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 .
Priority
Examiner acknowledges that, according to the Filing receipt received 11/06/2025, that the instant application 17/605,956 filed 10/22/2021 is a 371 of PCT/EP2020/061166 filed 04/22/2020 which claims benefit of U.S. provisional application 62/838,043 filed 04/24/2019.
However, the limitations of the instant claims are not adequately supported or enabled in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112, first paragraph by 62/838,043. More specifically, the limitations of each and every species as claimed in claim 4 are not taught or suggested in their entirety by 62/838,043. As such, claim 4 has been awarded the effective filing date of PCT/EP2020/061166 filed 04/22/2020 and claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 13, 15-16, 18, 22-25, 28, and 34-35 have been awarded the effective foiling date of 62/838,043 filed 04/24/2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 10/22/2021 and 10/26/2022 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered in full. A signed copy of list of references cited from the IDS is included with this Office Action.
Specification
The disclosure (specification filed 08/27/2025) is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 147: “3-(3-chlor-2-methoxyanilino)-2-[3-(oxetan-2-ylmethoxy)pyridin-4-yl]-1,5,6,7-tetrahydro-4H-pyrrolo[3,2-c]pyridin-4-on” should read “3-(3-chloro-2-methoxyanilino)-2-[3-(oxetan-2-ylmethoxy)pyridine-4-yl]-1,5,6,7-tetrahydro-4H-pyrrolo[3,2-c]pyridin-4-one”;
Page 148: “3-(3-chlor-2-methoxyanilino)-2-{3-[(2S)-oxetan-2-ylmethoxy]pyridin-4-yl}-1,5,6,7-tetrahydro-4H-pyrrolo[3,2-c]pyridin-4-on” should read “3-(3-chloro-2-methoxyanilino)-2-{3-[(2S)-oxetan-2-ylmethoxy]pyridine-4-yl}-1,5,6,7-tetrahydro-4H-pyrrolo[3,2-c]pyridin-4-one”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. See page 69. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-3: the structures depicted for R5 are low resolution and difficult to interpret;
Claim 4: “3-(3-chlor-2-methoxyanilino)-2-[3-(oxetan-2-ylmethoxy)pyridin-4-yl]-1,5,6,7-tetrahydro-4H-pyrrolo[3,2-c]pyridin-4-on” should read “3-(3-chloro-2-methoxyanilino)-2-[3-(oxetan-2-ylmethoxy)pyridine-4-yl]-1,5,6,7-tetrahydro-4H-pyrrolo[3,2-c]pyridin-4-one”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings only contain a single view, labeled "Figure 1". Per 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1), "Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13, 15-16, 18, 22-25, 28, and 34-35 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “R5 represents a group selected from the group… wherein said group is optionally substituted… or a group… wherein * indicated the point of attachment of said group”. It is unclear to what group “the group” and “said group” refers as the term “group” is used throughout the claim to refer to different parts of the structure of formula (I). Clarification is required. Claims 2-3, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13, 15-16, 18, 22-25, 28, and 34-35 are also rejected for reciting (see claims 2 and 3) or requiring the limitations at issue.
Claims 1-3 recite “the molecule”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis as claim 1 contains no reference to a “molecule”. Examiner suggests correcting “molecule” to “compound” as is recited in the preamble. Claims 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13, 15-16, 18, 22-25, 28, and 34-35 are also rejected for reciting or requiring the limitations at issue.
Claims 1-3 recite “R6 being bound to any carbon atom of the ring”. This causes confusion as it is unclear to what ring “the ring” refers, as the term “ring” is used throughout the claim to refer to different ring structures, and there are multiple rings in formula (I). Clarification is required. Claims 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13, 15-16, 18, 22-25, 28, and 34-35 are also rejected for reciting or requiring the limitations at issue.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the haematological tumour and/or solid tumour harbors a mutant EGFR, a mutant ERBB2 and/or metastases thereof”. It is unclear if “metastases thereof” refers to the mutations of the tumors. Clarification is required. Claims 10 and 11 recite similar language that also causes confusion.
Claim 28 recites “the EGF-receptor”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis as claim 23 refers to “anti-EGF-receptor therapy”.
