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 .
THIS OFFICE ACTION SUPERCEDS THE ACTION MAILED ON 03/10/2026
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of claims 1, 4-7 and 43 (i.e., drawn to a cyclic peptide) in the reply filed on 02/10/2026 is acknowledged. Additionally, Applicants’ election without traverse of Species A (i.e., a single and specific peptide comprising a single and specific election for all the variables of the formula Xaa1-Xaa2-Xaa3-Xaa4-Xaa5, Applicants’ election: Xaa1 is F, Xaa2 is L, Xaa3 is S, Xaa4 is F, Xaa5 is R), in the reply filed on 02/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Upon searching the elected species (i.e., FLSFR), additional species were found, e.g., Xaa1 is 1NapA and Xaa4 is 2NapA. Accordingly, for purposes of compact prosecution, the election of species is modified only to the extent of examining these additional species. Otherwise the election of species requirement is still retained.
Priority
The present application is a CON of PCT/AU2024/050616 filed on 06/13/2024.
Claim Status
Claims 1-31 were originally filed and amended on 10/10/2025. The amendment cancelled claims 2-3, 17-20, 22-29; added new claims 32-42; and amended claims 4-16, 21, 30-31.
The amendment filed on 02/10/2026, cancelled claims 8-16, 21, 30-42; added new claim 43, and amended claims 5-7.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 02/10/2026, has been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: embedded hyperlinks at pg. 30, line 13; and at pg. 43, line 4. Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures
REQUIREMENTS FOR PATENT APPLICATIONS CONTAINING NUCLEOTIDE AND/OR AMINO ACID SEQUENCE DISCLOSURES
Items 1) and 2) provide general guidance related to requirements for sequence disclosures.
37 CFR 1.821(c) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.821(a) must contain a "Sequence Listing," as a separate part of the disclosure, which presents the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences and associated information using the symbols and format in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825. This "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure may be submitted:
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (see Section I.1 of the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (https://www.uspto.gov/PatentLegalFramework), hereinafter "Legal Framework") as an ASCII text file, together with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file in a separate paragraph of the specification as required by 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
ii) the date of creation; and
iii) the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) on read-only optical disc(s) as permitted by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(1)(ii), labeled according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5), with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8) and 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) in a separate paragraph of the specification identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
the date of creation; and
the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(2) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF file (not recommended); or
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(3) on physical sheets of paper (not recommended).
When a “Sequence Listing” has been submitted as a PDF file as in 1(c) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(2)) or on physical sheets of paper as in 1(d) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(3)), 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1) requires a computer readable form (CRF) of the “Sequence Listing” in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.824.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the PDF copy and the CRF copy (the ASCII text file copy) are identical.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed on paper or read-only optical disc, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the paper or read-only optical disc copy and the CRF are identical.
Specific deficiencies and the required response to this Office Action are as follows:
Specific deficiency – Nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences appearing in the specification are not identified by sequence identifiers in accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(d).
Required response – Applicant must provide:
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers, consisting of:
A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
In the instant case, the specification at pp. 3-5 and pp. 15-16 depict sequences consisting of 5 specifically-defined amino acids (e.g., (cylo[(1-Nal)LS(2-Nal)R]); (cyclo[(Phe)LS(2-Nal)R]), etc.), however those sequences lack a sequence identification number. Appropriate correction is required.
Please note, that the specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible error. Applicants’ cooperation is required in correcting any errors of which
applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
1. Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 43 is dependent upon claim 1, and is drawn to the sequence of Formula I (i.e.,
PNG
media_image1.png
211
208
media_image1.png
Greyscale
), wherein Xaa1 is selected from 1-naphthyl-alanine and phenylalanine; and Xaa 2 is selected from 2-naphthyl-alanine and phenylalanine. However, independent claim 1 is drawn to a cyclic peptide comprising the sequence of the formula Xaa1-Xaa2-Xaa3-Xaa4-Xaa5, wherein Xaa1 is F or 1NapA; Xaa2 is L or I; Xaa3 is S or T; Xaa4 is F or 2NapA; and Xaa5 is R or K. Therefore, claim 43 fails to further limit the claim limitations of parent claim 1, because Formula I comprises the amino acids 2-naphthyl-alanine or phenylalanine at Xaa2. Additionally, the visual representation/chemical structure of Formula I (i.e.,
PNG
media_image1.png
211
208
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) illustrates the position of Xaa2 as being separated from Xaa1 by two amino acids (i.e., Leu and Ser) when counting clockwise. Similarly, when counting counterclockwise, Xaa2 is one amino acid away (i.e., Arg) from Xaa1. As such, an ordinary skilled artisan would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed cyclic peptide comprising the sequence of Formula I, because it is unclear and/or ambiguous whether Formula I represents a different cyclic peptide with only two variables (i.e., Xaa1 and Xaa2) and three fixed amino acids (i.e., Leu, Ser and Arg). In order to advance prosecution, Xaa2 in Formula I, will be interpreted as Xaa4 (i.e., F or 2NapA) of formula Xaa1-Xaa2-Xaa3-Xaa4-Xaa5 as recited in instant claim 1.
