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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 07/31/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Office has not demonstrated a serious burden for searching the art of all the groups, for example a search of Group I would reveal “whether any prior art exists as to the other subject matter. This is not found persuasive because Group I is drawn to an antisense oligonucleotide that hybridizes to a target mRNA and Group II, for example, is drawn to a process for preparing the compound of claim 1 which has different method steps not found in a search for antisense targeting a mRNA. This analysis holds true for the other groups because a search for one group would not necessarily reveal art for the other groups as explained in the Requirement for Restriction mailed 06/23/2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Status of the Application
Claims 1, 2, 9, 14, 15, 18, 24, 28, 29, 33 and 35-54 are pending. Claims 1, 2, 9, 14, 15, 18, 24, 28, 29 and 45-53 are currently under examination. Claims 33, 35-44 and 54 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “or derivative of” and should recite “or a derivative of”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 48 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 48 lacks antecedent basis because it recites “there the target mRNA is RAB9 or RNAse H1” and depends from claim 45 which does not recite a target mRNA. Thus the claim is indefinite and will not be further examined on the merits because it cannot be determined, without assumption, what further limitations are in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, 14, 28, 45-48 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moeller et al (US 20160145620).
Moeller et al. teach an oligonucleotide comprising SEQ ID No. 10 and is 22 nucleotides in length which is useful for binding target RNA (see Table 1 and below).
PNG
media_image1.png
125
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Moeller et al. do not teach the compound is capable of targeting mRNA, enhancing protein expression of a target mRNA or increases expression by 10-300% however these functions are an inherent feature because the compound structure is substantially identical to that of the claimed structure. See MPEP 2112.01 below.
MPEP
2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims [R-3]
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness 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 necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Claims were directed to a titanium alloy containing 0.2-0.4% Mo and 0.6-0.9% Ni having corrosion resistance. A Russian article disclosed a titanium alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni but was silent as to corrosion resistance. The Federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated because the percentages of Mo and Ni were squarely within the claimed ranges. The court went on to say that it was immaterial what properties the alloys had or who discovered the properties because the composition is the same and thus must necessarily exhibit the properties.).
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See also In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) (Claim 1 was directed to a parachute canopy having concentric circumferential panels radially separated from each other by radially extending tie lines. The panels were separated “such that the critical velocity of each successively larger panel will be less than the critical velocity of the previous panel, whereby said parachute will sequentially open and thus gradually decelerate.” The court found that the claim was anticipated by Menget. Menget taught a parachute having three circumferential panels separated by tie lines. The court upheld the rejection finding that applicant had failed to show that Menget did not possess the functional characteristics of the claims.); Northam Warren Corp. v. D. F. Newfield Co., 7 F. Supp. 773, 22 USPQ 313 (E.D.N.Y. 1934) (A patent to a pencil for cleaning fingernails was held invalid because a pencil of the same structure for writing was found in the prior art.).
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
II. COMPOSITION CLAIMS — IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Applicant argued that the claimed composition was a pressure sensitive adhesive containing a tacky polymer while the product of the reference was hard and abrasion resistant. “The Board correctly found that the virtual identity of monomers and procedures sufficed to support a prima facie case of unpatentability of Spada’s polymer latexes for lack of novelty.”)
Thus Moeller et al. anticipates the instant claims.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, 14, 15, 18, 24, 28, 29, 45-47 and 49-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jekle et al (US 20210015884).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 9, 45, 46 and 47, Jekle et al. teach an oligonucleotide comprising SEQ ID No. 10 and is 20 nucleotides in length which is useful for binding target RNA (see SEQ ID No. 1 below).
Regarding claims 18, 24, 29, 50, and 53, Jekle et al. teach the oligonucleotide comprises modifications as in claim 18, 24, 50 and 51. Jekle et al. teach pharmaceutical compositions.
Regarding claims 15 and 49, Jekle et al. teach conjugates comprising cholesterol (0080).
