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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-22 are currently pending in the instant application filed March 4, 2024.
Therefore, claims 1-22 are under consideration to which the following grounds of rejection are applicable.
Priority
The present application filed May 4, 2024 claims the benefit of US Provisional Patent Application 63488037, filed March 2, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 9, 2026 has been considered. An initialed copy of the IDS accompanies this Office Action.
Claim Objections/Rejections
Claim Interpretation
The term “detectable label” such as recited in claims 1 and 9 is interpreted to refer to any detectable label (e.g., a barcode; a fluorescent dye; a fluorescent protein; a radioactive label; an enzymatic label; a label in solution; a label associated with any of STING, 2’,3’-cGAMP, and/or the first mixture, etc.).
The term “a compound of Formula (I), (II), (III), and (IV)” such as recited in claim 21 is interpreted to refer to a compound comprising any structure.
The term “a compound selected from the compounds disclosed in Table A” such as recited in claim 22 is interpreted to refer to any compound.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 11 and 13-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 11 and 13-19 recite terms such as “cGAMP”,” “nM”, “P20”, “NTAAtto 488”, “mM”, “pM”, fM”, “aM” and “zM,” where an abbreviation should be spelled out in the first encounter of the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “the affinity” such as recited in claim 1, line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the affinity” in the claim. Moreover, it is noted that the process as recited in 1(a)-(c) does not detect an affinity between STING and a compound as recited in the preamble and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 1 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “the mixture” such as recited in claim 1, lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the mixture” in the claim because claim 1, line 3 recites the term “a first mixture.” The Examiner suggests that Applicant amend the claim to recite, for example, “wherein the first mixture comprises a detectable label.”
Claim 3 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “the first mixture is a solution in HBS-P” such as recited in claim 3, lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “a solution” in the claim because claim 3 depends from instant claim 1, wherein claim 1, line 3 recites that the first mixture is formed by contacting STING with 2’,3’-cGAMP, and there is no recitation of the presence of a solution, solvent, buffer, water, etc. and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claims 4, 5 and 13-20 are indefinite for the recitation of the term “the concentration” such as recited in claim 4, line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the concentration” in the claim.
Claim 6 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “step” such as recited in claim 6, line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “step” in the claim because claim 1, line 3 recites “(a)”. Moreover, claim 6 depends from instant claim 1, wherein claim 1 does not recite a step and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 6 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “(a) comprises contacting a dye with STING” such as recited in claim 6, line 1 because claim 6 depends from instant claim 1, wherein claim 1(a) already comprises “contacting STING with 2’,3’-cGAMP to generate a first mixture”, such that claim 6 cannot, as a dependent claim, recite that claim 1(a) comprises something different than what is recited in the independent claim. Moreover, claim 1 does not recite the presence of a dye and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claims 13-19 are indefinite for the recitation of the term “the buffered solution” such as recited in claim 13, line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the buffered solution” in the claim because claim 11, line 2 recites the term “a solution.”
Claim 20 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “the normalized fluorescence” such as recited in claim 20, line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the normalized fluorescence” in the claim. Moreover, claim 20 depends from instant claim 1, wherein claim 1 does not recite the presence of a fluorescent molecule and/or a compound in a solution, such that the normalized fluorescence cannot be measured as a function of a concentration of the compound and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 21 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “Formula (I), (II), (III), or (IV)” such as recited in claim 21, lines 1-2 because the reference to a figure in a claim is permissible only in exceptional circumstances. As noted in MPEP 2173.05, where possible, claims are to be complete in themselves, such that incorporation by reference to a specific figure of table in a claim is permissible only in exceptional circumstances. In this case, the relevant material from “Formula (I), (II), (III), or (IV)” is amenable to direct inclusion in the body of the claim in a manner analogous to the recitation of a chemical formula. Appropriate correction is therefore required.
Claim 22 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “Table A” such as recited in claim 22, line 2 because the reference to a figure in a claim is permissible only in exceptional circumstances. As noted in MPEP 2173.05, where possible, claims are to be complete in themselves, such that incorporation by reference to a specific figure of table in a claim is permissible only in exceptional circumstances. In this case, the relevant material from “Table A” is amenable to direct inclusion in the body of the claim in a manner analogous to the recitation of a chemical formula. Appropriate correction is therefore required.
Claims 2 and 7-12 are indefinite insofar as they ultimately depend from instant claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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.
Claims 3, 6 and 20 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.
Claim 3 recites (in part): “wherein the first mixture is a solution…saline surfactant P20 (HBS-P) buffer” such as recited in claim 3, lines 1-3 because claim 3 depends from instant claim 1, wherein claim 1, line 3 recites that the first mixture is formed by contacting STING with 2’,3’-cGAMP, and there is no recitation of the presence of a solution, solvent, buffer, water, etc. Thus, claim 3 is an improper dependent claim 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.
Claim 6 recites (in part): “wherein step (a) comprises contacting a dye with STING” such as recited in claim 6, line 1 because claim 6 depends from instant claim 1, wherein claim 1 does not recite any “steps”. Thus, claim 6 is an improper dependent claim 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.
Claim 20 recites (in part): “wherein detecting the detectable label comprises measuring the normalized fluorescence as a function of the concentration of the solution of the compound” such as recited in claim 20, lines 1-3 because claim 20 depends from instant claim 1, wherein claim 1 does not recite the presence of a fluorescent molecule and/or a compound in a solution, such that the normalized fluorescence cannot be measured as a function of a concentration of the compound. Thus, claim 20 is an improper dependent claim 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.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1)/102(a2) as being anticipated by Guida et al. (hereinafter “Guida”) (US Patent Application Publication No. 20220267270, published August 25, 2022; also published as WO2021042024, published March 4, 2021; effective filing date August 30, 2019) as evidenced by Nanotemper (Nanotemper Technologies, Manual, 2013, 1-54); and Sparks et al. (hereinafter “Sparks”) (ACS Central Science, 2025, 11, 994-1008).
Regarding claims 1-14, Guida teaches that compounds of Formula (I), or pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof and compounds of Formula (II), or pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof, that modulate stimulator of interferon genes (STING), compositions comprising such compounds, and methods of using same for the treatment of disorders such as cancer and autoimmune disease (interpreted as STING; and compounds, claim 1) (Abstract). Guida teaches that Figure 7 shows a plot of various concentrations of NSC335504 and known agonist 2,3-cGAMP on STING-induced IRG3 expression in THP-1 monocyte leukemia cells (interpreted as contacting cells expressing STING with 2’,3’-cGAMP, contacting the first mixture with a compound to form a second mixture, claim 1) (paragraphs [0015]; [0164]; and Figure 7), wherein NSC335504 has the structure shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
214
206
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Guida teaches that THP1-ISG-Lucia cells were maintained in RPM1 1640 containing 2 mM L-glutamine, 25 mM HEPES, 10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum, 100 μg/ml Normocin, Pen-Strep (100 μg/ml), and 10 μg/ml of blasticidin and 100 μg/ml of Zeocin was added to the growth medium every other passage (interpreted as cells expressing STING; a compound; and in HEPES buffer, claims 1-19) (paragraphs [0166]). Guida teaches that reporter cells were plated at 100,000 (THP1-ISG Lucia) cells per well in a white 300 uL sterile 96 well plate and treated with 3, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50 μM of 2,3-cGAMP, DMSO, and NSC335504, such that for compounds, 10 mM stock solution in 100% DMSO was diluted 1:4 with ultrapure Milli Q water (interpreted as the concentration of buffered solution of compound is < 200 nM; < 300 nM < 200 mM, < 1mM, claims 4, 5, 13 and 14); and for the positive control, 1 mM stock solution in 100% Milli Q H2O was diluted 3:1 with water, wherein 50 μL of QUANTI-Luc luminescence assay reagent was added after 18-24 h incubation period, such that expression of Lucia luciferase was quantified by measuring luminescence from duplicate treatments, wherein data illustrated were average luminescence changes shown relative to DMSO-treated cells, wherein THP1-Dual KI-hSTING-R232 cells contain a knock-in of the intron coding sequence of the R232 hSTING variant (interpreted as contacting STING-expressing cells with 2’,3’-cGAMP to form a first mixture comprising a detectable; contacting the first mixture with a compound to form a second mixture; detecting the label; comprising DMSO; and the concentration of buffered solution of compound is < 200mM and < 1mM, claims 1-14) (paragraphs [0167]-[0168]). Guida teaches that Figure 2 is a graph showing luminescence vs. concentration of NSC335504 (left bar in each pair of bars) compared a DMSO blank (right bar in each pair of bars), wherein a significant response to NSC335504 was observed in comparison to the negative control, such that at low (3 μM) concentrations, a large increase in ISG output was observed, while at higher concentrations (>20 μM) of compound, DMSO percentages increased, hindering the growth of the monocytes, thus decreasing the amount of luminance observed (interpreted as compound concentrations < 200mM and < 1mM, claims 1-14) (paragraph [0174]). Figure 2 is shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
540
832
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Guida teaches that microscale thermophoresis (MST) is carried out using a Nanotemper Monolith NT.115 labeled thermophoresis machine was used with standard treated capillary tubes using samples comprised of labeled protein and titrations of small molecule in 1 x PBS, wherein microscale thermophoresis (MST) experiments were conducted in triplicate mixing 200 nM protein with 100 nM dye and allowing to sit at room temperature for 30 minutes followed by centrifugation on Ni-NTA 488 labeled His-labeled STING; and affinity analysis software with difference between initial fluorescence measured in the first 5 sec as compared with thermophoresis at 15 sec at 15 different analyte concentrations ranging from 15 nM to 1 mM and exported into Graphpad Prism v.8 using a Log inhibitor vs. response 4 parameter fit (interpreted as a detectable label comprising a fluorescent label; including a fluorescent dye such as NTAAtto 488; in a buffered solution of HEPES that includes PBS (e.g., HBS-P); detecting the label using MST instrument; and concentrations < 200 nM; < 300 nM < 200 mM, < 1mM, claims 1-15) (paragraph [0175], lines 1-8), where it is known that the Nanotemper Monolith NT.115 machine measures normalized fluorescence as a function of the concentration of the compound in solution at sub-nanomolar concentration as evidenced by Nanotemper (pg. 16, first full paragraph; and pg. 17, Figure 1; and last full paragraph).
Regarding claims 15-19, Guida teaches that to further cross-validate the direct binding of NSC335504 to hSTING, the binding affinity of NSC335504 with hSTING was measured by MST (Figure 4), confirming that both the positive control, 2,3-cGAMP, and NSC335504 bind to hSTING while the competitive compound, c-di-GMP, binds but with lesser affinity, wherein these results are also consistent with the SPR data (FIG. 5A-6B), such that Figures 5A-6B depict steady state SPR binding affinity plots for c-di-GMP and 2'3'-cGAMP, respectively (interpreting a NSC335504 concentration of zero to be less than 1 zM, claims 15-19) (paragraph [0200], and Figure 5A-B). Figure 4B is shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
492
628
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20 and 21, Guida teaches that a model compound used in certain assays described herein is referred to as NSC335504, whose structure is shown below (interpreted as a compounds having a structure of Formula (I); and compound 1 as disclosed in Table A, claims 20 and 21) (paragraph 0164]):
PNG
media_image1.png
214
206
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where it is known that MST and surface plasmon resonance (SPR) can determine concentrations of clonixeril (CXL) affected hSTING in the sub-femtomolar range as evidenced by Sparks (pg. 995, col 2, last full paragraph; pg. 999, col 1, last partial paragraph, lines 1-2; and Figure 5).
Guida meets all the limitations of the claims and, therefore, anticipates the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and
103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for
the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 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.
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 as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention 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.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guida et al. (hereinafter “Guida”) (US Patent Application Publication No. 20220267270, published August 25, 2022; also published as WO2021042024, published March 4, 2021; effective filing date August 30, 2019) in view of Aschman, Nicolas (hereinafter “Aschman”) (Thesis, University of Grenoble Alps, France, 2015, 1-175) as evidenced by Nanotemper (Nanotemper Technologies, Manual, 2013, 1-54); and Sparks et al. (hereinafter “Sparks”) (ACS Central Science, 2025, 11, 994-1008); and Choi et al. (hereinafter “Choi”) (Biosensors and Bioelectronics, 2011, 26, 3386-3390).
The teachings of Guida as applied to claims 1-22 are described supra.
Guida does not specifically exemplify a solution of HBS-P buffer (claims 3-5 and 11, in part).
Regarding claims 3-5 and 11 (all in part), Aschman teaches the discovery of a third class of cytosolic DNA sensors comprising cGAS (cyclic-di-GMP-AMP [cGAMP] synthetase) and IFI16 (IFN-inducible protein 16) (Wu et al., 2013; Sun et al., 2013; Unterholzner et al., 2010), wherein cGAS recognizes HIV-1-derived DNA intermediates of reverse transcription, which leads to production of cGAMP and activation of a endoplasmic reticulum-associated adaptor called STING (stimulator of IFN genes ; Gao et al., 2013) (pg. 29, first full paragraph, lines 1-7). Aschman teaches that activated STING recruits TANK-binding kinase 1 (TBK1), which in turn activates IRF-3 through phosphorylation, resulting in IFN- a/b production (Ishikawa and Barber, 2008), wherein IFI16 binds to single- and double-stranded HIV-derived DNA but not to DNA/RNA duplex intermediates, followed by activation of STING and TBK1/IRF-3-mediated IFN induction (Jakobsen et al., 2013), such that STING plays a central role in IFN stimulation in response to viral DNA, including direct binding to DNA and possibly, regulation of the RIG-I–MAVS pathway (Ishikawa et al., 2009; Abe et al., 2013). Aschman teaches fluorescent labeling of recombinant ILT7 and tetherin was necessary for microscale thermophoresis (MST), as well as, flow cytometry-based experiments, wherein succinimidyl esters of Alexa Fluor (Life Technologies) dyes were used to label primary amines on the target protein, such that the sample buffer was exchanged to labeling buffer (100mM NaHCO3, 100mM NaCl, pH 8.3) by size exclusion chromatography on a Superdex 75 column; and the reactive dye was dissolved in anhydrous dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO) to a concentration of 10 mg/mL and added to the protein sample at a 5-fold molar excess (pg. 64, first full paragraph, lines 1-8). Aschman teaches the use of surface plasmon resonance (SPR) using Biacore 3000 system and CM5 dextran-coated sensor chips (GE Healthcare), wherein the running buffer used in all experiments (HBS-PE) was composed of 10mM HEPES pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 3mM EDTA and 0.005% surfactant P20 (interpreted as HBS-P buffer, claims 3-5 and 11) (pg. 65, last partial paragraph, lines 1-6), wherein the detection of analytes on the zepto-molar (10-21) level has been achieved using a field effect bio-detector as evidenced by Choi (Abstract, lines 1-2). Aschman teaches that the interaction of ILT7(D1) with tetherin(47–159) was measured by microscale thermophoresis (MST) using a Monolith NT.115 instrument (NanoTemper) with blue and red detection channels, wherein MST is based on the Soret effect, which derives from the differential diffusion of different molecules in a mixture along a temperature gradient, wherein ILT7(D1) was fluorescently labeled with NT647 and its concentration adjusted to 200 nM, such that a two-fold serial dilution resulted in a final concentration of 100 nM; as well as, using tetherin concentrations of 1.53 to 50,000 nM (interpreted as MST; and < 200 nM; < 300 nM < 200 mM, < 1mM, claims 1, 4, 5, 13 and 14) (pg. 67, last full paragraph, lines 1-4; and last partial paragraph). Aschman teaches that reagents and kits include surfactant P-20 (pg. 76, Section 3.2). Aschman teaches additional buffers including buffer A (20 mM Tris, 100 mM NaCl, 10 mM imidazole, pH 7.5); buffer E (20mMTris, 100mM NaCl, pH 7.5); size exclusion chromatography using buffer F (20 mM HEPES, 100 mM NaCl, 5 mM EDTA, pH 7.5; extraction buffer (50 mM Tris, 50 mM EDTA, 10 mM DTT, 1% Triton X-100, pH 8); extracted protein was purified on a nickel affinity column equilibrated in buffer A (100 mM NaH2PO4, 10mM Tris, 8M urea, pH 8), such that after loading the denatured protein sample, the column was washed with buffers A and B (100mM NaH2PO4, 10mM Tris, 8M urea, pH 6.3); and bound protein was eluted with buffer C (100mM NaH2PO4, 10 mM Tris, 8M urea, pH 4.5); fluorescent sample labeling using buffer (100 mM NaHCO3, 100 mM NaCl, pH 8.3); and sample washing using buffer (25 mM sodium bicarbonate, pH 8) (pg. 59, second-fourth full paragraphs; pg. 60, last full paragraph; pg. 61, first full paragraph; pg. 64, first full paragraph; and last partial paragraph).
It is noted that MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) states that: “[G]enerally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).” In the instant case, the combined references of Guida and Aschman teach the same process steps, the use of the same analytical methods (e.g., MST and SPR) for affinity analysis, the same affinity analysis software for the detection of the same detectable label, and compounds comprising the same structure as taught in the instant claims and the instant as-filed Specification, such that the same compound concentrations can clearly be used and detected at the same concentrations as recited in the instant claims including < 1 nM, < 1 pM, < 1 fM, < 1 aM, and < 1 zM.
It is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; the court held that, "…a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. ___, ___, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950)”. Therefore, in view of the benefits of biochemical and biophysical characterization of labeled molecules as exemplified by Aschman, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method of analyzing the ability of compounds having the structure of Formula (II) to modulate stimulator of interferon genes (STING) using MST and SPR as disclosed by Guida to include the MST and SPR reagents and methods including HBS-PE for use as the running buffer as taught by Aschman with a reasonable expectation of success in detecting the binding affinity, or detecting changes in binding affinity, between 2’,3’-cGAMP treated STING and compounds having the structure of Formula (II); in using Biacore T200 or a Biacore 3000 system, which included a sensor chip such as a Ni-NTA chip for binding measurements; and/or in assessing the ability of STING agonists or STING antagonists to modulate STING, such that the compounds can be assessed as potential treatments for disorders such as cancer and autoimmune disease.
Thus, in view of the foregoing, the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Therefore, the claims are properly
rejected under 35 USC §103(a) as obvious over the art.
Conclusion
Claims 1-22 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY M BUNKER whose telephone number is (313) 446-4833. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (6am-2:30pm).
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, Heather Calamita can be reached on (571) 272-2876. 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.
/AMY M BUNKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1684
Prosecution Insights