Case 1:17-cv-12194-MLW Document 24-6 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-12194-MLW Document 24-6 Filed 01/16/18 Page 2 of 12
`Case 1:17-cv-12194—MLW Document 24-6 Filed 01/16/18 Page 2 of 12
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Attorney Docket No. 37901-713304
`
`PATENT
`
`In re application of:
`
`Confirmation No.: 9266
`
`Inventors: Daniel D. VON HOFF et al.
`
`Group Art Unit: 1631
`
`Serial No.: 14/ 170,466
`
`Examiner: Lin, Jerry
`
`Filed: January 31, 2014
`
`Customer No. 96600
`
`For: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR
`DETERMINING INDIVIDUALIZED MEDICAL
`INTERVENTION FOR A DISEASE STATE
`
`
`ELECTRONICALLY FILED JULY 7, 2014
`
`Mail Stop Amendment
`Commissioner for Patents
`PO. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`RESPONSE TO NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION
`
`Sir/Madam:
`
`Introductory Comments:
`
`This communication is in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on March 26, 2014 (the
`
`“Office Action”). The shortened statutory period for response expired on June 26, 2014. Therefore,
`
`Applicants submit a one-month extension fee with the filing of this Response.
`
`Applicants respectfully request consideration of the above-referenced application in View of the
`
`following amendments and remarks.
`
`Amendments to the Specification begin on page 2 of this paper.
`
`Amendments to the Claims begin on page 3 of this paper.
`
`Remarks begin on page 5 of this paper.
`
`Attorney Docket No. 37901-713304
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-12194-MLW Document 24-6 Filed 01/16/18 Page 3 of 12
`Case 1:17-cv-12194-MLW Document 24-6 Filed 01/16/18 Page 3 of 12
`US. Serial No. 14/170,466
`Response to Office Action mailed March 26, 2014
`
`Amendments to the Specification:
`
`Please amend paragraph [0001] of the Specification as follows:
`
`[0001] This application is a continuation of US. Utility Patent Application No. 11/750,721, filed on May
`
`18, 2007, now US. Patent No. 8,700,335, issued April 15, 2014, which claims the benefit ofU.S.
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/747,645, filed May 18, 2006, each of which is incorporated by reference
`
`herein in its entirety.
`
`-2-
`
`Attorney Docket No. 37901-713304
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-12194-MLW Document 24-6 Filed 01/16/18 Page 4 of 12
`Case 1:17-cv-12194-MLW Document 24-6 Filed 01/16/18 Page 4 of 12
`US. Serial No. 14/170,466
`Response to Office Action mailed March 26, 2014
`
`Amendments to the Claims:
`
`1.
`
`(Currently Amended) A system for generating a report identifying a therapeutic agent for an
`
`individual with a cancer comprising:
`
`a.
`
`at least one device configured to assay a plurality of molecular targets in a biological sample
`
`to determine individualized molecular profile test values for the plurality of molecular targets.
`
`wherein the molecular targets comprise EGFR. KIT. TOP]. MLHl. PTEN: PDGFRA and
`ESRl‘ and
`
`ab. at least one er—neere computer database comprising:
`
`
`a reference value for a th_e plurality of molecular targets; and
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`a listing of available therapeutic agents for said plurality of molecular targets;
`
`be. a computer-readable program code fer—inputting comprising instructions to input the
`
`individualized molecular profile test values ebtamed—fer—meleeular—targets—eempnsmg—EGF—R;
`II U-
`I_.
`In __-.__.__- .'...,'
`'.... .......,.
`
`
`
`and eemparing to compare said test values with a corresponding reference value in (ab)(i);
`
`ed. a computer-readable program code feHeeessing comprising instructions to access the at least
`
`one computer database in—(a) and t_o identifying at least one er—naere therapeutic agent in
`
`(3-)(ii)—fer—the—from the listing of available therapeutic agents for the pluralig of molecular
`
`targets wherein said comparison to said reference i_n (199) indicates a likely benefit of the a_t
`
`least one er—neere therapeutic agent; and
`
`de. a computer-readable program fer—generating code comprising instructions to generate a report
`
`that comprises a listing of the molecular targets wherein said comparison to said reference
`
`indicated a likely benefit of the at least one er—neere therapeutic agent in (e(_l) along with the a_t
`
`least one er—neere therapeutic agent identified in (ed).
