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 .
The Examiner of your application has changed. Please address future correspondence to Amy M. Bunker, AU1684.
DETAILED ACTION
Pursuant to a preliminary amendment filed June 18, 2026, claims 12, 13, 15-17 and 21-32 are currently pending in the instant application.
Response to Election/Restriction
Applicant's election of without traverse of Group II, claims 12-17 directed to a method for selecting a substance of interest capable of binding to a target substance; and Applicant’s election of Species as follows:
Species (A): wherein the compound having a photocleavable moiety is a nitroveratryloxycarbonyl residue, specifically, G3-NVOC3-biotin:
PNG
media_image1.png
186
852
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
62
76
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the linked structure is KRAS-NVOC3; disclosed as: MTEYKLVVVGAGGVGKSALTIQLIQNHF-VDEYDPTIEDSYRKQVVIDGETCLLDILDTAGQEEYSAMRDQYMRTGEGFLCVFAINNTKSFEDIHHYEQIKRVKDSEDVP MVLV GNKCDLPSRTVDTKQAQDLARSYGIPFIETSAKTRQGVDDAFYTLVREIRKHK-EKMSKDGGSSDYKDDDDKGGSSLPMT[G3-NVOC3-biotin] (pg. 55, Table 6); and
Species (B): wherein the target substance is KRAS, in the reply filed June 18, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 32 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected species of compound, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
The claims will be examined insofar as they read on the elected species.
Therefore, claims 12, 13, 15-17 and 21-31 are under consideration to which the following grounds of rejection are applicable.
Priority
The present application filed March 26, 2024 is a 35 U.S.C. 371 national stage filing of International Application PCT/JP2022/036570, filed September 29, 2022, which claims the benefit of Japanese Patent Application JP2021-161962, filed September 30, 2021.
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on September 29, 2022. Although Applicant has filed a certified copy of PCT/JP2022/036570, Applicant has not filed a certified copy of Japanese Patent Application JP2021-161962, filed September 30, 2021 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign applications must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on January 28, 2025 and June 18, 2026 have been considered. Initialed copies of the IDSs accompany this Office Action.
Claim Objections/Rejections
Claim Interpretation: the term “library of object substances” recited in claim 12 is interpreted to refer to any object substances (e.g., molecules, compounds, pharmaceuticals, mammals, organic and/or inorganic substances, etc.).
The term “substance of interest” recited in claim 12 is interpreted to refer to any substance.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 13 and 29 recite terms such as “nm”, 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 12, 13, 15-17 and 21-31 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 12 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “[A] method for selecting…to obtain the substance of interest” such as recited in claim 12, lines 1-6 because it is completely unclear what process is carried out, what reactants are used, and/or what substance is ultimately obtained. For example, it is unclear what happens during irradiation, including: whether no reaction takes place, whether the photocleavable moiety is cleaved, whether the conjugate binds the compound or binds to the target substance, whether some object substances react with the compound, whether the target is released from the compound, and/or whether something else occurs during the elution step. Moreover, although the claim is directed to selecting a substance of interest, the claim ends with obtaining a substance of interest and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 12 is indefinite for the recitation of the terms “a contacting step” and “an elution step” such as recited in claim 12, lines 3 and 6 because claim 12 does not recite active steps, such that it is unclear whether the limitations represent suggestions, reactions, and/or something else, such that it is unclear what the method of selecting a substance comprises. The Examiner suggests that Applicant amend the claim to recite active steps such as, for example, “contacting a library of substances with a conjugate molecule” and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 12 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “an elution step of irradiating with light to obtain the substance of interest” such as recited in clam 12, line 6 because the step of “elution” is completely unclear. It is unclear how irradiation with light “elutes” a substance of interest; and it is unclear whether the term “elution” refers to purification step (e.g., on a column, through a membrane or gel, photochemical purification, etc.) and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 13 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “the wavelength” such as recited in claim 13, line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the wavelength” in the claim.
Claim 13 is indefinite because a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad limitation of “300 nm or more,” while also reciting “500 nm or less,” which is a narrow range or limitation. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear.
Claim 15 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “the irradiation” such as recited in claim 15, line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the irradiation” in the claim.
Claim 15 is indefinite because a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad limitation of “0.5 minutes or more,” while also reciting “60 minutes or less,” which is a narrow range or limitation. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear.
