Detailed Office Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt and entry of the communication filed 08 July, 2024. Claims 1-15 and 18-21 are pending in the instant application.
37 C.F.R. § 1.98
The information disclosure statement filed 06 May, 2025, has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
37 C.F.R. § 1.84
Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt and entry of the drawings filed on 08 July, 2024, and 27 September, 2024, which are deemed to be acceptable.
35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1-12 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 the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. Two separate requirements are set forth under this statute: (1) the claims must set forth the subject matter that applicants regard as their invention; and (2) the claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter that will be protected by the patent grant.
The claims are incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See M.P.E.P. § 2172.01. The claim simply recites a method of generating a nucleic acid sequence encoding a structurally modified DNA encoded antibody (DMAb). However, the claim fails to recite any active methods steps. Attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). For example, a claim which read: “A process for using monoclonal antibodies of claim 4 to isolate and purify human fibroblast interferon.” was held to be indefinite because it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Ex parte Erlich, 3 U.S.P.Q.2d 1011 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 13-15 and 18-21 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 the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. Two separate requirements are set forth under this statute: (1) the claims must set forth the subject matter that applicants regard as their invention; and (2) the claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter that will be protected by the patent grant.
The claims are directed toward a structurally modified DMAb produced according to the method of claim 1. However, as noted supra, claim 1 fails to include any active method steps. Thus, the actual structure of the DMAb is not readily manifest. Appropriate correction is required.
35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Written Description
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi, 872 F.3d 1367, 124 U.S.P.Q.2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2017). AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1780 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., Inc., 358 F.3d 916, 920, 69 U.S.P.Q.2d 1886, (Fed. Cir. 2004). Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 296 F.3d 1316, 63 U.S.P.Q.2d 1609, (Fed. Cir. 2002). Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 43 U.S.P.Q.2d 1398, (Fed. Cir. 1997). Fiers v. Revel Co., 984 F.2d 1164, 25 U.S.P.Q.2d 1601, (Fed. Cir. 1993). Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 18 U.S.P.Q.2d 1016, (Fed. Cir. 1991). In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 U.S.P.Q. 323 (C.C.P.A. 1981). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 U.S.P.Q. 90 (C.C.P.A. 1976).
The crux of the statutory requirement governing written description is whether one skilled in the art, familiar with the practice of the art at the time of the filing date, could reasonably have found the later claimed invention in the specification as filed. In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 U.S.P.Q. 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1520 222 U.S.P.Q. 349, 372 (Fed. Cir. 1984, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1209 (1985). Texas Instruments, Inc. v. International Trade Comm’n, 871 F.2d 1054, 1063, 10 U.S.P.Q.2d 1257, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Moreover, the courts have stated that the evaluation of written description is highly fact-specific, and that broadly articulated rules are inappropriate. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 263, 191 U.S.P.Q. 90, 97 (C.C.P.A. 1976). In re Driscoll, 562 F.2d 1245, 1250, 195 U.S.P.Q. 434, 438 (C.C.P.A. 1977). It is also important to remember that the true issue in question is not whether the specification enables one of ordinary skill in the art to make the later claimed invention, but whether or not the disclosure is sufficiently clear that those skilled in the art will conclude that the applicant made the invention having the specific claim limitations. Martin v. Mayer, 823 F2d 500, 505, 3 U.S.P.Q.2d 1333, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor has possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1116. An applicant shows possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 U.S.P.Q.2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described where an invention is described solely in terms of a method of its making coupled with its function and there is no described or art-recognized correlation or relationship between the structure of the invention and its function. A biomolecule sequence described only by a functional characteristic, without any known or disclosed correlation between that function and the structure of the sequence, normally is not a sufficient identifying characteristic for written description purposes, even when accompanied by a method of obtaining the claimed sequence. A lack of adequate written description issue also arises if the knowledge and level of skill in the art would not permit one skilled in the art to immediately envisage the product claimed from the disclosed process. Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571, 39 U.S.P.Q.2d 1895, 1905 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Determination of adequate written description requires the Examiner to read and analyze the specification for compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). In particular, each claim should be analyzed to determine its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with written description. Each claim should be evaluated to determine if sufficient structures, acts, or functions are recited to make clear the scope and meaning of the claim, including the weight to be given the preamble. The entire application should be reviewed including the specific embodiments, figures, and sequence listings, to understand how applicant provides support for the various features of the claimed invention. The analysis of whether the specification complies with the written description requirement calls for the examiner to compare the scope of the claim with the scope of the description to determine whether applicant has demonstrated that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Such a review is conducted from the standpoint of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed (see, e.g., Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 865, 26 USPQ2d 1767, 1774 (Fed. Cir. 1993)) and should include a determination of the field of the invention and the level of skill and knowledge in the art. Finally, the Examiner should determine whether there is sufficient written description to inform a skilled artisan that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention as a whole at the time of filing.
