throbber

`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMIVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`wwwusptogov
`
`
`
`
`
`14/374,181
`
`07/23/2014
`
`Takaomi Fukuhara
`
`061352—0530
`
`3739
`
`53080
`7590
`03’04’20”
`McDermon Will and Emery LLP —
`The McDermott Building
`WEIDNER’ ADAM M
`500 North Capitol Street, NW.
`WASHINGTON, DC 20001
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`1649
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`03/04/2015
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/0r attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`mweipdocket @ mwe.com
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 14/374,181 FUKUHARA ET AL.
`
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`AIA (First Inventor to File)
`Office Action Summary
`
`ADAM M. WEIDNER its“ 1649
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR1. 136( a).
`after SIX () MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1 .704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`Status
`
`
`1)IZI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 7/23/14.
`El A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)|ZI This action is non-final.
`2a)|:l This action is FINAL.
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:| Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)IZI Claim(s) 1-13 is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`is/are allowed.
`6)I:I Claim(s)
`7)|Z| Claim(s)_1-13 is/are rejected.
`8)|:I Claim(s)_ is/are objected to.
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`9)I:I Claim((s)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`hit
`:/'I’\WIIW.LIsnto. ovI’ atentS/init events/
`
`
`
`iindex.‘s or send an inquiry to PPl-iieedback{®usgtc.00v.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)I:l The drawing(s) filed on
`is/are: a)I:I accepted or b)I:I objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)I:| Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)I:l All
`
`b)|:l Some” c)I:l None of the:
`
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.|:l Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.|:| Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`1) E Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`4) I:I Other'
`2) E lnformatIon DIsclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date
`
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL—326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20150217
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/374,181
`
`Art Unit: 1649
`
`Page 2
`
`The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
`
`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.
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`This action is in response to preliminary claim amendments filed 7/23/14. Claims 1-13 are
`
`pending and under examination.
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`The IDS submitted 7/23/14 has been wholly lined through as it is a duplicate of the form
`
`submitted 9/11/14. The references from the 9/11/14 have been considered as indicated as well as the
`
`references from the form submitted 1/12/15.
`
`Dates have been added to references 6, 8, and 9 on the IDS submitted on 1/12/15 as required by
`
`37 CFR 1.98(b)(5). Applicant is reminded that all citations submitted on an Information Disclosure
`
`Statement must be accompanied by a date.
`
`Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d),
`
`which papers have been placed of record in the file.
`
`Priority
`
`Claim Objections
`
`Claim 1
`
`is objected to because of the following informalities: “hereinafter, referred to as A13”
`
`should be simply "AB" as this would improve the brevity and clarity of the claim while still clearly indicating
`
`AB is an abbreviation for amyloid beta peptide. Appropriate correction is required.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/374,181
`
`Art Unit: 1649
`
`Page 3
`
`Claim 2 and 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “attached to a collection tool”
`
`should be “with a collection tool” as no such attachment has been previously claimed. Appropriate
`
`correction is required.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
`
`(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. — An element in a claim for a combination may be
`expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of
`structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the
`corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents
`thereof.
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
`
`An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing
`a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and
`such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts
`described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable
`
`presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
`
`paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts
`
`within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
`
`Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the
`
`claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
`
`paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not
`
`invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure,
`
`material or acts to perform that function.
`
`Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to
`
`invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that
`
`do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as
`
`otherwise indicated in an Office action.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/374,181
`
`Art Unit: 1649
`
`Page 4
`
`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.
`
`Claims 1-13 are 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.
`
`The claims of the instant method recite “pretreating” an intranasal specimen. There is no
`
`particular definition of “pretreating” in the instant specification. The guidance in the instant specification
`
`and claims appear to suggest that steps such as simply collecting the sample constitute a pretreatment
`
`step (e.g., claim 2). This on its own would simply indicate the claim is broad, not indefinite. However,
`
`"pretreating" holds different connotations in different arts and when used for different methods. There is
`
`no clear indication as to the metes and bounds of what Applicant considers to be "pretreating". See
`
`MPEP §2173 which states that the purpose of this portion of the statute is two-fold: to ensure that the
`
`scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of
`
`the patent; and to provide a clear measure of what applicants regard as the invention so that it can be
`
`determined whether the claimed invention meets all the criteria for patentability and whether the
`
`specification meets the criteria of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph with respect
`
`to the claimed invention. In this case, the first purpose is not met with the current recitation of “pretreating”
`
`as the metes and bounds of the scope of the term “pretreating” are entirely unclear. Given the paucity of
`
`guidance in the specification (e.g., collection, dispensing into an extraction liquid, filtering), the skilled
`
`artisan is not apprised of the limits of the scope and therefore is not informed of the boundaries which
`
`constitute infringement.