Claim 34 recites “the EGF-receptor gene”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 35 recites “the EGF-receptor”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis as claim 35 only previously refers to “anti-EGF-receptor therapy”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
Claims 5, 7-8, 10-11, 16, 18, 22-25, 28, and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for treating or inhibiting EGF-receptor kinase activity in a cancer selected from lung cancer, leukemia, myelodysplastic syndrome, malignant lymphoma, head and neck tumors, tumors of the thorax, gastrointestinal tumors, endocrine tumors, mammary and other gynaecological tumors, urological tumors, and skin tumors, does not reasonably provide enablement for treatment or prophylaxis of diseases and/or cancers generally. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
As a general rule, enablement must be commensurate with the scope of claim language. MPEP 2164.08 states, "The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that "the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation." In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993)" (emphasis added). The "make and use the full scope of the invention without undue experimentation" language was repeated in 2005 in Warner-Lambert Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., 75 USPQ2d 1865, and Scripps Research Institute v. Nemerson, 78 USPQ2d 1019 asserts: "A lack of enablement for the full scope of a claim, however, is a legitimate rejection." The principle was explicitly affirmed most recently in Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 481 F.3d 1371, 82 USPQ2d 1113; Auto. Tech. Int'l, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 501 F.3d 1274, 84 USPQ2d 1108 (Fed. Cir. 2007), Monsanto Co. v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., 503 F.3d 1352, 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1705 (Fed. Cir. 2007), and Sitrick v. Dreamworks, LLC, 516 F.3d 993, 85 USPQ2d 1826 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Pursuant to In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988), one considers the following factors to determine whether undue experimentation is required: (A) The breadth of the claims; (B) The nature of the invention; (C) The state of the prior art; (D) The level of one of ordinary skill; (E) The level of predictability in the art; (F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) The existence of working examples; and (H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. Some experimentation is not fatal; the issue is whether the amount of experimentation is "undue"; see In re Vaeck, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1444.
The treatment of cancer generally cannot possibly be considered enabled.
By way of background, four cases are of particular relevance to the question of enablement of a method of treating cancers broadly or even generally:
In In re Buting, 57 CCPA 777, 418 F.2d 540, 163 USPQ 689, the claim was drawn to "The method of treating a malignant condition selected from the group consisting of leukemias, sarcomas, adenocarcinomas, lymphosarcomas, melanomas, myelomas, and ascitic tumors" using a small genus of compounds. The Court decided that human testing "limited to one compound and two types of cancer" was not "commensurate with the broad scope of utility asserted and claimed".
In Ex parte Jovanovics, 211 USPQ 907 the claims were drawn to "the treatment of certain specified cancers in humans" by the use of a genus of exactly two compounds, the N-formyl or N-desmethyl derivative of leurosine. Applicants submitted "affidavits, publications and data" for one of the compounds, and a dependent claim drawn to the use of that species was allowed. For the other, no data was presented, applicants said only that the other derivative would be expected to be less effective; claims to the genus were refused.
In Ex parte Busse, et al., 1 USPQ2d 1908, claims were drawn to "A therapeutic method for reducing metastasis and neoplastic growth in a mammal" using a single species. The decision notes that such utility "is no longer considered to be "incredible", but that "the utility in question is sufficiently unusual to justify the examiner's requirement for substantiating evidence. Note also that there is also a dependent claim 5 which specified "wherein metastasis and neoplastic growth is adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, melanoma, cell small lung or glioma." The decision notes that "even within the specific group recited in claim 5 some of the individual terms used actually encompass a relatively broad class of specific types of cancer, which specific types are known to respond quite differently to various modes of therapy."
In Ex parte Stevens, 16 USPQ2d 1379 a claim to "A method for therapeutic or prophylactic treatment of cancer in mammalian hosts" was refused because there was "no actual evidence of the effectiveness of the claimed composition and process in achieving that utility."
Pursuant to In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988), one considers the following factors to determine whether undue experimentation is required: (A) The breadth of the claims; (B) The nature of the invention; (C) The state of the prior art; (D) The level of one of ordinary skill; (E) The level of predictability in the art; (F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) The existence of working examples; and (H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. Some experimentation is not fatal; the issue is whether the amount of experimentation is "undue"; see In re Vaeck, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1444.