`
`(Currently Amended) The system of claim 1, wherein the +nputting—in—(b)—is—penfern&ed
`
`individualized molecular profile test values are input into the system from a location that is
`
`remote from said at least one database—in—(a).
`
`(Currently Amended) The system of claim 1, wherein the inputting—is—penfermeel individualized
`
`molecular profile test values are input into the system over an internet connection.
`
`4.
`
`(Original) The system of claim 1, wherein the report is in electronic or paper format.
`
`-3-
`
`Attorney Docket No. 37901—713304
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-12194-MLW Document 24-6 Filed 01/16/18 Page 5 of 12
`Case 1:17-cv-12194-MLW Document 24-6 Filed 01/16/18 Page 5 of 12
`US. Serial No. 14/170,466
`Response to Office Action mailed March 26, 2014
`
`(Currently Amended) The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one er—mere computer database
`
`further comprise data corresponding to at least one er—mere clinical trial of a molecular target.
`
`(Original) The system of claim 1, wherein the reference value for each of the plurality of
`
`molecular targets comprises a nucleic acid and/or protein.
`
`(Currently Amended) The system of claim 1, wherein the testing—efthemeleeular—target—is
`
`per-farmed test values for the pluralig of molecular targets in the individual are determined after
`
`the individual has received drug therapy for the cancer.
`
`(Currently Amended) The system of claim 1, wherein the molecular profile test values are
`
`determined by eemprises assessing a cell, tissue sample, blood sample or combination thereof.
`
`(Currently Amended) The system of claim 1, wherein the molecular prefiling profile test values
`
`are determined by eempr—ises performing a test for a gene and/or a_protein.
`
`10.
`
`
`(Currently Amended) The system of claim 1, wherein the reference is obtained from at least one
`
`er—mere normal individual without the cancer.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`(Original) The system of claim 1, wherein the individual has been treated by and failed to
`
`respond to one cancer therapeutic.
`
`(Original) The system of claim 1, wherein the individual has been treated by and failed to
`
`respond to more than one cancer therapeutic.
`
`(New) The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one device configured to assay the plurality of
`
`molecular targets is configured to perform at least one of immunohistochemistry (IHC), an
`
`expression microarray, a comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) microarray, a single
`
`nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarray, a fluorescent in-situ hybridization (FISH), in-situ
`
`hybridization (ISH), and a proteomic array.
`
`(New) The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one device configured to assay the plurality of
`
`molecular targets is configured to perform at least one of a microarray, genotyping and proteomic
`
`analysis.
`
`-4-
`
`Attorney Docket No. 37901-713304
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-12194-MLW Document 24-6 Filed 01/16/18 Page 6 of 12
`Case 1:17-cv-12194-MLW Document 24-6 Filed 01/16/18 Page 6 of 12
`U.S. Serial No. 14/170,466
`Response to Office Action mailed March 26, 2014
`
`REMARKS
`
`With this Response, the Specification is amended to reference the patent number of the recently
`
`issued parent application. Claims 1-3, 5 and 7-10 are amended. Claims 13-14 are new and find support
`
`throughout the application as filed, e. g., at paragraphs 53, 61. These amendments and new claims
`
`introduce no new matter. Applicants respectfully request entry thereof and reconsideration of the
`
`application in view of the amendments and arguments below.
`
`I.
`
`Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`The Examiner rejected claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly directed to non-statutory
`
`subject matter. Office Action, p. 2. The Examiner states that the instant claims are “drawn to a series of
`
`computational steps and calculations,” which “computational steps and calculations are interpreted as an
`
`abstract idea.” Id. The Examiner further alleges that “the method does not recite a physical transformation
`
`of matter nor is the method tied to a particular machine” and concludes that “[a]s an abstract idea, the
`
`instant claims are nonstatutory.” Id.