PNG
media_image3.png
177
643
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Jekle et al. do not teach the compound is capable of targeting mRNA, enhancing protein expression or reducing expression 10-300% however these functions are an inherent feature because the compound structure is substantially identical to that of the claimed structure. See MPEP 2112.01 cited above.
Thus Jekle et al. anticipates the instant claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Written Description
Claims 1, 2, 9, 14, 15, 18, 24, 28, 29 and 45-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The MPEP states that the purpose of the written description requirement is to ensure that the inventor had possession, as of the filing date of the application, of the specific subject matter later claimed by him. The courts have stated:
To fulfill the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe an invention and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that "the inventor invented the claimed invention." Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Gostelli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("[T]he description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed."). Thus an applicant complies with the written description requirement "by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious" and by using "such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that set forth the claimed invention." Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966; Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 43 USPQ2d 1398.
The fundamental factual inquiry is whether the specification conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, applicant was in possession of the invention as now claimed. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc., 935 F.2d at 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d at 1117.
The MPEP lists factors that can be used to determine if sufficient evidence of possession has been furnished in the disclosure of the application. These include: (1) Actual reduction to practice, (2) Disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas, (3) Sufficient relevant identifying characteristics (such as: i. Complete structure, ii. Partial Structure, iii. Physical and/or chemical properties, iv. Functional characteristics when coupled with a known or disclosed structure, and v. Correlation between function and structure), (4) Method of making the claimed invention, (5) Level of skill and knowledge in the art, and (6) Predictability in the art.
Moreover, the written description requirement for a genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by “…disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between functional and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus.” Thus when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus.
The claims are drawn to a genus of antisense oligonucleotides coupled translation – upregulation 1 (ACT-UP1) compounds comprising the antisense joined to a protein recruiting sequence comprising SEQ ID No. 10, wherein the antisense is any size comprising a vast number of modified nucleotides and conjugates and where the compound has the function of recruiting endogenous translation-enhancing protein(s) to increase translation efficiency of any target mRNA in vitro and in vivo by at least 10% to 300%.
When determining whether the written description requirement is met for genus claims, it is first determined whether a representative number of species have been described by their complete structure. In the instant case, the specification describes ACT-UP1 compositions having 33 nucleotides in length and comprising SEQ ID No. 10 that were capable of increasing proteins such sFGF21, PBGD and Rab9, for example, in mouse cells in vitro. The examples and specification do not describe these compounds having any of the vast number of lengths, modifications and conjugates.
It is then determined whether a representative number of species have been sufficiently described by other relevant identifying characteristics (i.e. other than nucleotide sequence), specific features and functional attributes that would distinguish different members of the claimed genera. In the instant case, the only other identifying characteristics are expression of several different proteins using ACT-UP1 compositions having 33 nucleotides in length and comprising SEQ ID No. 10. The disclosure does not describe any of the vast number of antisense oligonucleotide lengths and modifications having the ability to increase translation efficiency in vitro and in vivo by at least 10% to 300% . A review of the specification shows that it provides no description or guidance that would allow one of skill in the art to distinguish the functional species of the recited structural genus from the non-functional members without empirical determination.
The prior art describes ASOs targeting a 5′ UTR inhibitory element significantly increase levels of protein encoded by five different genes in human and mouse cells. The ASOs are specific and act by enhancing translation, most likely due to increased recruitment of translation initiation factors to the target mRNA see page 9538-9539 of Liang et al. ("Antisense oligonucleotides targeting translation inhibitory elements in 5′ UTRs can selectively increase protein levels." Nucleic acids research 45.16 (2017): 9528-9546). The prior art does not teach using any antisense oligonucleotide conjugated to a protein recruiting sequence as claimed with the function of increasing translation efficiency in vitro and in vivo by at least 10% to 300%.