The analysis is as follows:
1) Breadth of claims.
The claims are directed toward “treatment” or “prophylaxis” (prevention) of diseases and/or cancers. It is presumed “prevention” of the claimed disease would require a method of identifying those individuals who will develop the claimed diseases before they exhibit symptoms. There is no evidence of record that would guide the skilled clinician to identify those who have the potential of becoming afflicted. Preventing diseases requires identifying those patients who will acquire the disease before the prostate cancer occurs. This would require extensive and potentially opened ended clinical research on healthy subjects.
"Cancer" is not a single disease, or cluster of closely related disorders. There are hundreds of cancers, which have in common only some loss of controlled cell growth. Cancers are highly heterogeneous at both the molecular and clinical level, something seen especially in, for example, the cancers of the breast, brain and salivary glands. They can occur in pretty much every part of the body. To be able to simply stop cancer cells generally from being able to proliferate. Many of these approaches --- and there have been others as well --- have produced anti-cancer drugs. However, despite high hopes for success, and a plausible theory why these should work for cancers generally, none of these approaches have ever produced a drug which come remotely near such a goal.
Specifically, the prior art knows that there never has been a compound capable of treating cancers generally. "The cancer therapy art remains highly unpredictable, and no example exists for efficacy of a single product against tumors generally." (<http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/1pecba.htm#7> ENABLEMENT DECISION TREE, Example F, situation 1). A similar statement appears at In re Application of Hozumi et al., 226 USPQ 353: "In spite of the vast expenditure of human and capital resources in recent years, no one drug has been found which is effective in treating all types of cancer. Cancer is not a simple disease, nor is it even a single disease, but a complex of a multitude of different entities, each behaving in a different way". There are compounds that treat a modest range of cancers, but no one has ever been able to figure out how to get a compound to be effective against cancer generally, or even a majority of cancers.
The attempts to find compounds to treat the various cancers arguably constitute the single most massive enterprise in all of pharmacology. This has not resulted in finding any treatment for tumors generally. Indeed, the existence of such a "silver bullet" is contrary to our present understanding in oncology. This is because it is now understood that there is no "master switch" for cancers generally; cancers arise from a bewildering variety of differing mechanisms. Even the most broadly effective antitumor agents are only effective against a small fraction of the vast number of different cancers known. This is true in part because cancers arise from a wide variety of sources, primarily a wide variety of failures of the body's cell growth regulatory mechanisms, but also such external factors such as viruses (an estimated at least 20% are of viral origin e.g. Human papillomavirus, EBV, Hepatitis B and C, HHV-8, HTLV-1 and other retroviruses, and quite possibly Merkel cell polyomavirus, and there is some evidence that CMV is a causative agent in glioblastoma), exposure to chemicals such as tobacco tars, excess alcohol consumption (which causes hepatic cirrhosis, an important cause of HCC), ionizing radiation, and unknown environment factors.
Accordingly, there is substantive "reason for one skilled in the art to question the objective truth of the statement of utility or its scope" (In re Langer, 183 USPQ 288, 297), specifically, the scope of covering cancer generally.
Similarly, In re Novak, 134 USPQ 335, 337-338, says "unless one with ordinary skill in the art would accept those allegations as obviously valid and correct, it is proper for the examiner to ask for evidence which substantiates them." There is no such evidence in this case. Likewise, In re Cortright, 49 USPQ2d 1464, states: "Moreover, we have not been shown that one of ordinary skill would necessarily conclude from the information expressly disclosed by the written description that the active ingredient" does what the specification surmises that it does. That is exactly the case here. Moreover, even if applicants' assertion that cancer in general could be treated with these compounds were plausible --- which it is not ---, that "plausible" would not suffice, as was stated in Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 75 USPQ2d 1297, 1301: "If mere plausibility were the test for enablement under section 112, applicants could obtain patent rights to "inventions" consisting of little more than respectable guesses as to the likelihood of their success."
Different types of cancers affect different organs and have different methods of growth and harm to the body, and different vulnerabilities. The skill thus depends on the particular cancer involved. There are some cancers where the chemotherapy skill level is high and there are multiple successful chemotherapeutic treatments. The mechanism in these situations, however, is not necessarily the same as is alleged for these compounds.
