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 .
New claims 8-9 have been added.
Claims 1-9 are pending in this application and are examined on the merits in this office action.
Priority
4. Applicant claims foreign priority to KR 10-2021-0188873 (12/27/2021). The certified copy has been received by the Office. However, a certified English translation has not been provided. Therefore, the foreign priority date has not been perfected. Thus, the effective priority date of instant application is Dec. 28, 2021 until the foreign priority date is perfected.
Objections
5. The abstract is objected to for the following minor informality:
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
In the instant case, the abstract recites, “The present application relates to a peptide having…and provides a peptide consisting of the...” at lines 1-3 of the abstract. Applicant should correct these informalities. See MPEP 608.01(b). For example, the abstract is suggested to be amended to recite, “Peptide having the activity of improving…is described.”
Please note, the specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible error. Applicant's cooperation is required in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01.
6. Claim 3 is objected to for the following: Claim 3 recites, “…an amino group (-NH2)”, “…and azide (-NHNH2).” The “2” should be subscripted, i.e., “(-NH2)” and “(-NHNH2)”.
Rejections
35 U.S.C. 101
7. 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.
8. Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to natural phenomenon without significantly more. Claim(s) 1 and 4 recite(s) a naturally occurring peptide/protein fragment, which is not markedly different from its naturally occurring counterpart because it conveys the same amino acid sequences at the residues 2-6 for instant SEQ ID NO: 1 or residues 19-23 for instant SEQ ID NO: 1 of the naturally occurring protein, as evidenced by UniProt A0A3M2W937 (for instant SEQ ID NO: 1) and UniProt A0A0G4DIA9 (for instant SEQ ID NO: 1), respectively. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the following reasons. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the peptide being claimed is naturally occurring. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because for the following reasons.
The rationale for this determination is explained below and is based on the analysis presented in the USPTO’s “2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance” as set forth on December 16, 2014, Revised Guidance set forth on May 2016, and 2019 Revised patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance set forth on January 7, 2019. See MPEP 2106.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? The instant claims are directed to a statutory patent-eligible subject matter category, a composition of matter.
Step 2a Prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (Product of nature), or an abstract idea? The claims are directed to a natural phenomenon, specifically a natural-based product limitation.
Step 2a Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the peptide being claimed is naturally occurring.
As evidenced by UniProt A0A3M2W937 (see residues 2-6) and UniProt A0A0G4DIA9 (see residues 19-23), instant SEQ ID NO: 1 is a fragment of a naturally occurring protein isolated from Parantechinus apicalis and Pseudomonas syringae pv. maculicola, respectively.
Step 2b: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? The claims, as a whole, do not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the claims do not include any elements in addition to the natural product.
In sum, when the relevant steps are analyzed, they weigh against a significant difference. Accordingly, claims 1 and 4 do not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Please see MPEP 2106.04(c).
CLOSEST ART OF INTEREST
9. A peptide consisting of the peptide sequence DGFND (SEQ ID NO: 1) is free of prior art. The closest art is Case et al (US Patent No. 9708375). Case et al teach a 40mer protein sequence (see SEQ ID NO: 460, residues 22-26) that comprises instant SEQ ID NO: 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
908
864
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Case et al do not teach nor motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to truncate the N-terminal and C-terminal ends of the protein to arrive at instant SEQ ID NO: 1 (i.e., DGFND).
CONCLUSION
Claims 2-3 and 5-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIE HA whose telephone number is (571)272-5982. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:00 am- 6:30 pm EST.
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, LIANKO GARYU can be reached at 571-270-7367. 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.
/JULIE HA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1654
7/13/2026
Prosecution Insights