`
`On June 25, 2014, the USPTO issued updated instructions for examining claims involving
`
`abstract ideas. Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice
`
`Corporation Ply. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (the “Guidance”). This Guidance directs the
`
`Examiner to use a two-step approach to determine subject matter eligibility: 1) determine whether the
`
`claim is directed to an abstract idea; and 2) if an abstract idea is present in the claim, determine whether
`
`any element, or combination of elements, in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to
`
`significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
`
`Applicants disagree with the Examiner’s assertion that the claims are an abstract idea, for at least
`
`the reason that the claims provide improvements to another technology or technical field, e. g., by
`
`improving the treatment of cancer victims. See Alice Corp. Ply. Ltd v. CLS Bank Int ’l , 573 U.S. _
`
`(2014) (Slip Op. at p. 15) (distinguishing abstract claims from those that “effect an improvement in any
`
`other technology or technical field,” citing Diamond v. Dielzr, 450 U. S. 175, 177-78 (1981)).
`
`Nevertheless, the claims have been amended with this Response solely in order to expedite prosecution.
`
`The amended claims recite at least one device configured to assay a plurality of molecular targets
`
`comprising EGFR, KIT, TOPl, MLHl, PTEN, PDGFRA and ESR1 in a biological sample to determine
`
`individualized molecular profile test values for the plurality of molecular targets. Accordingly, the claims
`
`recite machinery other than a generic computer, thereby ensuring that the claims amount to significantly
`
`-S-
`
`Attorney Docket No. 37901—713304
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-12194-MLW Document 24-6 Filed 01/16/18 Page 7 of 12
`Case 1:17-cv-12194-MLW Document 24-6 Filed 01/16/18 Page 7 of 12
`US. Serial No. 14/170,466
`Response to Office Action mailed March 26, 2014
`
`more than the alleged abstract idea itself and that the claims are not abstract. See Guidance, p. 3.
`
`Applicants respectfully request that the Examiner reconsider and withdraw this rejection.
`
`The Examiner further alleges that the “instant claims are also drawn to a database and program
`”a
`
`code” and that “each of the components a.-d. recite the term ‘for. Office Action, p. 3. The Examiner
`
`states that “the term ‘for’ suggest[s] that claim language following the term is intended use. Intended uses
`
`are not considered to be limitations of the instant claims.” The Examiner concludes that “[t]hus, the
`
`instant claims are drawn to a system comprising a database and computer readable program code.
`
`However neither a database nor program code is within one of the statutory classes of patent eligible
`
`subject matter” and concludes that the “instant claims are non-statutory.” Id.
`
`As above, the claims have been amended with this Response solely in order to expedite
`
`prosecution. The claims have been further amended to remove the term ‘for’ and to recite that the system
`
`comprises computer-readable program code comprising instructions to carry out the various steps recited
`
`in the claims. Accordingly this rejection is moot. Applicants respectfully request that the Examiner
`
`reconsider and withdraw this rejection.
`
`11.
`
`Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`The Examiner rejected claims 1-10 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as allegedly unpatentable
`
`as obvious over Bacus et al. (US 2006/0127928 A1) (hereinafter “Bacus”) in view of Linsley et al. (US
`
`2005/0181385 A1) (hereinafter “Linsley”). Office Action, p. 3. Applicants respectfully traverse the
`
`rejection for at least the reasons presented below.
`
`First, the Examiner restates that “the term ‘for’ suggest[s] that claim language following the term
`
`is intended use. Intended uses are not considered to be limitations of the instant claims.” Office Action, p.
`
`3. As noted above, the claims have been amended to recite that the system includes computer-readable
`
`program code comprising instructions to carry out the various steps recited in the claims.
`
`a. Claims 1, 4, and 10
`
`Regarding claims 1, 4, and 10, the Examiner alleges that Bacus discloses various claim elements:
`
`“a method that includes a reference value for a plurality of molecular targets which are proteins or nucleic
`
`acids (paragraphs 0070 and 0081; claims 1 and 9)”; “a listing of available therapeutic agents (paragraphs
`
`0081 and 0134-0144)”; “comparing the expression levels of the targets to the reference value to identify
`
`-6-
`
`Attorney Docket No. 37901—713304
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-12194-MLW Document 24-6 Filed 01/16/18 Page 8 of 12
`Case 1:17-cv-12194-MLW Document 24-6 Filed 01/16/18 Page 8 of 12
`US. Serial No. 14/170,466
`Response to Office Action mailed March 26, 2014
`
`any targets whose value is different form the reference value (paragraphs 0128-0132; claims 1 and 9)”;
`
`“identifying therapeutic agents for the molecular targets having a change (paragraph 0081 and 0134-
`
`0144)”; and “generating an electronic listing of the molecular agents with a change and the therapeutic
`
`agent (paragraph 0130).” Office Action, p. 4.