`
`Claims 12 and 13 recited various “means for” and are therefore being examined under the
`
`conventions of §1 12, 6th paragraph. §112(6) serves the purpose of “limiting the scope of the claim to the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/374,181
`
`Art Unit: 1649
`
`Page 5
`
`particular structure disclosed, together with equivalents” (MPEP §2181). While the skilled artisan is aware
`
`of a variety of means for comparing, displaying, and calculating gathered data, this “in no way relieves the
`
`patentee of adequately disclosing sufficient structure in the specification. It is not enough for the patentee
`
`simply to state or later argue that persons of ordinary skill in the art would know what structures to use to
`
`accomplish the claimed function” (MPEP §2181). In this case, the specification does not disclose any
`
`structural limitations regarding a means for accomplishing these tasks, only stating that these tasks were
`
`accomplished. No identification of any corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the
`
`claimed functions is possible given the instant disclosure.
`
`Therefore, claims 1-13 are indefinite. For the purpose of prosecution, any step which is
`
`determined to meet the limitations of a pretreatment step will be articulated in the relevant rejection. Any
`
`means capable of performing the functions claimed will be considered to meet the limitations of claims
`
`12-13. Note that the "detecting" step of claim 12 is associated with sufficient structure (the disclosed
`
`ELISA kits) to meet the burden of a structural disclosure under §112(6).
`
`35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
`
`Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
`composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent
`therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
`
`Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims as a whole are not directed
`
`to patent eligible subject matter. Based upon an analysis with respect to the claim as a whole, these
`
`claims do not recite something significantly different than a judicial exception. The rationale for this
`
`determination is explained below:
`
`New guidance with respect to patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been provided, effective
`
`16 December 2014 and published in the Federal Register V 79 No 241 (please visit
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/interim_guidance_subject_matter_eligibility.jsp for the published
`
`guidance). This guidance has been provided in light of recent court decisions such as Association for
`
`Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. _, 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116, 106, USPQ2d 1972
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/374,181
`
`Art Unit: 1649
`
`Page 6
`
`(2013), Mayo Collaborative Serivices v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. _, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 101
`
`USPQ2d 1961 (2012), and Alice Corporation PTY. LTD v CLS Bank International.
`
`The first step under this guidance is determining if the claim is directed to one of the four statutory
`
`categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In this case, the claims are
`
`directed to a method (a process). The second step is determining if the claims recite or involve judicial
`
`exception(s), such as laws of nature, natural phenomena, natural products, or an abstract idea. In this
`
`case, claims 1-11 are drawn to the observing a natural phenomenon (“detect tau compare values”
`
`"display results”; natural phenomenon and abstract ideas) while claims 12 and 13 are drawn to a generic
`
`system and abstract ideas (means for detecting/comparing/displaying/calculating) .
`
`Thus, it must be determined if the claim as a whole recites something significantly different than
`
`the judicial exceptions.
`
`Claim 1
`
`is drawn to a method of diagnosing Alzheimer's disease (AD) by pretreating an intranasal
`
`sample, detecting either tau or A8, comparing these values with some predetermined value, and
`
`displaying the results. Thus, claim 1 amounts to no more than observing the levels of A8 or tau in an
`
`intranasal specimen. There is no requirement that any particular pretreatment step is used and may
`
`include simply collecting the specimen itself. The detection step covers every possible process for
`
`detecting both proteins. The comparing step covers any possible comparison to any possible
`
`predetermined value. The displaying step may use any possible means of displaying the comparison. The
`
`claim does not actually require any diagnosis is made or even a requirement that, once displayed, the
`
`result is seen or used by anyone. The claim itself amounts to no more than an attempt to foreclose others
`
`from detecting tau or A8 in intranasal specimens for any reason, as the comparing and displaying steps
`
`must be used by others to generate any meaning from the collected data. No specific machine is required
`
`and no transformation of the data is achieved. The method simply informs a relevant audience about the
`
`natural relationship, the relationship being a natural consequence of how the body expresses tau and the
`
`natural, unaltered relationship between tau and a tauopathy. There is nothing in the claim that requires
`
`the gathered data is applied in any meaningful way, and it would effectively monopolize the judicial
`
`exception itself.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/374,181
`
`Art Unit: 1649
`
`Page 7
`
`Claims 2-8 include limitations to the pretreatment step. However, the elements in these claims
`
`are no more than what was routine and conventional in the art (using swabs and metering tools to collect
`
`intranasal specimens, using formic acid to detect AB, etc). Moreover, there is still no requirement that the
`
`gathered data is actually used in any way. While the claim is a method of diagnosing AD, there is no
`
`requirement that any particular machine is used or transformation of the data is performed. Rather, the
`
`claims observe natural intranasal AB and/or tau levels using well-established techniques, compare the
`
`information in any way to any value, and the results are then displayed. This is similar to the fact pattern
`
`in Mayo where the concluding step—that the gathered data “indicated” a certain need—did not in fact
`
`require any treatment modification was performed, only that the data indicated the need. The data
`
`indicate this need regardless of recognition by another, in the same way displaying a comparison result
`
`does not require any actual diagnosis is made.