Claim 16 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “the object substance” such as recited in claim 16, line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the object substance” in the claim because claim 1, line 3 recites the term “a library of object substances.” The Examiner suggests that Applicant amend the claim to recite, for example, “wherein each object substance of the library of object substances is a peptide compound linked to a nucleic acid.”
Claim 21 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “the library” such as recited in claim 21, line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the library” in the claim because claim 1, line 3 recites the term “a library of object substances.” Moreover, it is unclear if the “library” recited in claim 21 is the same as (or different from) the “library of object substances,” because claim 12 does not recite a tagged library and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claims 22-24 are indefinite for the recitation of the term “enzymatic reaction” such as recited in claim 22, line 2 because claims 22-24 ultimately depend from instant claim 12, wherein claims 12 and 22 do not recite a linking step, the presence of an enzyme and/or an enzymatic reaction and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 24 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “heat elution” such as recited in claim 24, line 1 because claim 24 depends from instant claim 12, wherein claim 12 does not recite any reaction conditions, such as the use of heat, heat elution (or an enzymatic reaction), such that claim 24 is excluding a reaction condition that is not recited in claim 12 and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 25 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “a compound having a photocleavable moiety” such as recited in claim 25, lines 1-2 because claim 1, lines 4-5 recite that the compound already comprises a “photocleavable moiety and a target substance linked to the compound,” such that the compound in dependent claim 25 cannot comprise something different as compared to the compound recited in independent claim 12 and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claims 25 and 28 are indefinite for the recitation of the term “at least one selected from the group consisting of” such as recited in claim 25, line 3 because an identifier term is missing, such that it is completely unclear what is “selected from the group” (e.g., an enzyme selected from the group consisting of…, an analyte selected from the group consisting of…), which is not present in the instant claims and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 27 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “the compound has a plurality of photo-cleavable moieties” such as recited in claim 27, lines 1-2 because claim 27 depends from instant claims 12 and 25, wherein claims 12 and 25 recite that the compound comprises “a photocleavable moiety” (e.g., a single photocleavable moiety). No plurality of photocleavable moieties is recited in instant claim 12 and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 29 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “the absorption wavelength” such as recited in claim 29, line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the absorption wavelength” in the claim. Moreover, claim 29 depends from claims 12 and 25, wherein claims 12 and 25 do not recite a cleavage reaction and/or an absorption wavelength and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 31 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “the following formula (I)” such as recited in claim 31, line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the following formula (I)” in the claim.
Claim 31 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “* represents an attachment” such as recited in claim 31, line 13 because claim 31, lines 7, 8 and 12 recite -O-L11-L12-* indicate two (2) attachment sites (e.g., -O and L12-*), such that it is unclear which portion of R1 and R2 attach to the phenyl group and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 31 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “and combinations thereof” such as recited in claim 31, line 11 because it is unclear what linkers (L12) are encompassed by the combinations of C1-10 alkylene group, amide bonds, and ether bonds and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 31 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “one of R1 and R2 is -O-L11-L12-*” such as recited in claim 31, line 12 because it is unclear what the term “one of R1 and R2 is -O-L11-L12-*”. Instant claim 31, lines 7 and 8 already appears to recite that each of R1 and R2 are -O-L11-L12-*. It is unclear whether the term means that one of R1 or R2 is -O-L11-L12-* and one of R1 or R2 is nothing; or whether the term refers to something else and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claims 17, 26 and 30 are indefinite insofar as they ultimately depend from instant claim 12.
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 21-25, 27 and 29 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 21 recites (in part): “wherein the library is a library tagged by a nucleic acid” in lines 1-2 because claim 21 depends from instant claim 12, wherein claim 12 do not recite the a tagged library. Thus, claim 21 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.
Claims 22-24 recite (in part): “enzymatic reaction” in lines 1-2 because claims 22-24 depend from instant claim 12, wherein claim 12 does not recite the presence of an enzyme and/or an enzymatic reaction (or, heat elution). Thus, claims 22-24 are 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 25 recites (in part): “wherein the compound is a compound having: a photocleavable moiety…target binding site and an anchor binding site” in lines 1-4 because claim 25 depends from instant claim 12, wherein claim 12 already recites that the compound comprises a photocleavable moiety and target substance linked to the compound”. Additionally, claim 12 does not recite a target substance binding site or anchor binding site. Thus, claim 25 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 27 recites (in part): “wherein the compound has a plurality of photocleavable moieties” in lines 1-2 because claim 27 depends from instant claims 12 and 25, wherein claims 12 and 25 already recite that the compound comprises a photocleavable moiety and target substance linked to the compound”. Claims 12 and 25 do not recite that there are a plurality of photocleavable moieties. Thus, claim 27 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 29 recites (in part): “wherein the absorption wavelength at which the photocleavable moiety undergoes cleavage” in lines 1-2 because claim 29 depends from instant claims 12 and 25, wherein claims 12 and 25 do not recite a photocleavage reaction. Thus, claim 29 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 12, 13, 15-17, 21, 24, 25, 27 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1)/102(a2) as being anticipated by Middel et al. (hereinafter “Middel”) (ChemBioChem Communications, 2017, 18, 2328-2332).
