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 1-10 are pending and are the subject of this Office Action.
2. Claim Objections
A. Claim 1 is objected to since “process and product related” should recite “product- and process-related”.
B. Claim 10 is objected to since it should recite “10-fold” instead of “10-folds”.
3. 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 4 and 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.
Claim 4 fails to limit claim 1 since the conductivity of claim 1 must be less than 10 mS/cm, whereas that of claim 4 is “about 26 mS/cm”.
Claim 5 fails to limit claim 1 unless “between…and 10 mS/cm” does not include 10.
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.
4. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Oppenheim et al. (WO 2020/252072 – cited on the IDS filed 4/24/24) in view of Lee et al.
The claims are essentially drawn to reducing the level of impurities in an a4b7 antibody composition.
Oppenheim teaches contacting a solution comprising a4b7 antibodies, along with impurities, by using cation exchange chromatography (CEX; page 6, lines 7-9). The matrix is then washed with a wash solution and the a4b7 antibodies are eluted with a solution having a conductivity below 14 mS/cm (page 6, lines 28-29) and a pH of about 5-6 (page 7, lines 1-2). See also claims 38, 40, 44.
Oppenheim does not teach a gradient elution as required by claim 1(c). However, Lee does teach using dual-gradient elution in exchange chromatography (Abstract) in which the salt concentrations are used for improve yield of target protein.
Regarding claim 2, Oppenheim teaches the HIC resin is equilibrated with a phosphate buffer (e.g. page 3, line 28).
Regarding claims 3, Oppenheim does not teach either the gradient, though phosphate is taught as discussed above for claim 2. Tables 5 and 9 also teach various NaCl concentrations. Where 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, 454, 105 USPQ 223,235, (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art." In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980). See also Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 809, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1847-48 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (determination of suitable dosage amounts in diuretic compositions considered a matter of routine experimentation and, therefore, obvious) and E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V., 904 F.3d 996, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Table 4 (last line) teaches a conductivity of up to 28.9 mS/cm. In addition, Figures 6-9 provide experimental data using varying pH and conductivity. See In re Aller; In re Boesch; Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs. Inc.; E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V. discussed above.
Regarding claim 6, see claim 70 and Example 4.
Regarding claim 7, see Table 2.
Regarding claim 8, see Example 2, including page 44, lines 17-22.
See also Table 2 regarding phosphate, pH and HMW%. See also page 52, lines 8-34.
Regarding claim 9, page 44, lines 18-19 teaches a 76.7% reduction in HMW aggregates (1.15% reduction / 1.5% total before elution). However, it is not inventive to alter the CEX conditions to maximize purification of the target protein (In re Aller; In re Boesch; Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs. Inc.; E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V.).
Regarding claim 10, this is similarly not inventive (In re Aller; In re Boesch; Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs. Inc.; E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V.).
5. Nonstatutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
No rejection is currently being made over either 18/687,882 (US 20224/0400610) or 18/291,909 (US 2024/0376209) since, even though cation exchange, anion exchange and affinity chromatography can all be used in combination to purify antibody (Kim et al. (US 2004/0208876)), the Examiner cannot make a prima facie case based on these copending applications to solely use cation exchange.
6. Conclusion
No claim is 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
Prosecution Insights