptosis of these cells by the antibodies of Lin (e.g. paragraph [0003]) would treat cancer.
6. Conclusion
A. Claims 1, 2 and 6 are not allowable.
B. Claims 9-11 are objected to since they depend from rejected claim 1, but are otherwise allowable.
.
Advisory information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S LANDSMAN whose telephone number is 571-272-0888. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM – 6 PM (eastern).
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, Joanne Hama, can be reached at 571-272-2911. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ROBERT S LANDSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1647