Regarding claims 12, 16, 17, 21, 24 and 25, Middel teaches that the peptide nucleic acid (PNA) (conjugate) and peptide oligomers (object substances) are joined by a photocleavable linker (PCL) to provide hybrid oligomers, such as 1 and 2 (Scheme 1) (comprising a photocleavable moiety), such that hybrids with complementary PNA sequences assemble due to PNA base pairing bringing the ligation sites of peptides 1 and 2 in proximity, thereby facilitating the ligation reaction, wherein for covalent linkage of the peptide fragments, a native chemical ligation (NCL) approach is used to create a native amide bond; and finally the PNA recognition units can be cleaved through irradiation of ligation product 3 to yield peptide 4 (interpreted as substance of interest; elute by irradiating; object substance is a peptide linked to a nucleic acid = tagged by a nucleic acid; no enzyme used in elution step; substance of interest is a peptide; and comprises a target binding site, claims 12, 16, 17, 21, 24 and 25) (pg. 2328, col 2, first full paragraph; and pg. 2329, col 1, Scheme 1). Middel teaches that the design of the PCL was derived from 1-(2-nitrophenyl)-propargyl alcohol, which was used as a photolytically cleavable linker of two peptide fragments, wherein nitrobenzene derivatives are appropriate linkers based on their photochemical properties and use as peptide caging groups (interpreted as a nitrobenzyl cleavable linker, claims 1, 30 and 31) (pg. 2328, col 2, second full paragraph, lines 1-5). Scheme 1 is shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
350
466
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
168
384
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
216
392
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 13 and 15, Middel teaches that photocleavage of ligated hybrid 18 was performed at l = 347 nm, 400 W (Figure 2), such that after 45 min of irradiation, 91% of the oligomer was converted to provide 68% of ligated peptide 19, templating oligomers 20 and 21, and only minor amounts of by-product, as indicated by ESI-MS analysis of the crude reaction mixture (Figure 2) (interpreted as irradiating at a wavelength of 300 nm or more; and for 60 minutes or less, claims 13 and 15) (pg. 2331, col 1, first partial paragraph; and Figure 2). Figure 2A is shown below:
PNG
media_image6.png
456
514
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 27, Middel teaches that with respect to Figure 2, the caging group was cleaved at two different positions (interpreted as having a plurality of photocleavable moieties, claim 27) (pg. 2331, col 1, first partial paragraph; and Figure 2).
Regarding claim 29, Middel teaches that the design of the PCL was derived from 1-(2-nitrophenyl)-propargyl alcohol, which was used as a photolytically cleavable linker of two peptide fragments, wherein nitrobenzene derivatives are appropriate linkers based on their photochemical properties and use as peptide caging groups, such that in order to avoid interference of deprotection with the nucleobase absorption, the wavelength for uncaging was shifted to l = 347 nm by applying the 3,4-methoxy nitrobenzene derivative (interpreted as absorption in the range or 300 nm or more; and 500 nm or less, claim 29) (pg. 2328, col 2, first full paragraph, lines 1-8).
Regarding claims 30 and 31, Middel teaches that the design of the PCL was derived from 1-(2-nitrophenyl)-propargyl alcohol, which was used as a photolytically cleavable linker of two peptide fragments, wherein nitrobenzene derivatives are appropriate linkers based on their photochemical properties and use as peptide caging groups (interpreted as a nitrobenzyl cleavable linker, claims 1, 30 and 31) (pg. 2328, col 2, second full paragraph, lines 1-5), such that the structure of 1-(2-nitrophenyl)-propargyl alcohol, wherein X is O; Z is C1 alkyl group; R1 is C1 alkoxy; and R2 is C1 alkoxy is shown below:
PNG
media_image7.png
440
440
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Middel teaches that the photocleavable moiety connected to a peptide as shown in scheme 3 (in part) has the structure:
PNG
media_image8.png
148
146
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein X is O; Z is C1 alkyl group; R1 is C1 alkoxy; and R2 is C1 alkoxy (interpreted as a nitroveratryloxycarbonyl residue including the structure of formula (I), claims 30 and 31) (pg. 2329, col 2, Scheme 3).