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.
2. Claims 1, 5-7 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO99/41278 International Publication Date: August 19, 1999 (cited in the IDS filed on 02/10/2026) (herein after “278”).
For claim 1, ‘278 discloses a cyclic peptide which inhibits the enzymatic activity of Type II PLA2, the peptide having the following formula: A1-A2-A3-A4-A5, in which A1 is F or Y or W or 2Nap; A2 is L or I; A3 is S or T; A4 is F or Y or W or 2 Nap; A5 is R or K (see ‘278, claim 1, pg. 14, lines 4-12). Thereby, ‘278 anticipates a cyclic peptide comprising the sequence of the formula Xaa1-Xaa2-Xaa3-Xaa4-Xaa5 in which Xaa1 is F, Xaa2 is L, Xaa3 is S, Xaa4 is F, Xaa5 is R, as recited in instant claim 1.
For claims 5-6, ‘278 discloses a cyclic peptide having formula A1-A2-A3-A4-A5 -wherein A1 is F, A2 is L, A3 is S, A4 is F and A5 is R (see ‘278, claim 1, pg. 14, lines 4-12). Since the claimed cyclic peptide and ‘278’s cyclic peptide are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of anticipation has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not inherently possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. In the instant case, ‘278’s disclosed cyclic peptide would inherently possess the claimed characteristics (i.e., chemical structure and physical state) as claimed. As such, ‘278’s cyclic peptide having formula A1-A2-A3-A4-A5 -wherein A1 is F, A2 is L, A3 is S, A4 is F and A5 is R, anticipates the claimed chemical structure of (cyclo[(D-Phe)LS(L-Phe)R]), as recited in instant claim 5; and wherein the cyclic peptide is in the form of an acetate salt, as recited in instant claim 6.
For claim 7, ‘278 claims a composition comprising a therapeutically acceptable amount of a peptide according to ‘278’s claim 1 and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier (see ‘278, claim 3, pg. 14, lines 18-20). As such, ‘278 anticipates the instantly claimed pharmaceutical composition, comprising the cyclic peptide of claim 5 and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, diluent or excipient.
For claim 43, ‘278’s cyclic peptide having formula: A1-A2-A3-A4-A5, in which A1 is F or Y or W or 2Nap; A2 is L or I; A3 is S or T; A4 is F or Y or W or 2 Nap; A5 is R or K (see ‘278, claim 1, pg. 14, lines 4-12), anticipates the claim limitations recited in instant claim 43, wherein Xaa1 is phenylalanine and Xaa2 is 2-naphthyl-alanine. ‘278 also discloses that the term “2Nap” is an abbreviation for 2-naphthylalanine (see ‘278, pg. 4, line 17).
Accordingly, ‘278’s disclosure anticipates claims 1, 5-7 and 43.
3. Claims 1, 4-7 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2017/060405 A1 International Publication Date: April 13, 2017 (cited in the IDS filed on 02/10/2026) (herein after “Tamarit et al.”).
For claims 1, 4-6 and 43, Tamarit et al. disclose a peptide comprising the sequence AA1-Leu-AA3-AA4-AA5, wherein: AA1 designates Phe, Leu, norleucine, tryptophan, 2-naphthylalanine (2NapA), or 1-naphthylalanine (1NapA); AA3 designates Ser, Thr or Cys; AA4 designates Tyr, 2-naphthylalanine (2NapA), 1-naphthylalanine (1NapA), diphenylalanine, 7-hydroxyltetrahydroisoquinoline (7HTiq), or tetrahydroisoquinoline (Tiq); and AA5 designates Lys, Arg, or citrulline, or a salt, ester, hydrate, racemate, enantiomer, prodrug or metabolite thereof, for use to induce or stimulate an immune response in a subject in need thereof (see Tamarit et al., pg. 17, claim 1). Tamarit et al. also claim that the peptide is cyclic (see Tamarit et al., pg. 17, claim 3).
Since the claimed cyclic peptide and Tamarit et al.’s cyclic peptide are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of anticipation has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not inherently possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. In the instant case, Tamarit et al.’s cyclic peptide would inherently possess the characteristics of the claimed cyclic peptide as recited in instant claim 4 (i.e., a pharmaceutically acceptable salt, solvate or prodrug thereof); the chemical structure of (cyclo[(D-Phe)LS(L-Phe)R]) recited in instant claim 5.
Thereby Tamarit et al.’s disclosure anticipates the instantly claimed cyclic peptide comprising the formula Xaa1-Xaa2-Xaa3-Xaa4-Xaa5 in which Xaa1 is F or 1NapA, Xaa2 is L, Xaa3 is S or T, Xaa4 is F or 2NapA, Xaa5 is R or K, as recited in instant claim 1; anticipates wherein the cyclic peptide comprises the sequence of (cyclo[(1-Nal)LS(2-Nal)R]) or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt, solvate or prodrug thereof as recited in instant claim 4; anticipates chemical structure of (cyclo[(D-Phe)LS(L-Phe)R]), as recited in instant claim 5; anticipates wherein the cyclic peptide is in the form of an acetate salt, as recited in instant claim 6; and also anticipates wherein the cyclic peptide comprises the sequence of Formula I, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt, solvate or prodrug thereof, wherein Xaa1 is selected from 1-naphthyl-alanine and phenylalanine; and Xaa4 is selected from 2-naphthyl-alanine and phenylalanine, as interpreted for claim 43.
For claim 7, Tamarit et al. claim that the peptide is formulated in a pharmaceutical composition comprising a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier or excipient (see Tamarit et al., pg. 18, claim 16). Thus the disclosure of Tamari et al. anticipate a pharmaceutical composition, comprising the cyclic peptide of instant claim 5 and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, diluent or excipient, as recited in instant claim 7.
Accordingly, Tamari et al.’s disclosure anticipates instant claims 1, 4-7 and 43.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
103 - KSR Examples of 'Rationales' Supporting a Conclusion of Obviousness
(Consistent with the "Functional Approach" of Graham)
Further regarding 35 USC 103(a) rejections, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (KSR) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit.
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) "Obvious to try" - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Note that the list of rationales provided is not intended to be an all-inclusive list. Other rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness may be relied upon by Office personnel.
Also, a reference is good not only for what it teaches by direct anticipation but also for what one of ordinary skill in the art might reasonably infer from the teachings. (In re Opprecht 12 USPQ 2d 1235, 1236 (Fed Cir. 1989); In re Bode 193 USPQ 12 (CCPA) 1976).
4. Claims 1, 4-7 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 98/13376 International Publication Date: April 2, 1998 (herein after “Bryant et al.”), in view of WO 2017/060405 A1 International Publication Date: April 13, 2017 (cited in the IDS filed on 02/10/2026) (herein after “Tamarit et al.”).
Regarding claims 1 and 43, Bryant et al. teach the components of FLSYK required for inhibition of PLA2, thus enabling the designed of representative pharmacophore structures which may form the basis for lead structures in the development of new PLA2 inhibitors (see Bryant et al., pg. 4, lines 19-20). Bryant et al. also teach that preferred configurations of the FLSYK peptide exhibit closely related conformations in which the termini are in proximity ( e.g. within hydrogen bonding distance or as in a cyclic peptide formed from covalent links between the termini) (see Bryant et al. pg. 6, lines 28-31 to pg. 7, line 1). Thereby, Bryant et al.’s teachings read on the instantly claimed cyclic peptide wherein Xaa1 is F, Xaa2 is L, Xaa3 is S, and Xaa5 is R. However, Bryant et al.’s FLSYK peptide does not correspond to wherein Xaa4 is F or 2NapA, as recited in instant claim 1, nor wherein Xaa1 is selected from 1-naphthyl-alanine, as recited in instant claim 43.
Bryant et al. also determined scaffold structures for use in the design of organic-based inhibitors of PLA2, wherein the scaffold structures were determined by plotting the phi-psi angles of the α-carbon atoms of cyclic peptide FLSYR on a Ramachandran Plot; and the scaffold structures provide a template on which reactive groups with similar functionality to the peptide may be placed (see Bryant et al., pg. 7, lines 15-20). Bryant and coworkers teach that it is of interest that the OH of Tyrosine, residue 4 of FLSYK, is not essential and can be replaced by a second aromatic ring (that is Y becomes a 2-naphthylalanine residue) (see Bryant et al., pg. 22, lines 14-16). As shown in Table 2, the inhibition characteristics of analogues which inhibited PLA2 are depicted (see Bryant et al., pg. 26). The table shows qualitative inhibition scale for the analogues such that + + + is equivalent to FLSYK inhibition as seen in the E.coli assay; + + is an analogue inhibition of PLA2 that is less than FLSYK and + is an indication of small but detectable inhibition (see Bryant et al., pg. 26, lines 24-27). As such, it can be visualized that the analogue comprising 2NpA (i.e., 2-napthylalaline) at residue 4 of FLSYK is as inhibiting as the unmodified version (i.e., FLSYK).
Therefore, an ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated with reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow Bryant et al.’s teachings and substitute the residue at position 4 of in FLSYK with 2NpA because it was known that the OH of the Tyrosine was not essential and could be replaced by a second aromatic ring, thereby Y becomes a 2-naphthylalanine residue; and because it was also known that the substitution would yield a FLSYK analogue that would be as equally inhibiting of PLA2. As such, substituting tyrosine with 2-naphthylalanine at position 4 of the cyclic FLSYK peptide as taught by Bryant et al. would support the instantly claimed cyclic peptide comprising the sequence of formula Xaa1-Xaa2-Xaa3-Xaa4-Xaa5, wherein Xaa1 is F, Xaa2 is L, Xaa3 is S, Xaa4 is 2NapA, and Xaa5 is R by constituting some teaching, suggestion or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior are reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention, pursuant to KSR.
Regarding claims 4-6, Bryant et al. do not expressly teach wherein the cyclic peptide of claim 1, comprises the sequence of (cyclo[(1-Nal)LS(2-Nal)R, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt, solvate or prodrug thereof as recited in instant claim 4; nor wherein the cyclic peptide comprises the chemical structure of (cyclo[(D-Phe)LS(L-Phe)R]), or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt, solvate or prodrug thereof as recited in instant claim 5; nor wherein the cyclic peptide is in the form of an acetate salt, as recited in instant claim 6.
Tamarit et al. teach a peptide comprising the sequence AA1-Leu-AA3-AA4-AA5, wherein: AA1 designates Phe, Leu, norleucine, tryptophan, 2-naphthylalanine (2NapA), or 1-naphthylalanine (1NapA); AA3 designates Ser, Thr or Cys; AA4 designates Tyr, 2-naphthylalanine (2NapA), 1-naphthylalanine (1NapA), diphenylalanine, 7-hydroxyltetrahydroisoquinoline (7HTiq), or tetrahydroisoquinoline (Tiq); and AA5 designates Lys, Arg, or citrulline, or a salt, ester, hydrate, racemate, enantiomer, prodrug or metabolite thereof, for use to induce or stimulate an immune response in a subject in need thereof (see Tamarit et al., pg. 17, claim 1). Tamarit et al. also teach that the amino acids in the peptides of the invention may be in D or L conformation, and may contain one or more additional chemical groups or substituents to further improve their activity or properties (see Tamarit et al., pg. 6, lines 7-10).
As such, an ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated with reasonable expectation of success to modify Bryant et al.’s cyclic peptide FLSYR and the analogue FLS2NpAR with the teachings of Tamarit et al. in order to arrive at the claim invention. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do so because it was known that substituting Phe at position 1 with 1-naphthylalanine (1NapA) further improves their activity or properties. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that Tamarit et al.’s peptide comprising the sequence AA1-Leu-AA3-AA4-AA5 wherein AA4 designates 2-naphthylalanine (2NapA); and given that Tamarit et al.’s peptide is cyclic and also comprises a salt, or a prodrug thereof. Therefore, incorporating Tamarit et al.’s teachings at part of Bryant et al.’s cyclic peptide would support the instantly claimed cyclic peptide by constituting some teaching, suggestion or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention, pursuant to KSR.
Regarding claim 7, Bryant et al.’s invention also relates to pharmaceutical compositions including a therapeutically acceptable amount of a structure or peptide and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier (see Bryant et al., pg. 12, lines 1-6). As such, the teachings of Bryant et al. when combined with the teachings of Tamarit et al. read on the instantly claimed invention.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAUDIA E ESPINOSA whose telephone number is (703)756-4550. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-5:30 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.
/CLAUDIA ESPINOSA/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1654
/LIANKO G GARYU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1654