`
`The Examiner acknowledges that Bacus does not disclose “where the molecular targets are
`
`EGFR, KIT, TOPl, MLHl, PTEN, PDGRA [sic], and ESRl” but asserts that Linsley discloses
`
`“measuring the molecular profiles of EGFR, KIT, TOPl, MLHl, PTEN, PDGRA [sic], and ESRl in a
`
`biological sample ofcancer (page 66-69, Table 11C, Gene ID nos. 77, 120, 173, 418, 440, and 497).”
`
`Office Action p. 4. 1n alleging that the claims are obvious over Bacus in view of Linsley, the Examiner
`
`concludes that “one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the genes of Linsley
`
`et al. in the panel of targeted therapy markers of Bacus et al. to gain the benefit of identifying new gene
`
`targets for anti-cancer drugs.” Id. at p. 5.
`
`Applicants traverse the rejection for at least the following reasons:
`
`i.
`
`Bacus neither discloses nor suggests the base elements of claim I
`
`The Examiner alleges that the primary reference Bacus discloses various claim elements as
`
`described above. Applicants disagree. The claimed invention is directed to a system comprising at least
`
`one device configured to assay a plurality of molecular targets, at least one database, and computer
`
`readable program code comprising instructions to carry out various functions such as inputting test
`
`values, comparing such values to a reference, accessing a database to identify therapeutic agents based on
`
`the comparison, and generating a report listing the identified therapeutic agents.
`
`Bacus neither discloses nor suggests these elements of Applicants’ claim 1. Bacus only appears to
`
`mention computers for any purpose in paragraph 0130, which the Examiner cites to for allegedly
`
`supplying the element “generating an electronic listing of the molecular agents with a change and the
`
`therapeutic agent (paragraph 0130).” Office Action, p. 4. However, a closer analysis of Bacus’ paragraph
`
`0130 reveals that this paragraph does not disclose the elements of Applicants’ claims. Rather, paragraph
`
`0130 of Bacus states:
`
`Various automated sample processing, scanning and analysis systems suitable for use with
`immunohistochemistry are available in the art. Such systems may include automated staining and
`microscopic scanning, computerized image analysis, serial section comparison, digital report
`generation, and archiving and tracking of samples.
`
`-7-
`
`Attorney Docket No. 37901—713304
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-12194-MLW Document 24-6 Filed 01/16/18 Page 9 of 12
`Case 1:17-cv-12194-MLW Document 24-6 Filed 01/16/18 Page 9 of 12
`US. Serial No. 14/170,466
`Response to Office Action mailed March 26, 2014
`
`This section explicitly contemplates use of a computer for processing and analysis of
`
`immunohistochemistry only. Nowhere does Bacus disclose or even contemplate Applicants’ claimed
`
`invention, including at least the following elements of claim 1: a device configured to assay EGFR, KIT,
`
`TOPl, MLHl, PTEN, PDGFRA and ESRl; a computer database for any purpose, much less comprising a
`
`reference value for a the plurality of molecular targets or a listing of available therapeutic agents for the
`
`plurality of molecular targets; a computer-readable program code comprising instructions to input the
`
`individualized molecular profile test values and to compare said test values with a corresponding
`
`reference value; a computer-readable program code comprising instructions to access the at least one
`
`computer database and to identify at least one therapeutic agent from the prior comparison wherein the
`
`comparison indicates likely benefit; or a computer-readable program code comprising instructions to
`
`generate a report comprising a list of assayed molecular targets and related therapeutic agents. Bacus’
`
`brief mention in paragraph 130 of computer aided IHC processing not only fails to provide “generating an
`
`electronic listing of the molecular agents with a change and the therapeutic agent,” but fails to provide or
`
`suggest these additional elements of Applicants’ claimed invention as well.
`
`Accordingly, the primary reference Bacus fails to disclose or suggest the base elements of instant
`
`claim 1. For this reason alone, Applicants respectfully request that the Examiner withdraw this rejection
`
`to claim 1. Claims 4 and 10 depend from claim 1 and include all elements thereof. Thus, Applicants
`
`respectfully request that the Examiner withdraw this rejection to claims 4 and 10 as well.