`
`Claim 9 is the same as claim 1 excepting that both tau and AB must be detected; this is ineligible
`
`for the same reasons.
`
`Claim 10 includes using a collection tool, eluting the sample, extracting in ultrapure water, and
`
`extracting AB in formic acid. These steps were all routine and conventional in the art and none of these
`
`steps add significantly more than observing the phenomenon itself, dissociated from any conclusion or
`
`diagnosis.
`
`Claim 11 requires a generic mathematical formula is applied to compare the values. This does
`
`not transform the data into anything other than what it was, nor is it considered to add significantly more
`
`than observing the phenomenon itself. There is no indication as to how the comparison is meant to lead
`
`the artisan to a diagnosis of AD and the claims as a whole amount to no more than a suggestion that
`
`intranasal AB and tau should be measured and that the practitioner should "apply it" somehow.
`
`Claims 12 and 13 are drawn to generic means for accomplishing certain tasks. No specific
`
`machine is required and several steps (comparing and calculating) may be entirely mental, while the
`
`displaying step could be performed by simply writing the information on a piece of paper. While the
`
`detection step would require a machine of some sort, the breadth of such devices capable of performing
`
`this function indicates that only a generic computer and general reagents, all well-known and routinely
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/374,181
`
`Art Unit: 1649
`
`Page 8
`
`used in the art, are required in order to gather data which is then observed. Essentially, the claims are
`
`directed to performing generic, well-understood detection methods followed by abstract, mental steps.
`
`Inasmuch as a machine might be required, any generic computer would suffice.
`
`Therefore, claims 1-13 are drawn to patent ineligible subject matter.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 —
`
`Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Matson
`
`(US 6194217; citation 1 on IDS filed 1/12/15.
`
`Instant claims 12 and 13 invoke USC §112, paragraph six. The "system" is not a structural
`
`limitation and the remaining limitations are only described by their function (means for
`
`detecting/comparing/displaying/calculating). Note that the “means for detecting” is considered to refer to
`
`the ELISA technology disclosed in the instant specification as well as equivalents thereof. There is
`
`insufficient structure in the specification to analyze the means for comparing/displaying/calcuIating under
`
`§112, 6th paragraph, and therefore any means which accomplishes this goal is considered an equivalent.
`
`Matson discloses a means for detecting tau and AB (such as the liquid chromatography/electrical
`
`detection system explicitly used to detect AB), considered an equivalent to the instantly disclosed ELISA
`
`kits as both quantitatively detect the proteins, resulting in a value representing the physical concentration
`
`of the protein in the sample. Matson compares and displays the information (see figures), clearly
`
`anticipating a means for doing so. Any generic computer possesses the means for performing the
`
`claimed calculations and Matson anticipates using computer analysis as the figures presented by Matson
`
`clearly employed the use of a computer to generate graphs and probability statistics.
`
`Therefore, claims 12 and 13 are anticipated by Matson.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/374,181
`
`Art Unit: 1649
`
`Page 9
`
`Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Luminex
`
`(cited on form 892).
`
`Luminex teaches measuring AB and tau from brain tissue, CSF samples, and tissue culture
`
`supernatant (p.22 C1). Luminex teaches pretreating the samples (homogenization, centrifugation,
`
`addition of formic acid) and preparing the sample in ultrapure water (see protocol inset, p.23). Luminex
`
`compares these values to a predetermined value (AD v control in figure 1; reference to standard curves
`
`on page 23) and displays the results (figure 1). The detection method of Luminex is an equivalent of the
`
`ELISA kit instantly disclosed as both are immunoassays that operate by the same biochemical principles
`
`and generate the same quantification of protein concentration, the only difference being the former binds
`
`antibodies to a bead while the latter binds antibody to a plate. Luminex clearly possesses a means for
`
`comparing and displaying results (see graphs). Further, the "Luminexm xMAP(R) system” is a computer,
`
`which is capable of performing the calculating step as any generic computer is capable of such
`
`calculations.