The claim simply recites a method of generating a nucleic acid sequence encoding a structurally modified DNA encoded antibody (DMAb). However, the claims fail to set forth any meaningful steps that will produce a modified DMAb. The claims fail to provide the structure of any given DMAb. It has been well-documented in the art that the skilled artisan cannot predict the structure of any given antibody ab initio (Sela-Culang et al., 2013; Sirin et al., 2016; Zhao et al., 2018). Sela-Culang et al. (2013) discuss some of the complexities about antibody structure as follows:
While the commonly accepted view has been that CDRs hold
the key for Ab-Ag recognition, recent findings indicate that not all the positions in the traditionally defined CDRs are impor-tant for binding. Furthermore, it has been shown that many positions that contribute critically to the binding energy reside outside of the transitional CDRs. Moreover, different CDR iden-tification methods may often identify radically different stretches as “CDRs,” indicating that CDRs are not well defined and thus are not necessarily a good proxy for the binding site. The hyper-variable loops that accommodate the CDRs differ significantly from each other on various aspects. Understanding the way in which their binding preferences are integrated to yield the overall specificity of the Ab is an intriguing structural and biophysical challenge.
Sirin et al. (2016) further noted that in silico prediction of antibody structure was not terribly efficient. Finally, Zhao et al. (2018) reported that “the combination of these computational capabilities might result in accumulated errors, especially for the antibody-antigen complex structure prediction [122]. Recent critical assessment of protein interactions (CAPRI) reported that six out of 20 test complexes cannot obtain acceptable models even with ~1000 candidate models per complex [123]. Thus, in the case of protein without available structure or template, it is still
challenging to perform the whole design process in silico.” Thus, it is incredibly difficult to predict antibody structure.
Accordingly, when all the aforementioned factors are considered in toto, the skilled artisan would reasonably conclude that Applicant was not in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claims 13-15 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi, 872 F.3d 1367, 124 U.S.P.Q.2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2017). AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1780 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., Inc., 358 F.3d 916, 920, 69 U.S.P.Q.2d 1886, (Fed. Cir. 2004). Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 296 F.3d 1316, 63 U.S.P.Q.2d 1609, (Fed. Cir. 2002). Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 43 U.S.P.Q.2d 1398, (Fed. Cir. 1997). Fiers v. Revel Co., 984 F.2d 1164, 25 U.S.P.Q.2d 1601, (Fed. Cir. 1993). Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 18 U.S.P.Q.2d 1016, (Fed. Cir. 1991). In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 U.S.P.Q. 323 (C.C.P.A. 1981). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 U.S.P.Q. 90 (C.C.P.A. 1976).