`
`ii.
`
`Linsley does not perform molecular profiling, does not provide guideposts to
`Applicants ’ claimed genes, and instead teaches away from the claimed invention
`
`The Examiner alleges that the secondary reference Linsley provides “measuring the molecular
`
`profiles of EGFR, KIT, TOPl, MLHl, PTEN, PDGRA [sic], and ESRl in a biological sample of cancer
`
`(page 66-69, Table 11C, Gene ID nos. 77, 120, 173, 418, 440, and 497).” Office Action p. 4. Applicants
`
`disagree.
`
`As a threshold matter, the experiments of Linsley do not constitute molecular profiling of the
`
`various molecular targets according to the invention. Table 11C in Linsley was generated by transfecting
`
`HeLa cervical cancer cell lines with various siRNAs in order to individually silence approximately 800
`
`human genes. Linsley, 1] [0422]. The transfected cells were treated with the topoisomerase II inhibitor
`
`doxorubicin, and cell growth was later assessed. Id. at 111] [O422]—[O424]. The data in Table 11C indicate an
`
`average fold sensitization of the cells to doxorubicin in the presence of each of the suppressed genes,
`
`which is a measure of cell growth. Thus, Linsley determines cell growth and does not assess any of the
`
`-8-
`
`Attorney Docket No. 37901—713304
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-12194-MLW Document 24-6 Filed 01/16/18 Page 10 of 12
`Case 1:17-cv-12194-MLW Document 24-6 Filed 01/16/18 Page 10 of 12
`US. Serial No. 14/170,466
`Response to Office Action mailed March 26, 2014
`
`molecular targets of the siRNAs in Table IIC. In contrast, Applicants’ claim 1 recites determining
`
`individualized molecular profile test values for each of the plurality of molecular targets. Thus, the
`
`experiments presented in Table IIC are not instructive to the claimed invention.
`
`In addition, even if the experimental set up of Linsley was relevant to the claimed invention, the
`
`experiments for the claimed molecular targets fail to provide an effect indicating pertinent biological
`
`activity. Tables IIA-C in Linsley list the results for hundreds of genes, whether or not the results for a
`
`given gene’s suppression is significant (i.e., whether or not the fold-change differs from a fold-change of
`
`1.0, which would indicate no effect on sensitivity). Although Linsley does not provide statistical criteria
`
`in Table IIC, the reference itself only calls attention to those genes whose inhibition caused an average
`
`fold sensitization of the cells to doxorubicin of at least 1.5-fold (equivalently, less than 05-fold). See
`
`Linsley, 1] [0247]. Furthermore, Linsley only calls out by name those genes having average fold
`
`sensitization of 2-fold or higher. See id. In contrast, the fold-change in Linsley’s Table IIC related to all
`
`but one genes in Applicants’ claims are in the range that Linsley appears to consider irrelevant (i.e.,
`
`between 0.5- and 1.5-fold): EGFR (1.26-fold), KIT (0.88-fold), TOPl (1.2-fold), MLHl (1.19-fold),
`
`PDGFRA (0.99-fold), and ESRl (0.93-fold). PTEN alone is barely relevant with a fold-change of 1.54.
`
`Taken together, Linsley does nothing that would provide guideposts for one of skill to select Applicants’
`
`claimed targets apart from the hundreds of other genes listed in Table IIC. Rather, Linsley indicates that
`
`Applicants’ claimed targets are irrelevant, thereby teaching away from any of their selection for
`
`subsequent molecular profiling.
`
`In sum, the secondary reference Linsley reveals nothing that would lead one to the claimed
`
`invention. The experiments in Table IIC are not relevant to Applicants’ claims. Moreover, the reference
`
`does not provide guideposts to the selection of markers recited in claim 1 and instead suggests that
`
`Applicant’s claimed targets are irrelevant, thereby teaching away from Applicants’ claimed invention.
`
`Thus, Applicants independent claim 1 is not obvious over the combination of Bacus and Linsley. Claims
`
`4 and 10 depend from claim 1 and include all elements thereof, and are non-obvious for at least the same
`
`reasons. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully request that the Examiner withdraw this rejection.