One skilled in the art knows that chemotherapy of brain tumors is especially difficult. This is because 1) the blood-brain barrier, which is often intact in parts or all of a brain tumor, will block out many drugs, as it is the purpose of the blood-brain barrier to protect the brain from alien chemicals, and 2) CNS tumors are characterized by marked heterogeneity, which greatly decreases vulnerability to chemotherapy. As a result, many categories of CNS tumors simply have no chemotherapy available. These include, generally, hemangioblastomas, meningiomas, craniopharyngiomas, acoustic neuromas, pituitary adenomas, optic nerve gliomas, glomus jugulare tumors and chordomas, to name just some. With regard to gliomas, GBM is considered untreatable; no effective agents have emerged for the treatment of GBM, despite 20 years of enrolling patients in clinical trials. It is radiation and surgery which are used for low grade gliomas (e.g. pilocytic astrocytoma and diffuse astrocytomas), as no drug has been found effective. There is no drug treatment established as effective for optic nerve gliomas or gangliogliomas. Indeed, very few gliomas of any type are treated with pharmaceuticals; it is one of the categories of cancer that is the least responsive to drugs.
Lymphomas of the stomach are not commonly treated with anti-cancer agents per se, but instead, surgery or radiation and antibiotic therapy (e.g. amoxicillin, metronidazole, bismuth, and omeprazole) are the primary treatments.
Neuroendocrine tumors of the cervix generally do not respond to chemotherapy.
A number of sarcomas, including alveolar soft part sarcoma (ASPS), retroperitoneal sarcoma, most liposarcomas, and the assorted chondrosarcomas, are generally considered not to respond to chemotherapy; no chemotherapeutic agent has been established as effective.
It is important to note that tumors can need to be treated quite differently even though they are tumors of the same organ. For example, the drugs used most often to treat Wilms tumor, the most common malignant tumor of the kidneys in children, are actinomycin D and vincristine. Such drugs are never used with clear cell renal carcinoma, which is treated, although without much success, with immunotherapy using the cytokines interleukin-2 and interferon-alpha. However, such immunotherapy has never been established as effective in non-clear cell RCC forms such as papillary renal cell carcinoma. Despite strenuous efforts over a period of decades, no chemotherapeutic agent has ever been found effective against this cancer. Cancers of the stomach can be lymphomas, GISTs, carcinoid tumors, carcinomas, or soft tissue sarcomas, and for a single agent to be effective against all or even most of these categories would be contrary to what is known in oncology.
The scope of treating inflammation generally is extraordinarily broad. Inflammation is a process which can take place in virtually any part of the body. There is a vast range of forms that it can take, causes for the problem, and biochemical pathways that mediate the inflammatory reaction. It is one of the most pervasive of all body processes. Inflammation is a very general term which encompasses a huge variety of specific processes.
2) The nature of the invention and predictability in the art.
With specific reference to cancer, Ex parte Kranz, 19 USPQ2d 1216, 1219 notes the "general unpredictability of the field [of] …anti-cancer treatment." In re Application of Hozumi et al., 226 USPQ 353 notes the "fact that the art of cancer chemotherapy is highly unpredictable". More generally, the invention is directed toward medicine and is therefore physiological in nature. It is well established that "the scope of enablement varies inversely with the degree of unpredictability of the factors involved," and physiological activity is generally considered to be an unpredictable factor. See In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970).
3) State of the Prior Art. The state of the art is that no general procedure is art-recognized for determining which patients generally will suffer from diseases or cancer generally before the fact. The claimed compounds are of Formula (I). So far as the examiner is aware these compounds have not been successfully used as broad range anticancer agents.
4) Working Examples. Applicants have provided no working examples which are successfully used as broad range anticancer agents or for preventing diseases and/or cancers. Applicants have, however, demonstrated the cytotoxicity of compounds of the claimed invention in BA/F3 cells with mutant EGFR.