Since the disclosure and the prior art fail to describe the common attributes and characteristics concisely identifying members of the proposed genus, and because the claimed genus is highly variant, one of skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the disclosure fails to provide a representative number of species to describe the genus claimed.
"A sufficient description of a genus . . . requires the disclosure of either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can "visualize or recognize" the members of the genus" (AbbVie, 759 F.3d at 1297, reiterating Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568-69) (emphasis added).
Further, “Possession may not be shown by merely describing how to obtain possession of members of the claimed genus or how to identify their common structural features.” Ex parte Kubin, 83 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007) citing University of Rochester, 358 F.3d at 927, 69 USPQ2d at 1895. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 19USPQ2d 1111, clearly states that “applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the ‘written description’ inquiry, whatever is now claimed.” (See page 1117.) The specification does not “clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed.” (See Vas-Cath at page 1116).
The MPEP further states that if a biomolecule is described only by a functional characteristic, without any disclosed correlation between function and structure of the sequence, it is “not sufficient characteristic for written description purposes, even when accompanied by a method of obtaining the claimed sequence.” MPEP 2163. The MPEP does state that for generic claim the genus can be adequately described if the disclosure presents a sufficient number of representative species that encompass the genus. MPEP 2163. If the genus has a substantial variance, the disclosure must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within that genus. See MPEP 2163. Although the MPEP does not define what constitutes a sufficient number of representative species, the Courts have indicated what do not constitute a representative number species to adequately describe a broad generic. In Gosteli, the Court determined that the disclosure of two chemical compounds within a subgenus did not describe that subgenus. In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d at 1012, 10 USPQ2d at 1618.
Thus the specification and claims lack written description because it is clear that Applicant did not have possession of every variation of and ACT-UP1 compound. The description requirement of the patent statute requires a description of an invention, not an indication of a result that one might achieve if one made that invention. See In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1521,222 USPQ 369,372-372 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (affirming rejection because the specification does "little more than outlin[e] goals appellants hope the claimed invention achieves and the problems the invention will hopefully ameliorate."). Accordingly, it is deemed that the specification fails to provide adequate written description for the genus of the claims and does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the entire scope of the claimed invention.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970);and, In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 14, 15, 18, 24, 28, 29 and 45-53 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of double patenting over claims 1-5, 9-12, and 14-32 of copending Application No. 19,281,315 (Pat315). This is a provisional double patenting rejection since the conflicting claims have not yet been patented. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims and the claims of the patent are drawn to patently indistinguishable subject matter.
The instant claims and claims of Pat315 are drawn to an ACT-UP1 compound comprising a protein recruiting protein wherein the PRS can be SEQ ID No. 10 and wherein the antisense can be modified and comprise a conjugate. Regarding claims 30-32 drawn to methods of increasing translation of a target mRNA, it would have been obvious to use the ACT-UP1 compound for increasing translation of a target mRNA.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kimberly Chong at (571)272-3111. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday between M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the SPE for 1636 Neil Hammell at 571-272-5919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Patent applicants with problems or questions regarding electronic images that can be viewed in the Patent Application Information Retrieval system (PAIR) can now contact the USPTO’s Patent Electronic Business Center (Patent EBC) for assistance. Representatives are available to answer your questions daily from 6 am to midnight (EST). The toll-free number is (866) 217-9197. When calling please have your application serial or patent number, the type of document you are having an image problem with, the number of pages and the specific nature of the problem. The Patent Electronic Business Center will notify applicants of the resolution of the problem within 5-7 business days. Applicants can also check PAIR to confirm that the problem has been corrected. The USPTO’s Patent Electronic Business Center is a complete service center supporting all patent businesses on the Internet. The USPTO’s PAIR system provides Internet-based access to patent application status and history information. It also enables applicants to view the scanned images of their own application file folder(s) as well as general patent information available to the public. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov.
For all other customer support, please call the USPTO Call Center (UCC) at 800-786-9199.
/KIMBERLY CHONG/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 1636
Prosecution Insights