`
`b. Claims 5-9, 11 and 12
`
`Regarding claims 5-9 and 11- 12, the Examiner alleges that Bacus discloses additional claim
`
`elements in addition to those listed above: “where the database includes data is from a clinical trial
`
`(paragraph 0175-0176)”; “where the molecular test is performed after the individual has received drug
`
`-9-
`
`Attorney Docket No. 37901—713304
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-12194-MLW Document 24-6 Filed 01/16/18 Page 11 of 12
`Case 1:17-cv-12194-MLW Document 24-6 Filed 01/16/18 Page 11 of 12
`US. Serial No. 14/170,466
`Response to Office Action mailed March 26, 2014
`
`n, 44
`therapy for cancer (paragraph 0036) , where the profile comprises accessing a cell, tissue or blood
`
`samples (paragraph 0124)”; and “where the molecular profiling comprises performing a test for a gene or
`
`a protein (paragraph 0128 and 0129).” Office Action, p. 4.
`
`As explained above, Applicants independent claim 1 is not obvious over the combination of
`
`Bacus and Linsley. Claims 5-9 and 11-12 depend from claim 1 and include all elements thereof. No
`
`alleged additional elements in Bacus can make up for the deficiencies in Bacus and Linsley described
`
`above. Thus, Applicants respectfully request that the Examiner withdraw this rejection.
`
`c. Claims 2-3
`
`Regarding claims 2 and 3, the Examiner alleges that Bacus discloses “using a computer system to
`
`perform their method (paragraph 0130).” Office Action, p. 4. The Examiner further alleges that “[i]t has
`
`been found that is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement[] a
`
`known function on a computer such as storing data on a database or adapting existing processes to
`
`incorporate internet technologies for communicating information.” Id. at pp. 4-5 (citation omitted). The
`
`Examiner concludes that “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention to store the data of Bacus et al. on a database and input data to their system via the internet.” Id.
`
`As explained above, Applicants independent claim 1 is not obvious over the combination of
`
`Bacus and Linsley. Claims 2-3 depend from claim 1 and include all elements thereof. Whether or not
`
`implementing a known function on a computer has been found obvious does not make up for the
`
`deficiencies in Bacus and Linsley. Thus, Applicants respectfully request that the Examiner withdraw this
`
`rejection and expedite allowance of all claims.
`
`III.
`
`Non-Statutory Double Patenting
`
`The Examiner provisionally rejected claims 1-12 on the ground of non-statutory double patenting
`
`as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of co-pending Application No. 14/ 1 5 0,624 (hereinafter “the ’624
`
`application”). Office Action, p. 6. The Examiner alleges that “[a]lthough the claims at issue are not
`
`identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims require all the
`
`limitations of the copending application with the additional limitations of specifying EGFR, KIT, TOP1,
`
`MLHl, PTEN, PDGRA, and ESRl as molecular targets.” Id. at pp 6-7. Applicants will consider filing a
`
`terminal disclaimer over the ’624 application if appropriate once the Examiner has identified allowable
`
`subject matter in the instant application.
`
`-10-
`
`Attorney Docket No. 37901—713304
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-12194-MLW Document 24-6 Filed 01/16/18 Page 12 of 12
`Case 1:17-cv-12194-MLW Document 24-6 Filed 01/16/18 Page 12 of 12
`US. Serial No. 14/170,466
`Response to Office Action mailed March 26, 2014
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Applicants submit that this paper fully addresses the Non-final Office Action mailed March 26,
`
`2014. Applicants believe that the pending claims are under condition for allowance. Should the Examiner
`
`have any questions, the Examiner is encouraged to telephone the undersigned at (5 71) 261-9809. The
`
`Commissioner is authorized to charge any additional fees which may be required, including petition fees
`
`and extension of time fees, to Deposit Account No. 50-4961 (Docket No.: 37901-713304).
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`CARIS MP1, INC.
`
`/Ramin Akhavan/
`
`Ramin Akhavan
`
`Registration No. 58,120
`
`Date:
`
`July 7, 2014
`
`Caris MP1, Inc.
`6655 N. MacArthur Blvd.
`
`Irving, TX 75039
`Customer No. 96600
`
`-1 1-
`
`Attorney Docket No. 37901-713304
`
`