5) Skill of those in the art. The artisan using Applicant’s invention would be a Board-Certified physician in oncological diseases with an MD degree or a research scientist with a PhD. Despite intensive efforts, pharmaceutical science has been unable to find a way of getting a compound to be effective for the prevention of cancers. Moreover, many mechanisms have been proposed over the decades as methods of treating the assorted cancers generally. Cytotoxic agents could be applied directly to the tumor cells, directly killing them. Immunotherapy involves stimulating the patient's immune system to attack cancer cells generally, either by immunization of the patient, in which case the patient's own immune system is trained to recognize tumor cells as targets, or by the administration of therapeutic antibodies as drugs, so the patient's immune system is recruited to destroy tumor cells by the therapeutic antibodies. Another approach would be to increase the amount or activity of the body's tumor suppressor genes, e.g. p53, PTEN, APC and CD95, which can for example activate DNA repair proteins, suppress the Akt/PKB signaling pathway, or initiate apoptosis of cancer cells. The angiogenesis inhibitor strategy was based on cutting off the blood supply that growing tumors need by shutting off the growth of new blood vessels by, for example, suppressing proliferation of endothelial cells or inducing apoptosis of endothelial cells. There is also the cancer stem cell paradigm, which hypothesizes that cancer could be treated generally, either by targeting the cancer stem cells themselves, or by targeting the epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition which supposedly generates the cancer stem cells. Yet another approach is to inhibit one or more of the assorted HSP90 proteins, which will supposedly disrupt the proper folding of signaling proteins that all cancers rely on. Inhibiting telomerase was said to be able to be able to simply stop cancer cells generally from being able to proliferate. Many of these approaches --- and there have been others as well --- have produced anti-cancer drugs. However, despite high hopes for success, and a plausible theory why these should work for cancers generally, none of these approaches have ever produced a drug which come remotely near such a goal.
Accordingly, there is substantive "reason for one skilled in the art to question the objective truth of the statement of utility or its scope" (In re Langer, 183 USPQ 288, 297), specifically, the scope of covering cancer generally. Moreover, even if applicants' assertion that cancer in general could be treated with these compounds were plausible --- which it is not ---, that "plausible" would not suffice, as was stated in Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 75 USPQ2d 1297, 1301: "If mere plausibility were the test for enablement under section 112, applicants could obtain patent rights to "inventions" consisting of little more than respectable guesses as to the likelihood of their success."
6) Scope of the claims. The scope of the claims involves the compounds of the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
326
244
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and their use as potential treatment or prophylaxis to cancers, thus, the scope of claims is very broad.
7) The quantity of experimentation needed. Given the fact that, historically, the development of new cancers drugs has been difficult and time consuming, and especially in view of factors 1 and 4 and 6, the quantity of experimentation needed is expected to be great.
MPEP 2164.01(a) states, "A conclusion of lack of enablement means that, based on the evidence regarding each of the above factors, the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993)." That conclusion is clearly justified here.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for the chemotherapeutic anti-cancer agents as listed on pages , does not reasonably provide enablement for chemotherapeutic anti-cancer agents an. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The instant claims are drawn to pyrrolopyridinone compounds of formula (I). The instant claims are further directed to a combination comprising a compound of formula (I) and a second active ingredient selected from chemotherapeutic anti-cancer agents and target-specific anti-cancer agents. The specification does not define that which is intended in the use of “chemotherapeutic anti-cancer agents” and “target-specific anti-cancer agents”. The specification additionally provides no guidance as to what agents are within the scope of “target-specific anti-cancer agents”, therefore the scope is incredibly broad. Combinations of agents are generally considered in the art to be unpredictable despite a high level of skill. It is well established that "the scope of enablement varies inversely with the degree of unpredictability of the factors involved" and physiological activity is generally considered to be an unpredictable factor. See In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Siegel et al. (WO 2019/081486 A1; published 05/02/2019; effectively filed 2017; IDS filed 10/26/2022). The reference qualifies as prior art under 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) against instant claim 4 because it was published and effectively filed before the effective filing date of instant claim 4 (04/22/2020) and names another inventor.
Siegel et al. discloses the following compounds which are EGFR inhibitors (p. 242, 257-258, 261, 274, 282).
