Enzolytics Inc (ENZC)

[foxi]

I believe this refers to the PCT Written Opinion.

Click the top tab "ISR/WOSA/A17(2)(a) " and then the second subtab called "Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority in XML" for either patent and have a look. In particular, scrolling to the bottom of the page reveals a list of Cotropia's and Chandra's claims that don't meet the PCT requirements for various reasons.

This doesn't mean the rejected material is unpatentable nor that they can't rectify inadequate claims with the patent office in the months after filing - but neither patent application was accepted on its face. So far no patent has been granted.

This is, however, the PCT process - and as I understand it, there's typically some back-and-forth to correct drawings, tighten up the wording of claims, etc.

Covid:
https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2022178216&_cid=P20-L8J9UQ-57138-1

HIV:
https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2022197882&_cid=P20-L8J9UQ-57138-1


Open the claims in a second tab and flip back and forth to compare. For the Covid patent, this rejection is a bit concerning:

Claims 1, 4, 6-7 are not novel and do not comply with the requirements of Article 33(2) PCT. The peptide and antibodies binding to the peptide are disclosed eg. in D1 (see Table 1b) and or D2 (see peptide Nr. 183).

.