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 .
Currently, claims 2-7 are pending and under consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to product of nature without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons set forth below.
35 U.S.C. § 101 requires that to be patent-eligible, an invention (1) must be directed to one of the four statutory categories, and (2) must not be wholly directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception. M.P.E.P. § 2106. Regarding judicial exceptions, “[p]henomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.” Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972); see also M.P.E.P. § 2106, part II.
The unpatentability of natural products was confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., , 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116, (2013).
Claims Analysis:
As set forth in MPEP 2106, the claims have been analyzed to determine whether they are directed to one of the four statutory categories (STEP 1). The claims were then analyzed to determine if they recite a judicial exception (JE) (STEP 2A, prong 1) [Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012), Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)]. The claims were then analyzed to determine whether they recite an element or step that integrates the JE into a practical application (STEP 2A, prong 2) [Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc., v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals, 887 F.3d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2018)]. In the absence of a step(s) or element(s) that integrate the JE into a practical application, the additional elements/steps have been considered to determine whether they add significantly more to the JE (STEP 2B) [Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012), Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)]. It was found that the present claims fail to meet the elements required for patent eligibility.
The claims are directed to nucleic acid sequence compositions and kits comprising them, and as such are directed to products. Accordingly, the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims are drawn to “agents” for measuring the expression level of a long non coding RNA (lncRNA) from the claims. These “agents” encompass nucleic acid sequences such as nucleic acid primers and nucleic acid probes which are fragments of the lncRNA. The lncRNA listed in the claims are naturally occurring sequences. As such the claims are directed to a product of nature which is a judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the nucleic acid molecules encompassed by the claims convey the same genetic information as their naturally occurring counterparts. The Supreme Court has made clear "separating [DNA] from surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention" Myriad, 133 S. Ct. at 2117. In Myriad v. Ambry CAFC 2014-1361,1366, December 17, 2014, the CAFC further (regarding a claim directed to a pair of primers) stated “In fact, the naturally occurring genetic sequences at issue here do not perform a significantly new function. Rather, the naturally occurring material is used to form the first step in a chain reaction—a function that is performed because the primer maintains the exact same nucleotide sequence as the relevant portion of the naturally occurring sequence. One of the primary functions of DNA’s structure in nature is that complementary nucleotide sequences bind to each other. It is this same function that is exploited here—the primer binds to its complementary nucleotide sequence. Thus, just as in nature, primers utilize the innate ability of DNA to bind to itself.”
With regard to claim 4, although the claim recites a “kit” comprising the composition of claim 2 this elements does not add meaningful limitations to the claims as they are merely nominal or token extra solution activity and are nothing more than an attempt to generally link the product of nature into a particular technological environment. Furthermore, these limitations do not change the structures of the encompassed natural products.
The detection agents encompassed by the claims include nucleic acid sequences such as probes and primers that hybridize to, as well as fragments of the naturally occurring lncRNA. None of these molecules or cells are patent eligible, whether isolated or not, pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics Inc., US (June 13, 2013). Accordingly, the claims are rejected as being directed to non patentable subject matter.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a natural correlation/law of nature and an abstract idea without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons set forth below.
35 U.S.C. § 101 requires that to be patent-eligible, an invention (1) must be directed to one of the four statutory categories, and (2) must not be wholly directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception. M.P.E.P. § 2106. Regarding judicial exceptions, “[p]henomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.” Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972); see also M.P.E.P. § 2106. The unpatentability of abstract ideas was confirmed by the U.S. Supreme court in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 601 (June 28, 2010) and Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014). See also Myriad v Ambry, CAFC 2014-1361, -1366, December 17, 2014. The unpatentability of laws of nature was confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71 (2012). “[L]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. Dia-mond v. Diehr, 450 U. S. 175, 185 (1981); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U. S. at 601 (2010).
Claims Analysis:
As set forth in MPEP 2106, the claims have been analyzed to determine whether they are directed to one of the four statutory categories (STEP 1).
The instant claims are directed to methods and therefore are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims are then analyzed to determine if they recite a judicial exception (JE) (STEP 2A, prong 1) [Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012), Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)].
The claimed invention recites a method of diagnosing atrial fibrillation by measuring the expression level of at least one of the four particular lncRNAs listed in the claims. This recitation is a natural correlation between the expression levels of the lncRNAs and atrial fibrillation. With regard to the natural correlation, as in Mayo, the relationship is itself a natural process that exists apart from any human action. The claimed invention also recites “diagnosing” and “comparing” steps/elements which is a recitation of an abstract idea because it encompasses conclusions and determinations which can occur entirely within the mind. It is therefore determined that the claims are directed to judicial exceptions.
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether they recite an element or step that integrates the JE into a practical application (STEP 2A, prong 2) [Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc., v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals, 887 F.3d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2018)].
The claims recite steps of measuring expression of the at least one of the lncRNA listed in the claims. However this does not integrate the JE into a practical application because it is a mere data gathering step to use the correlation and does not add a meaningful limitation to the method.
In the absence of steps or elements that integrate the JE into a practical application, the additional elements/steps are considered to determine whether they add significantly more to the JE either individually or as an ordered combination, to “’transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent eligible application” [Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012), Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)] (STEP 2B).
In the instant situation, the step of measuring expression levels are generally recited and do not provide any particular reagents that might be considered elements that transform the nature of the claims into a patent eligible application because no specific elements/steps are recited. This step is not only a mere data gathering step, but the general recitation of detection of known nucleic acids is well understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Applicant is reminded that in Mayo, the Court found that “[i]f a law of nature is not patentable, then neither is a process reciting a law of nature, unless that process has additional features that provide practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the law of nature itself." Further "conventional or obvious" "[pre]solution activity" is normally not sufficient to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law”. Flook, 437 U. S., at 590; see also Bilski, 561 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 14) (“[T]he prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by’ . . . adding ‘insignificant post-solution activity’” (quoting Diehr, supra, at 191–192)). The Court also summarized their holding by stating “[t]o put the matter more succinctly, the claims inform a relevant audience about certain laws of nature; any additional steps consist of well understood, routine, conventional activity already engaged in by the scientific community; and those steps, when viewed as a whole, add nothing significant beyond the sum of their parts taken separately.” Therefore these limitations/steps do not “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297).
When viewed as an ordered combination, the claimed limitations are directed to nothing more than the determination that a natural correlation/phenomena exists. Any additional element consists of using well understood, routine and conventional activity, and those steps, when viewed as a whole, add nothing significant beyond the sum of their parts taken separately.
Accordingly, it is determined that the instant claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fodor (Fodor et al; US Patent 6,582,908).
Fodor teaches arrays of all possible 10 mer nucleotide sequences (see claim 5). The claims are broadly drawn to composition comprising an “agent” for measuring expression levels of at least one of the lncRNAs listed in the claims. This recitation reads on oligonucleotides with no particular structure of base composition. As such, the array taught by Fodor is taken to anticipate the claims because it contains “agents” that can hybridize to the lncRNAs in the claims. The intended use of the claimed compositions and kits do not structurally distinguish the claims from the teachings of Fodor.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being by NEB catalog (1998/1999), pp. 121, 284.
The NEB catalog offered for sale a random primer mix of 6, 9, 12 and 24 mer primers. As the calculation below shows, about 3.2 x 108 molecules of every single 12-mer are present in each tube of 12 mer nucleotides. No calculation is provided for the 6 or 9 mers as they will necessarily contain more of every n-mer than that calculated for the 12 mer. With regard to the 24mers, about 9 molecules of every 24 mer are statistically expected to be present in each tube,
a. Molecular weight of 12-mer:
12 x 325 daltons/nucleotide = 3,900 daltons = 3,900 g/mol
b. Total number of possible 12-mers:
412 = 1.6 x 107 molecules
c. How many molecules of 12-mer in a vial sold by NEB:
1 A260 unit = 33 mg = 3.3 x 10-5 g
3.3 x 10-5 g / 3,900 g/mol = 8.4 x 10-9 mol
(8.4 x 10-9 mol) x (6.02 x 1023 molecules/mol) = 5 x 1015 molecules
d. How many molecules of each 12-mer in a single vial:
5 x1015 molecules / 1.6 x 107 molecules = 3.2 x 108 molecules of each 12-mer per vial
e. Molecular weight of 24-mer:
24 x 325 daltons/nucleotide = 7,800 daltons = 7,800 g/mol
f. Total number of possible 24-mers:
424 = 2.8 x 1014 molecules
g. How many molecules of 24-mer in a vial sold by NEB:
1 A260 unit = 33 mg = 3.3 x 10-5 g
3.3 x 10-5 g / 7,800 g/mol = 4.2 x 10-9 mol
(4.2 x 10-9 mol) x (6.02 x 1023 molecules/mol) = 2.5 x 1015 molecules
h. How many molecules of each 24-mer in a single vial:
2.5 x1015 molecules / 2.8 x 1014 molecules = 9 molecules/vial
The claims are broadly drawn to composition comprising an “agent” for measuring expression levels of at least one of the lncRNAs listed in the claims. This recitation reads on oligonucleotides with no particular structure of base composition. As such, the The NEB catalog vials will inherently and necessarily contain 6, 9, 12 and 24 nucleotides primers encompassed by the broadly claimed recitation in claims because it contains “agents” that can hybridize to the lncRNAs in the claims. The intended use of the claimed compositions and kits do not structurally distinguish the claims from the teachings of the prior art.
Claims 2-6 are are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ren (Ren et al; Stem cell Research & Therapy, vol 12, 2021, pages 1-20).
Ren teaches RNA-Seq (page 4, col 1) and real time PCR (page 4, col 2) for measuring expression levels of lncRNA in adipose derived stem cells, including LOC105377989 (see page 12, col 1; figure 7). Claims 2-4 are directed to compositions comprising an “agent” for measuring expression level of LOC105377989. This element is inherently taught by Ren as Ren teaches methods that inherently use nucleic acid molecule “agents” for measuring expression level of LOC105377989. The term “kit” does not structurally distinguish the claims from the teachings of Ren. Additionally, the only step required in claims 5 and 6 is directed to measuring expression level of, for example, LOC105377989. The use for the method does not distinguish the claims from the teachings of Ren.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner Jehanne Sitton whose telephone number is (571) 272-0752. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays from 8:00 AM to 2:00 PM Eastern Time Zone.
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, Winston Shen, can be reached at (571) 272-3157. 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.
/JEHANNE S SITTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1682
Prosecution Insights