`
`Therefore, claims 12-13 are anticipated by Luminex.
`
`Claims 1-4, 6, and 7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Nanjoh
`
`(WO 2011/092796; FOR citation 3 on IDS submitted 9/11/14). Note that for the purpose of this action,
`
`citation references will be made with respect to PGPUB 20130137120, taken as an English translation of
`
`the ‘796 document as indicated on the IDS (Citation 1 on IDS submitted 9/11/14).
`
`Nanjoh claims an AB measurement method comprising treating an irrigated nasal mucosa
`
`specimen (claim 20) with a solubilizer (pretreatment) and measuring the AB quantitatively (claim 3).
`
`Nanjoh teaches measuring AB involves comparing the sample value to a standard curve (paragraph 100;
`
`comparing with a predetermined value) and displaying the results (paragraph 102, "the measurement
`
`results are shown in Fig. 2"). Nanjoh teaches this method in the context of diagnosing AD (paragraphs 3-
`
`10). Thus, Nanjoh teaches each active step of the instantly claimed method, thus anticipating instant
`
`claim 1.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/374,181
`
`Art Unit: 1649
`
`Page 10
`
`With respect to claim 2, Nanjoh teaches placing the nasal specimen attached to a collection tool
`
`(mucus attached to cotton swab) into 80% formic acid (paragraphs 97-98; an extraction liquid) in order to
`
`“extract [i.e., elute] and solubilize the sample contained in the cotton swab”.
`
`With respect to claims 3 and 4, Nanjoh teaches that irrigation solutions result in a salt build-up in
`
`the sample, which adversely affects subsequent measurement by enzyme immunoassays. Nanjoh
`
`teaches using ultrafiltration to overcome this hurdle (paragraph 84). Thus, Nanjoh anticipates filtering the
`
`extraction liquid containing the intranasal specimen. Note that the claim language "for fractionation" does
`
`not require fractionation actually occur, only that such filtration would be suitable for this purpose. Absent
`
`evidence to the contrary, the filtration step of Nanjoh may be used for subsequent fractionation. As the
`
`purpose of the filter is to reduce the salt concentration, the filter is clearly capable of fractionation (i.e.,
`
`separating the protein from the salt).
`
`With respect to claim 6, Nanjoh teaches the solubilizer is formic acid (claim 13).
`
`With respect to claim 7, Nanjoh teaches collecting the nasal mucus with a cotton swab
`
`(paragraph 97).
`
`Therefore, claims 1-4, 6, and 7 are anticipated by Nanjoh.
`
`Claims 1, 8, 9, and 12-13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by
`
`Yamagishi (citation 9 on IDS filed 1/12/15).
`
`Yamagishi teaches pretreating an intranasal specimen collected from a nasal cavity (p. 421, C2:
`
`“olfactory mucosa was obtained...by means of the special biopsy instruments we routinely use in our
`
`small clinic”; p.422, C1: “the specimens were fixed...dehydrated...and embedded”). Yamagishi teaches
`
`detecting tau in the sample (table on page 425), comparing this value with predetermined values
`
`(compared to healthy controls, see table on p.425; compared to positive and negative control values to
`
`validate the assay, see p.422 C1 -2), and displaying the comparisons (see figures and table throughout).
`
`Yamagishi teaches this meathod for its use as a definitive diagnosis of AD (abstract). Thus, Yamagishi
`
`anticipates instant claim 1.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/374,181
`
`Art Unit: 1649
`
`Page 11
`
`With respect to claim 8, the biopsy tool used by Yamagishi meets the limitations of a metering
`
`collection tool.
`
`With respect to claim 9, Yamagishi uses both tau and AB antibodies in order to detect these
`
`proteins in the sample and states an “extracellular mass was found in the olfactory epithelium, and it
`
`reacted strongly to an anti-tau antiserum and weakly to an anti-amyloid-B protein antiserum” (abstract).
`
`This demonstrates that Yamagishi anticipates including detection of both AB and tau when probing
`
`intranasal specimens and comparing these values to predetermined values (“strongly” and "weakly" are
`
`comparative terms).