PNG
media_image2.png
529
716
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The compounds differ from the instant invention in that the ring in the R5 position is 5-membered rather than 4-membered. However, per MPEP 2144.09, “Compounds which are… homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977).” Moreover, MPEP 2144.09 additionally states, “Prior art structures do not have to be true homologs or isomers to render structurally similar compounds prima facie obvious. In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979) (Claimed and prior art compounds were both directed to heterocyclic carbamoyloximino compounds having pesticidal activity. The only structural difference between the claimed and prior art compounds was that the ring structures of the claimed compounds had two carbon atoms between two sulfur atoms whereas the prior art ring structures had either one or three carbon atoms between two sulfur atoms.”
As such, since the above compounds only differ from the instant invention by an additional -CH2- in the ring structure, it would be prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the following claimed compounds.
PNG
media_image3.png
816
579
media_image3.png
Greyscale
One would have had a reasonable expectation of success as the structures are so similar that they would be expected to have the same properties.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13, 15-16, 18, 22-25, 28, and 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Siegel et al. (WO 2019/081486 A1; effectively filed 2017; IDS filed 10/26/2022).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art against the aforementioned claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Siegel et al. discloses the following compounds which are EGFR inhibitors (p. 242, 257-258, 261, 274, 282). See additionally pages 216-282 for compounds not explicitly cited but additionally overlap with the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image2.png
529
716
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Siegel et al. also teaches methods of teaching hematological tumors and lung cancer with mutant EGFR with exon 20 insertion mutations (V769_770ins ASV and/or D770_N771ins SVD exon 20 insertions) comprising administering the above compounds (p. 44). Siegel et al. teaches a method of treating additional cancers including breast, respiratory tract, brain, reproductive organ, digestive tract, urinary tract, eye, liver, skin, head and neck, thyroid, and parathyroid cancers as well as lymphomas, sarcomas, and leukemias (p. 44-45 bridging paragraph). Siegel et al. discloses that the compounds inhibit proliferation of BA/F3 cells with mutant EGFR (p. 302-306). Siegel et al. additionally teaches that the compounds can be formulated in compositions or in combination with other chemotherapeutic agents (p. 48, 58-59).
The compounds differ from the instant invention in that the ring in the R5 position is 5-membered rather than 4-membered. However, per MPEP 2144.09, “Compounds which are… homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977).” Moreover, MPEP 2144.09 additionally states, “Prior art structures do not have to be true homologs or isomers to render structurally similar compounds prima facie obvious. In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979) (Claimed and prior art compounds were both directed to heterocyclic carbamoyloximino compounds having pesticidal activity. The only structural difference between the claimed and prior art compounds was that the ring structures of the claimed compounds had two carbon atoms between two sulfur atoms whereas the prior art ring structures had either one or three carbon atoms between two sulfur atoms.”
As such, since the above compounds only differ from the instant invention by an additional -CH2- in the ring structure, it would be prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed compounds. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success as the structures are so similar that they would be expected to have the same properties.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Siegel et al. (WO 2021/198020 A1; effectively filed 03/31/2020; IDS filed 10/26/2022).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Siegel et al. discloses the following compounds (p. 204-205).
PNG
media_image4.png
320
547
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The compounds differ from the instant invention by the substitution of a methyl group on the pyridinone. While the exact compounds of claim 4 are not disclosed by Siegel et al., it is generally noted that the substitution of methyl for hydrogen on a known compound is not a patentable modification absent unexpected or unobvious results. In re Lincoln, 126 U.S.P.Q. 477, 53 U.S. P.Q. 40 (C.C.P.A. 1942); In re Druey, 319 F.2d 237, 138 U.S.P.Q. 39 (C.C. P.A. 1963); In re Lohr, 317 F.2d 388, 137 U.S.P.Q. 548 (C.C.P.A. 1963); In re Hoehsema, 399 F.2d 269, 158 U.S.P.Q. 598 (C.C.P.A. 1968); In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 199 U.S. P.Q. 137 (C.C.P.A. 1978); In re Hoke, 560 F.2d 436, 195 U.S.P.Q. 148 (C.C.PA.A. 1977); Ex parte Fauque, 121 U.S.P.Q. 425 (P.O.B.A. 1954); Ex parte Henkel, 130 U.S.P.Q. 474, (P.O.B.A. 1960). Given that applicant did not provide unexpected or unobvious results of the invention, it is concluded that the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known would provide the motivation to substitute the “H” group to a “methyl” and vice versa, in order to arrive at the instantly claimed compounds.