The crux of the statutory requirement governing written description is whether one skilled in the art, familiar with the practice of the art at the time of the filing date, could reasonably have found the later claimed invention in the specification as filed. In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 U.S.P.Q. 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1520 222 U.S.P.Q. 349, 372 (Fed. Cir. 1984, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1209 (1985). Texas Instruments, Inc. v. International Trade Comm’n, 871 F.2d 1054, 1063, 10 U.S.P.Q.2d 1257, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Moreover, the courts have stated that the evaluation of written description is highly fact-specific, and that broadly articulated rules are inappropriate. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 263, 191 U.S.P.Q. 90, 97 (C.C.P.A. 1976). In re Driscoll, 562 F.2d 1245, 1250, 195 U.S.P.Q. 434, 438 (C.C.P.A. 1977). It is also important to remember that the true issue in question is not whether the specification enables one of ordinary skill in the art to make the later claimed invention, but whether or not the disclosure is sufficiently clear that those skilled in the art will conclude that the applicant made the invention having the specific claim limitations. Martin v. Mayer, 823 F2d 500, 505, 3 U.S.P.Q.2d 1333, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor has possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1116. An applicant shows possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 U.S.P.Q.2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described where an invention is described solely in terms of a method of its making coupled with its function and there is no described or art-recognized correlation or relationship between the structure of the invention and its function. A biomolecule sequence described only by a functional characteristic, without any known or disclosed correlation between that function and the structure of the sequence, normally is not a sufficient identifying characteristic for written description purposes, even when accompanied by a method of obtaining the claimed sequence. A lack of adequate written description issue also arises if the knowledge and level of skill in the art would not permit one skilled in the art to immediately envisage the product claimed from the disclosed process. Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571, 39 U.S.P.Q.2d 1895, 1905 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Determination of adequate written description requires the Examiner to read and analyze the specification for compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). In particular, each claim should be analyzed to determine its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with written description. Each claim should be evaluated to determine if sufficient structures, acts, or functions are recited to make clear the scope and meaning of the claim, including the weight to be given the preamble. The entire application should be reviewed including the specific embodiments, figures, and sequence listings, to understand how applicant provides support for the various features of the claimed invention. The analysis of whether the specification complies with the written description requirement calls for the examiner to compare the scope of the claim with the scope of the description to determine whether applicant has demonstrated that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Such a review is conducted from the standpoint of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed (see, e.g., Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 865, 26 USPQ2d 1767, 1774 (Fed. Cir. 1993)) and should include a determination of the field of the invention and the level of skill and knowledge in the art. Finally, the Examiner should determine whether there is sufficient written description to inform a skilled artisan that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention as a whole at the time of filing.
The claims are directed toward DMAbs that are generated from a method that simply recites a method of generating a nucleic acid sequence encoding a structurally modified DNA encoded antibody (DMAb). However, the claims fail to set forth any meaningful steps that will produce a modified DMAb. The claims fail to provide the structure of any given DMAb. It has been well-documented in the art that the skilled artisan cannot predict the structure of any given antibody ab initio (Sela-Culang et al., 2013; Sirin et al., 2016; Zhao et al., 2018). Sela-Culang et al. (2013) discuss some of the complexities about antibody structure as follows:
While the commonly accepted view has been that CDRs hold
the key for Ab-Ag recognition, recent findings indicate that not all the positions in the traditionally defined CDRs are impor-tant for binding. Furthermore, it has been shown that many positions that contribute critically to the binding energy reside outside of the transitional CDRs. Moreover, different CDR iden-tification methods may often identify radically different stretches as “CDRs,” indicating that CDRs are not well defined and thus are not necessarily a good proxy for the binding site. The hyper-variable loops that accommodate the CDRs differ significantly from each other on various aspects. Understanding the way in which their binding preferences are integrated to yield the overall specificity of the Ab is an intriguing structural and biophysical challenge.
Sirin et al. (2016) further noted that in silico prediction of antibody structure was not terribly efficient. Finally, Zhao et al. (2018) reported that “the combination of these computational capabilities might result in accumulated errors, especially for the antibody-antigen complex structure prediction [122]. Recent critical assessment of protein interactions (CAPRI) reported that six out of 20 test complexes cannot obtain acceptable models even with ~1000 candidate models per complex [123]. Thus, in the case of protein without available structure or template, it is still
challenging to perform the whole design process in silico.” Thus, it is incredibly difficult to predict antibody structure.
Accordingly, when all the aforementioned factors are considered in toto, the skilled artisan would reasonably conclude that Applicant was not in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Jeffrey S. Parkin, Ph.D., whose telephone number is (571) 272-0908. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM. A message may be left on the Examiner's voice mail service. 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 are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Michael Allen, Ph.D., can be reached at (571) 270-3497. Direct general status inquiries to the Technology Center 1600 receptionist at (571) 272-1600.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from the Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through the Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, 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.
Respectfully,
/JEFFREY S PARKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1671
30 September, 2026