Middle does not specifically exemplify that the compound and target are lined by an enzymatic reaction (claim 22); including a sortase (claim 23); an enzyme recognition site (claim 26); or recognized by ligases and proteases (claim 28).Middel 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 12, 13, 15-17 and 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Middel et al. (hereinafter “Middel”) (ChemBioChem Communications, 2017, 18, 2328-2332) in view of Ploegh et. al. (hereinafter “Ploegh”) (US Patent No. 8940501, issued January 27, 2015).
The teachings of Middel as applied to claims 12, 13, 15-17, 21, 24, 25, 27 and 29-31 are described supra.
Middle does not specifically exemplify that the compound and target are lined by an enzymatic reaction (claim 22); including a sortase (claim 23); an enzyme recognition site (claim 26); or recognized by ligases and proteases (claim 28).
Regarding claims 22, 23, 26 and 28, Ploegh teaches methods for ligation, wherein the invention provides novel reagents and methods for ligating an acyl donor compound with an acyl acceptor compound (Abstract). Ploegh teaches that an amino acid side chain can be modified using a photocleavable moiety such as o-nitrobenzyl or dimethoxynitrobenzyl or derivatives thereof, wherein a photocleavable moiety is removed by exposing the protein or peptide to light (col 22, lines 1-3 and 19-20). Ploegh teaches methods for the site-specific modification of proteins remain in high demand, and the transpeptidation reaction catalyzed by sortases has emerged as a general method for derivatizing proteins with various types of modifications, such that when incubated with synthetic peptides containing one or more N-terminal glycine residues and a recombinant sortase, these artificial sortase substrates undergo a transacylation reaction resulting in the exchange of residues C-terminal to the threonine residue with the synthetic oligoglycine peptide (interpreted as enzymatic reactions; and sortase, claims 22 and 23 (col 2, lines 6-17). Ploegh teaches methods related to use of multiple sortases, recognizing different motifs, for multiple labeling of polypeptides and other applications (interpreted as sortase, claim 23) (col 5, lines 4-7). Ploegh teaches in Figure 33 that C-terminal and N-terminal labelling is conducted using multiple sortases (col 9, lines 8-9; and Figure 33). Ploegh teaches that any of numerous chemical modifications can be carried out by known techniques, including but not limited to specific chemical cleavage by cyanogen bromide, trypsin, chymotrypsin, papain, VS protease, NaBH4; acetylation, formylation, oxidation, reduction; metabolic synthesis in the presence of tunicamycin; and the like, wherein the N-terminal and/or C-terminal ends can be processed (e.g., the N-terminal methionine may not be present due to prokaryotic expression of the protein or peptide) and chemical moieties can be attached to the amino acid backbone, such that proteins and peptides sometimes are modified with a detectable label, such as an enzymatic, fluorescent, isotopic or affinity label to allow for detection and isolation of the polypeptide (interpreted as protease, claim 28) (col 45, lines 19-32). Ploegh teaches that an acyl donor or acyl acceptor comprises a cleavable moiety, e.g., A1 or B1 comprises a cleavable moiety, wherein the acyl donor or acyl acceptor comprises a cleavage site for a protease (e.g., a polypeptide sequence that is recognized by a protease and cleaved) (interpreted as a protease, claim 28) (col 50, lines 53-58).
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 using enzymatic reactions to bind peptides through a cleavable linker and/or in using enzymes to label peptides as exemplified by Ploegh, 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 ligating peptide nucleic acids and peptide oligomers through a photocleavable linker such as a nitrophenyl moiety as disclosed by Middel to include the use of sortases, ligases, and/or proteases as disclosed by Ploegh with a reasonable expectation of success in linking peptides, peptide fragments and/or PNAs to each other including through a cleavable linker; and/or in linking peptides, peptide fragments and/or PNAs to a non-polypeptide polymer, a recognition element, a small molecule, a lipid or a label.
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 12, 13, 15-17 and 21-31 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