`
`With respect to claims 12 and 13, Yamagishi teaches a means for detecting both tau and AB
`
`(primary antibodies to both, demonstrated detection in an abnormal nasal aggregate; abstract), a means
`
`for comparing values of tau and A13 to predetermined values (see table and figures as well as reference to
`
`using positive and negative controls), a means for displaying comparison results (see table and figures),
`
`and a means for calculating values (see references to percentage calculations, e.g., p.424 C2, and note
`
`that any generic computer is a means for calculating such values).
`
`Therefore, claims 1, 8, 9, and 12-13 are anticipated by Yamagishi.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness
`
`rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described
`as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to
`be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
`said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the
`invention was made.
`
`This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was
`
`commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the
`
`contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/374,181
`
`Art Unit: 1649
`
`Page 12
`
`dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the
`
`examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e),
`
`(f) or (g) prior art under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
`
`Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, and 12-13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Matson (US 6194217; cited on IDS).
`
`Claims 12-13 are anticipated by, and therefore obvious over, Matson as described above.
`
`Further, Matson claims a method of diagnosis wherein healthy individuals and diseased individuals are
`
`both sampled for molecular constituents (claim 1). Matson claims comparing these detected constituents
`
`in a database for conformity to patterns representative of predetermined constituents in a test patient in
`
`order to screen the test patient for the disorder (claim 1). In other words, Matson claims a method of
`
`comparing the levels of a molecule in a test patient to a known, predetermined value aggregated from
`
`either healthy or diseased individuals in order to diagnose the test individual. Matson claims the sample is
`
`from the nasal mucosa (claim 6). Matson claims the disorder is Alzheimer’s disease (claim 12) and that
`
`the molecule is fragments of AB (claim 29). Matson teaches that tau is also found in the nasal epithelium
`
`and that “the possibility of using biopsy of nasal epithelium as a clinical marker of Alzheimer's disease
`
`during life was suggested" (C19 L40-48). Matson displays the results of detecting AB in a saline
`
`suspension of mucosa (figure 7) as well as displays the results of making a diagnosis of AD (figure 2).
`
`While Matson teaches the individual components of the claim, Matson does not teach them in an
`
`arrangement consistent with §102.
`
`Nevertheless, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found
`
`it obvious to detect tau and/or AB from an intranasal specimen and then to compare these values with
`
`other values and display the result, arriving at the instant method. Matson clearly teaches that tau is
`
`found in intranasal specimens and claims that the screening assay may also detect AB in an AD patient
`
`as well as indicating the sample may be intranasal. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made would have found it obvious to take an intranasal specimen and detect tau and/or AB
`
`using the methods disclosed by Matson. As Matson teaches the samples must be "prepared and flowed
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/374,181
`
`Art Unit: 1649
`
`Page 13
`
`through a chromatographic column" for the sensors to detect the proteins (C6), Matson clearly teaches
`
`pretreating the sample. The crux of the method of Matson is comparing the values of markers with
`
`predetermined values (either healthy or diseased baselines); therefore, it would have been obvious that
`
`the purpose of detecting the proteins (AB and/or tau) in the intranasal specimen was for the purpose of
`
`comparing it to the known baseline values. As Matson displays the results of this detection, it would have
`
`been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so as well. Moreover, it is
`
`noted that comparing detected values to known (predetermined) values is a basic scientific practice and
`
`that, without any definition as to what a predetermined value is, the claim encompasses comparing the
`
`detected value to a blank/zero value as is common when validating assays. Further, displaying results--
`
`from computer displays to generating figures for publishing papers to medical reports—is also a basic
`
`scientific tool and would have been an obvious step to anyone of ordinary skill in the art set to detect
`
`intranasal A8 or tau. Thus, instant claims 1 and 9 would have been obvious.
`
`As Matson teaches transferring a sample from a swab (collection tool) and eluting the samples
`
`prior to detection using liquid chromatography (e.g. claim 10), it would have been obvious to perform the
`
`same step, on point to instant claim 2.
`
`Matson teaches use of a swab, rendering its use obvious (instant claim 7).
`
`Therefore, claims 1, 2, 7, 9 and 12-13 would have been obvious over Matson.
`
`Claims 1-10, and 12-13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Nanjoh in view of Yamagishi and further in view of Luminex (cited on form 892).
`
`Claims 1-4, 6, and 7 are anticipated by, and therefore obvious over, Nanjoh as descr

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket