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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed December 15, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 6, 13, 19-20, 29-31 have been amended, claims 4, 7-11, 15, 18, 21, 23, 26, and 32-33 are cancelled, and claim 34 has been added. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objections, the 112(b) and 112(d) rejections, the 102 rejections over Puma and 103 rejections over Puma, Capaldi, Gjerde, and Swayze previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed September 16, 2025. Applicants terminal disclaimer filed December 15, 2025 over US patent -No. 10,947,262 (IDS filed on November 26, 2024) has been approved. Applicants arguments pertaining to the statutory double patenting rejections are found to be persuasive. As such, these rejections/objections are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed December 15, 2025 were fully considered but they were not persuasive. Modified/New rejections necessitated by Applicant’s amendment and response to arguments are addressed below.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 12-14, 16-17, 19-20, 22, 24-25, and 27-31 are pending in this application.
Priority
This application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No.: 17/199,921, filed March 12, 2021, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No.: 16/309,622, filed December 13, 2018, which is a 371 U.S. National Phase of International Application PCT/US2017/037126, filed June 13, 2017, which claims the benefit of the filing date under 35 U.S.C. §119(e), of U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/349,970, filed on June 14, 2016, and U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/492,402, filed on May 1, 2017.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner notes that the target oligonucleotide with sequence SEQ ID NO: 2 contains a 2'-O-methoxyethylribose modified sugar moiety (optionally substituted) as described on page 10 of instant specifications (paras. 1-2). Thus a method for separating SEQ ID NO: 2 meets the limitations of instant claims 19-20 and 25.
Modified/New 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 12, 14, 16-17, 22, 24, 27-31, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puma (WO 96/01268, IDS filed on November 26, 2024) in view of Templeton (US 2009/0275122, IDS filed on November 26, 2024) as evidenced by Capaldi et al (Organic Process Research & Development, 2003, IDS filed on November 26, 2024).
Regarding claims 1-2, 14, 24, and 34: Puma teaches a method for separating oligonucleotide phosphorothioates (thiolated oligonucleotide) from a mixture containing the target oligonucleotide and a product-related impurity (abstract, pg. 7, lines 218-29, separation of oligos not having DMT protecting groups). The method comprising the steps of: a) adding salt to the mixture (pg. 9, lines 5-7, salts such as sodium chloride must be added to the load and to the equilibration and wash buffers); b) loading column with optimum column loads ranging up to about 200 OD units/mL resin (pg. 9, lines 25-27) c) washing the hydrophobic adsorbent with an aqueous salt solution (pg. 9, lines 5-7, salts such as sodium chloride must be added to the load and to the equilibration and wash buffers, pg. 11, lines 8-10, column was washed with appropriate equilibration buffer after application of sample); d) eluting the target oligonucleotide with a eluting solution (pg. 8, lines 25-27, elution is most effectively accomplished with water); and e) collecting the eluent comprising the target oligonucleotide; wherein the product-related impurity includes at least one n-1 impurity, thereby separating the target oligonucleotide from the product-related impurity (pg. 11, lines 14-17, pg. 12, Table 1). Puma teaches a method wherein the salt is ammonium acetate in a phenyl Sepharose matrix (pg. 15, lines 8-15, the column was equilibrated and washed with ammonium acetate). Puma teaches column loads can go as high as 650 OD units/mL packing (i.e. capacity, pg. 8, line 31). Puma teaches an example wherein the column load is 385 OD units/mL (pg. 16, Table 5). Given a loading amount of 385 OD units/mL and a maximum load of 650 OD units/mL equates to approximately 59% of loading capacity. Puma explicitly states that the phenyl-sepharose columns results in effective separation of oligonucleotide phosphorothioates from phosphodiesters in high yields (pgs. 7-8, bridging para.). Puma also states that oligonucleotides can also be separated by length (i.e. encompassing n-1 impurities, pg. 8, lines 7-11). Puma teaches that the samples to be purified via hydrophobic chromatography possess PO and n-1 impurities (pg. 13, table 3). Puma teaches that following purification with ammonium acetate, the final product purity of the isolated product is improved (pg. 14, table 4).
Puma does not teach wherein the salt is ammonium sulfate.
However, Templeton teaches it is known in the art to equilibrate the column in hydrophobic interaction chromatography with buffers containing ammonium sulfate salt, including with a phenyl sepharose hydrophobic interaction matrices for the purification of nucleic acids (pg. 14, paras. 0137-0138). Whereas Puma teaches ammonium acetate salt in the equilibration buffer and Templeton teaches ammonium sulfate salt in the equilibration buffer both for phenyl Sepharose hydrophobic interaction chromatography in the context of oligonucleotide purification, it is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose (See MPEP 2144.06). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the purification method taught by Puma by replacing the ammonium acetate salt with ammonium sulfate as taught by Templeton.
Regarding claim 5: As discussed above, Puma teaches elution is most effectively accomplished with water (pg. 8, lines 25-27).
Regarding claim 6: Puma teaches the following calculation:
PNG
media_image1.png
106
703
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(pg. 14, lines 25-27). Puma teaches a method wherein product in the elution collection does not include 1-25% of total product in all fractions (pg. 16, table 5, entry 1, Elution: 75.4%, Total: 78.1%). This implies elution of the product is delayed such that percentages of the product peaks can be separated.
Regarding claim 12: Puma teaches a method wherein the hydrophobic adsorbent comprises phenyl (phenyl sepharose, pg. 19, lines 6). Puma teaches a method wherein the hydrophobic adsorbent is packed at a bed height of approximately 12 cm (pg. 19, lines 1-7, 2.2 cm diameter column wherein phenyl sepharose was packed at height:diameter ratio of 5.4:1). Puma does not explicitly teach a method wherein the hydrophobic adsorbent is packed at a bed height of at least 15 cm. However, Puma teaches column geometry has a significant effect on the requirements for equilibration buffer salt conditions -- taller columns (larger height:diameter ratio) require higher salt as compared to shorter columns (lower height:diameter ratio) (pg. 9, lines 29-31). While taller columns can be used, shorter columns work very well and are preferred for large-scale work (pg. 8, lines 29-30). 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 (See MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 16: Puma teaches the method can separate oligonucleotides with a length from about 10 to about 35 nucleotides (pg. 8, lines 7-11).
Regarding claims 17, 19, 22, and 24: Puma teaches a method wherein the target oligonucleotide comprises nucleobases selected from adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine (GEM 91, pg. 10, lines 20-26). GEM 91 comprises sugars that are optionally (not) substituted, meeting the limitations of claim 19. GEM 91 (DNA). comprises deoxyribonucleosides (DNA) and phosphonothioate linkages, meeting the limitations of claims 22 and 24 (GEM 91, pg. 10, lines 20-26, pg. 23, lines 4-10).
Regarding claims 27-28: Puma teaches a method wherein DMT-on oligonucleotides can be purified from solutions containing DMT-off oligonucleotides (pg. 16, Table 5, lines 1-13).
Regarding claims 29-30: Puma further teaches the purification of an oligonucleotide comprising N-1 and phosphodiester oligos (P=O, pg. 11, lines 14-17). Puma demonstrated an increase in purity resulting from a decrease in the n-1 and P=O impurities:
PNG
media_image2.png
494
722
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(pg. 11, lines 14-17, pg. 12, table 1, run no. 5).
Regarding claim 31: As discussed above, Puma makes obvious the method of claim 1. Puma is silent to the product related impurity being a CNEt impurity. However, Puma teaches following solid phase synthesis, oligonucleotides are cleaved from the solid support
by incubating the support in ammonium hydroxide (pg. 6, lines 1-2). Puma teaches a method wherein the target oligonucleotide is separated from ammonium hydroxide (pg. 6, lines 29-31). According to Capaldi, a N3-(2-cyanoethyl)thymine (CNET) impurity can be formed by the addition of acrylonitrile to a thymine residue during the ammonium hydroxide deprotection step (pg. 833, col. 1, para. 2, pg. 838, conclusions). Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention (See MPEP 2145 (II)). Therefore, Capaldi provides the evidence that the CNET impurity as recited by instant claim 31 is known in the art and would be recognized by one of ordinary skill to be present in the mixture taught by Puma. Given that Puma achieves purity of up to 99.6 (pg. 12, table 1), separation of the CNET impurity is a latent property of the method, absent evidence to the contrary.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puma (WO 96/01268, IDS filed on November 26, 2024), Templeton (US 2009/0275122, IDS filed on November 26, 2024), and Capaldi et al (Organic Process Research & Development, 2003, IDS filed on November 26, 2024), as applied to claims 1-2, 5-6, 12, 14, 16-17, 19, 22, 24, 27-31, and 34 in view of Gjerde (US 2005/0019951, IDS filed on November 26, 2024).
Regarding claim 3: As discussed above, Puma teaches the method of claim 1. Puma teaches wherein salt is added to the mixture as an aqueous salt solution or the salt is dissolved directly into the mixture (pg. 9, lines 5-7, salts such as sodium chloride must be added to the load and to the equilibration and wash buffers, pg. 15, lines 13-15, the column was equilibrated and washed with ammonium acetate). Puma teaches Phenyl sepharose columns are preferably loaded at high flow rates. Rates exceeding about 250 cm/hr are found to work exceedingly well. Elution at a rate of about 150-200 cm/hr is desirable (pg. 9, lines 9-10).
Puma does not explicitly teach a method wherein the flow rate of the wash step is slower than the loading flow rate.
However, Gjerde teaches general protocols for purification of biomolecules, including using hydrophobic interaction chromatography (abstract, pg. 4, para. 0078). Gjerde teaches it is known in the art that in some cases, it is desirable to perform one or steps of a purification process at a relatively slow flow rate (e.g., the loading or wash steps) to maximize binding of an analyte of interest to an extraction medium (pg. 14, para. 0175). Although Puma and Gjerde do not teach a flow rate wherein the wash step is slower than the loading step wherein change flow rates at various steps for specific purposes is known in the art, optimization of a result-effective variable is obvious absent a showing of unexpected results (See MPEP 2144.05(II)). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Puma whereby the wash step is slower than the loading flow rate to maximize binding of an analyte to an extraction medium.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puma (WO 96/01268, IDS filed on November 26, 2024), Templeton (US 2009/0275122, IDS filed on November 26, 2024), and Capaldi et al (Organic Process Research & Development, 2003, IDS filed on November 26, 2024), as applied to claims 1-2, 5-6, 12, 14, 16-17, 19, 22, 24, 27-31, and 34 in view of Bonturi (Journal of Chromatography B, 2013, cited on PTO-892).
Regarding claim 13: As discussed above, the prior art renders obvious the method of claim 1. Puma teaches washing the hydrophobic adsorbent with an aqueous salt solution (pg. 9, lines 5-7, salts such as sodium chloride must be added to the load and to the equilibration and wash buffers, pg. 15, lines 13-15, the column was equilibrated and washed with ammonium acetate). Templeton teaches it is known in the art to equilibrate the column in hydrophobic interaction chromatography with buffers containing ammonium sulfate salt, including with a phenyl sepharose hydrophobic interaction matrices for the purification of nucleic acids (pg. 14, paras. 0137-0138).
They do not teach wherein the salt is potassium sulfate.
However, Bonturi suggests potassium phosphate as an alternative adsorption buffer for ammonium sulfate in phenyl-agarose hydrophobic interaction chromatography of nucleic acids (abstract).
Taken together, whereas the prior art teaches ammonium acetate salt, ammonium sulfate, and potassium phosphate are known salts in the equilibration buffer both for hydrophobic interaction chromatography in the context of oligonucleotide purification, it is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose, absent a showing of unexpected results (See MPEP 2144.06).
Claims 19-20 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puma (WO 96/01268, IDS filed on November 26, 2024), Templeton (US 2009/0275122, IDS filed on November 26, 2024), and Capaldi et al (Organic Process Research & Development, 2003, IDS filed on November 26, 2024)as applied to claims 1-2, 5-6, 12, 14, 16-17, 19, 22, 24, 27-31, and 34 above in view of Swayze (WO 2015/153800, IDS filed on November 26, 2024).
Regarding claims 19-20 and 25: As discussed above, the prior art renders obvious claim 1. Puma teaches the method is applicable to chemically synthesized oligonucleotides (pg. 6, lines 29-31).
They do not teach a method wherein the target nucleotide is SEQ ID NO: 2. They do not teach wherein the target oligonucleotide comprises sugar that is optionally-substituted; two non-geminal ring atoms are bridged to form a bicyclic nucleic acid (BNA); or a ring oxygen atom of the sugar is replaced with S[[,]] or or C(R₄)(R)₂, wherein R is H or C1-C12 alkyl and combinations of these as recited by instant claim 19.
However, Swayze teaches modified oligonucleotide SEQ ID NO: 2 (pg. 24, lines 5-15). SEQ ID NO: 2 is useful for treating SOD-1 associated diseases such as amyotrophic sclerosis (abstract). Swayze also teaches “Antisense compounds of the invention can optionally contain one or more nucleosides wherein the sugar group has been modified. Such sugar modified nucleosides may impart enhanced nuclease stability, increased binding affinity, or some other beneficial biological property to the antisense compounds. In certain embodiments, nucleosides comprise chemically modified ribofuranose ring moieties. Examples of chemically modified ribofuranose rings include without limitation, addition of substituent groups (including 5' and 2' substituent groups, bridging of nongeminal ring atoms to form bicyclic nucleic acids (BNA), replacement of the ribosyl ring oxygen atom with S, N(R), or C(Ri)(R 2) (R, Ri and R2 are each independently H, C 1-C 12 alkyl or a protecting group) and combinations thereof. ”(pg. 43, lines 10-25).
Taken together, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the oligonucleotides taught by Swayze are synthesized in the same manner as taught by Puma (i.e. solid-phase oligonucleotide synthesis). Whereas the general method was made obvious over Puma and SEQ ID NO: 2 is known in the art, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this method to function predictably in purifying SEQ ID NO: 2 or oligonucleotides with the claimed modifications recited by instant claim 19 from product related impurities.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puma (WO 96/01268, IDS filed on November 26, 2024), Templeton (US 2009/0275122, IDS filed on November 26, 2024), and Capaldi et al (Organic Process Research & Development, 2003, IDS filed on November 26, 2024) as applied to claims 1-2, 5-6, 12, 14, 16-17, 19, 22, 24, 27-31, and 34 above further in view of Capaldi et al (Organic Process Research & Development, 2003, IDS filed on November 26, 2024).
Regarding claim 31: Even though as discussed above Puma is considered to disclose separation of a CNET impurity as a latent property of the method, even assuming for the sake of argument that Puma does not exemplify a method wherein the product related impurity is a CNET impurity that is separated from the target oligonucleotide, the claimed invention would still have been obvious over Puma further in view of Capaldi. As discussed above, Puma makes obvious the method of claim 1.
Puma does not teach wherein the product related impurity is a CNET impurity.
However, Capaldi teaches it is known in the art that the acrylonitrile generated during the ammonolysis step (with ammonium hydroxide) selectively adds to the thymine residue present in an oligonucleotide to generate an N3-cyanoethylthymine residue (CNET impurity, abstract, pg. 833, col. 1, para. 2). Wherein Puma teaches a method of separating an oligonucleotide following deprotection (i.e. ammonolysis), one of ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to modify the method of PUMA expecting the CNET impurity to be present and therefore take the necessary steps to ensure its removal.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed December 15, 2025 with respect to the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9 of Applicant’s response, Applicant argues the claimed method relates to the separation of target oligonucleotides from product related impurities using ammonium sulfate salt or potassium phosphate in the loading buffer (pg. 9, para. 1). Applicant argues that the method of Puma is for the removal of ammonium hydroxide and oligos with no DMT protecting group, not for removing the product impurities comprising one n-1 impurity and/or at least one P=O impurity which are not disclosed by Puma (pg. 9, paras 2-3).
However, the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant (See MPEP 2144 (IV)). Puma explicitly states that the phenyl-sepharose columns results in effective separation of oligonucleotide phosphorothioates from phosphodiesters in high yields (pgs. 7-8, bridging para.). Puma also states that oligonucleotides can also be separated by length (i.e. encompassing n-1 impurities, pg. 8, lines 7-11). Puma teaches that the samples to be purified via hydrophobic chromatography possess PO and n-1 impurities (pg. 13, table 3). Puma teaches that following purification with ammonium acetate, the final product purity of the isolated product is improved (pg. 14, table 4). According to the instant specification, the claimed method does not result in the outright removal of N-1, P=O impurities, Abasic, CNET, and N+1 but an improvement in overall purity (pg. 15, tables 1-2, pgs. 18-19, tables 4-6). The instant specification demonstrates reduction in impurities with a phenyl sepharose stationary phase with ammonium sulfate in the loading buffer (pg. 14, para. 1). As discussed above, Puma attributes separation capability to the stationary phase of phenyl sepharose, which is the stationary phase used in the instant application. Thus, wherein Puma utilizes the phenyl sepharose stationary phase, the resulting improvement in purity necessarily flows as a result of the method in substituting known equilibration salts for one another, absent a showing of unexpected results that are commensurate with the scope of the claims.
On page 10 of Applicant’s response, Applicant argues that Puma does not teach a method for separating N-1 impurities or phosphorothioate and phosphodiester oligos as Puma describes purification with anion exchange chromatography, not hydrophobic interaction chromatography as instantly claimed (para. 2). Applicant argues that the calculated percent purity of the product in Puma includes both N and N-1 sequences or both phosphorothioate and phosphodiester oligos. Applicant does not teach that the product related impurities are separated. On pages 10-11 of Applicant’s response, Applicant argues that Capaldi does not teach or suggest the method is capable of separating target oligonucleotides from product-related impurities that include at least one n-1 impurity and/or at least one P=O impurity.
However, Puma teaches that the purity analysis was performed with ion exchange chromatography, while the purification method comprised hydrophobic interaction chromatography (pg. 10, lines 20-26, pg. 11, lines 9-11, 14-17). The table cited by Applicant demonstrates % purity of a target oligonucleotide following purification, while it may possess n-1 impurity within it, this method is comparable to that performed in the instant specification which demonstrates improved purity (removal of impurities) as a result of practicing the method (see instant specification, pg. 15, tables 1-2, pgs. 18-19, tables 4-6). Puma teaches samples to be purified possess both PO and n-1 impurities prior to purification (pg. 13, table 2). Puma teaches the purity and yield of the eluted product is equivalent to that achieved using reverse phase liquid chromatography and that by proper adjustment of load and elution conditions, high purity product can be obtained (pg. 17, lines 6-11).
On pages 11-13 of Applicant’s response, Applicant argues that the additional prior art cited, Gjerde, Swayze, and Templeton do not remedy the deficiencies discussed above, such as the separation of at least one n-1 impurity and/or at least one P=O impurity and the use of ammonium sulfate or potassium phosphate as claimed.
See response to arguments above.
Applicant’s reply is considered to be a bona fide attempt at a response and is being accepted as a complete response. The 35 USC § 103 rejections are maintained for reason of record and foregoing discussion.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed in this action.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL L GALSTER whose telephone number is (571)270-0933. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Scarlett Y Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/S.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1693
/ANDREA OLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1693