PNG
media_image5.png
371
690
media_image5.png
Greyscale
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
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. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 13, and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 13, and 15 of copending Application No. 17/934,553 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the '553 application is directed toward compounds of formula (I), as below, and compositions and combinations thereof.
PNG
media_image6.png
254
220
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 4 additionally recites the following compound.
PNG
media_image7.png
50
554
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The compounds differ from the instant invention by the substitution of a methyl group on the pyridinone. It is generally noted that the substitution of methyl for hydrogen on a known compound is not a patentable modification absent unexpected or unobvious results. In re Lincoln, 126 U.S.P.Q. 477, 53 U.S. P.Q. 40 (C.C.P.A. 1942); In re Druey, 319 F.2d 237, 138 U.S.P.Q. 39 (C.C. P.A. 1963); In re Lohr, 317 F.2d 388, 137 U.S.P.Q. 548 (C.C.P.A. 1963); In re Hoehsema, 399 F.2d 269, 158 U.S.P.Q. 598 (C.C.P.A. 1968); In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 199 U.S. P.Q. 137 (C.C.P.A. 1978); In re Hoke, 560 F.2d 436, 195 U.S.P.Q. 148 (C.C.PA.A. 1977); Ex parte Fauque, 121 U.S.P.Q. 425 (P.O.B.A. 1954); Ex parte Henkel, 130 U.S.P.Q. 474, (P.O.B.A. 1960). Given that applicant did not provide unexpected or unobvious results of the invention, it is concluded that the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known would provide the motivation to substitute the “H” group to a “methyl” and vice versa, in order to arrive at the instantly claimed compounds.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Examiner additionally notes that the method claims of the ‘553 application are withdrawn but would be cited against the instant method claims if they are rejoined.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13, 15-16, 18, 22-25, 28, and 34-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11339157 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed toward compounds of formula (I) as below, compositions thereof, combinations thereof, and methods of treating cancers or cancer cells with mutant EGFR.
PNG
media_image8.png
160
144
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The compounds differ from the instant invention in that the ring in the R5 position is 5-membered rather than 4-membered. However, per MPEP 2144.09, “Compounds which are… homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977).” Moreover, MPEP 2144.09 additionally states, “Prior art structures do not have to be true homologs or isomers to render structurally similar compounds prima facie obvious. In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979) (Claimed and prior art compounds were both directed to heterocyclic carbamoyloximino compounds having pesticidal activity. The only structural difference between the claimed and prior art compounds was that the ring structures of the claimed compounds had two carbon atoms between two sulfur atoms whereas the prior art ring structures had either one or three carbon atoms between two sulfur atoms.”
As such, since the above compounds only differ from the instant invention by an additional -CH2- in the ring structure, it would be prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed compounds. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success as the structures are so similar that they would be expected to have the same properties.
Claims 5, 7-8, 10-11, 16, 18, 22-25, 28, and 34-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12403135 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed toward methods of treating cancer or cancer cells with mutant EGFR harboring an exon 19 or 21 deletion comprising administering the below compound of formula (I).
PNG
media_image9.png
214
208
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The compounds differ from the instant invention in that the ring in the R5 position is 5-membered rather than 4-membered. However, per MPEP 2144.09, “Compounds which are… homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977).” Moreover, MPEP 2144.09 additionally states, “Prior art structures do not have to be true homologs or isomers to render structurally similar compounds prima facie obvious. In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979) (Claimed and prior art compounds were both directed to heterocyclic carbamoyloximino compounds having pesticidal activity. The only structural difference between the claimed and prior art compounds was that the ring structures of the claimed compounds had two carbon atoms between two sulfur atoms whereas the prior art ring structures had either one or three carbon atoms between two sulfur atoms.”
As such, since the above compounds only differ from the instant invention by an additional -CH2- in the ring structure, it would be prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed compounds. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success as the structures are so similar that they would be expected to have the same properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADELINE E BRAUN whose telephone number is (703)756-4533. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:00pm ET.
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, Jeffrey Murray can be reached at (571) 272-9023. 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 Pate