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
Priority
The present application is a continuation of PCT application No. PCT/CN2022/126859, filed on October 22, 2022, which claims the priority and benefit to Chinese patent application No. 202111232491.9, filed on October 22, 2021. The entireties of PCT application No. PCT/CN2022/126859 and Chinese patent application No. 202111232491.9 that is hereby acknowledged by the Examiner.
Status of the Claims
The amendment dated 04/16/2024 is acknowledged. Claims 1-7 are pending and under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/16/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawing filed on 04/16/2024 are acknowledged and accepted by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to for the following informalities:
Claim 1 and 2 recite polypeptides with no sequence identifier, for example, “S-NTD: 21RTQLPPAYTNSFTRG35”. The claims are required to include a sequence identification number (SEQ ID NO.) for each polypeptide. MPEP 1.821 states “(d) Where the description or claims of a patent application discuss a sequence that is set forth in the "Sequence Listing" in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, reference must be made to the sequence by use of the sequence identifier, preceded by "SEQ ID NO:" in the text of the description or claims, even if the sequence is also embedded in the text of the description or claims of the patent application”. Appropriate corrections are required. Additionally, the recitations, for example, “S-NTD”, “S-RBD”, “S-CTD1”, “S-CTD2” and “S-HR2” should be written out in the claim prior to reciting said acronyms.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 / § 112
1. 35 U.S.C. 101 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 therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the use, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The claims are directed to Use of the core amino acid sequence group capable of target recognizing anti-novel coronavirus neutralizing antibodies N-IgY-pAbs according to claim 1 in a detection of novel coronavirus.
4. Use of the core amino acid sequence group capable of target recognizing anti-novel coronavirus neutralizing antibodies N-IgY-pAbs according to claim 1 in a detection of novel coronavirus.
5. The use of the core amino acid sequence group capable of target recognizing anti-novel coronavirus neutralizing antibodies N-IgY-pAbs according to claim 4, wherein the detection comprises enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) detection, chemiluminescence immunoassay detection and immunofluorescence method detection.
6. Use of the core amino acid sequence group capable of target recognizing anti-novel coronavirus neutralizing antibodies N-IgY-pAbs according to claim 1 in designing a therapeutic target for novel coronavirus.
7. The use of the core amino acid sequence group capable of target recognizing anti-novel coronavirus neutralizing antibodies N-IgY-pAbs according to claim 6, wherein the therapeutic target comprises a target of therapeutic antibody and a target of non-antibody therapeutic drug.
Section 2173.05(q) of the MPEP states “Other decisions suggest that a more appropriate basis for this type of rejection is 35 U.S.C. 101. In Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd. App. 1967), the Board held the following claim to be an improper definition of a process: "The use of a high carbon austenitic iron alloy having a proportion of free carbon as a vehicle brake part subject to stress by sliding friction." In Clinical Products Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966), the district court held the following claim was definite, but that it was not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101: "The use of a sustained release therapeutic agent in the body of ephedrine absorbed upon polystyrene sulfonic acid."; and “Although a claim should be interpreted in light of the specification disclosure, it is generally considered improper to read limitations contained in the specification into the claims. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) and In re Winkhaus, 527 F.2d 637, 188 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1975), which discuss the premise that one cannot rely on the specification to impart limitations to the claim that are not recited in the claim”.
2. 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.
Claims 4-7 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.
Claims 4-7 provide for the “use of the core amino acid sequence group”, but, since the claims do not set forth any steps involved in the method/process, it is unclear what method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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)(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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu et al. “Yu” (CN 112034174, 12/04/2020, IDS of record dated 04/16/2024).
The claims are directed to
PNG
media_image1.png
697
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1-3, Yu discloses using proteomics and system biology strategies to extract all coded protein sequences of SARS-CoV -2 from NCBI data, and design and prepare a SARS-CoV -2 virus proteome polypeptide chip, the polypeptide chip comprising a substrate and npolypeptides distributed on the substrate in an array, each polypeptide sequence having 10-20 amino acids, and the group made up of the sequences of the first polypeptide to the nth polypeptide covering at least 95% of the protein sequences of the virus, adjacent polypeptides having an overlap of 3-8 amino acids, and n being 810-1370. The sequences of the polypeptides are as shown in table 2, and table 2 discloses 968 polypeptide sequences. The polypeptide sequences numbered 829, 841, 853, 856, 868, 873, 883, 884, 885, 893, 901, 908, 909, 943, 947, 179, 684, 956, 957, and 968 are each completely consistent with claim 1. Moreover, D 1 discloses that sequences 179 and 684 are located at ORF1ab, sequence 956 is located at ORF10, sequences 957 and 968 are located at ORF7, and the remaining sequences are located in the S region. Further disclosed are a use of the chip in the detection of novel corona virus SARS-Co V-2 and in detection methods for same, and a use of the polypeptide chip in screening and/or identifying antibody marker molecules for 2019 novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 detection. (See claims 1-10, description, paragraphs [0007]-[0020], and table 2).
Therefore, the cited prior art anticipates the claimed invention.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Barry Chestnut whose telephone number is (571)270-3546. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 8:00 to 4:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Visone can be reached on 571-270-0684. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BARRY A CHESTNUT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1672
Prosecution Insights