Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made of the receipt and entry of the amendment filed on 09/30/2025, wherein claim 1 is amended to recite narrower scope of BTK binding moiety, linker moiety and degron moiety.
Election/Restriction
Acknowledgement elected Group I invention with traverse and “compound 155” , in the reply filed on 03/27/2025.
PNG
media_image1.png
85
701
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
165
391
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Restriction requirement is made FINAL in last office action mailed on 06/03/2025.
Claims 40 and 41 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Instant elected species, compound 155, is a compound of Formula I,
PNG
media_image3.png
238
457
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Linker moiety is
PNG
media_image4.png
121
248
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
102
306
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein
PNG
media_image6.png
136
729
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Degron moiety is Formula D3
PNG
media_image7.png
73
113
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The elected species, compound 155 (CAS # 2599848-17-4 , entered STN on 02/28/2021, see STN search note), is found free of anticipatory 102 prior art. The expanded non-elected species, compound 24 is removed from claim set dated 09/30/2025. The examiner expanded the search/examination to another non-elected species recited in instant claim 38( instant Example 27), having following structure which is similar to compound 24.
PNG
media_image8.png
175
404
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Instant Example 27
wherein the linker moiety is
PNG
media_image9.png
88
296
media_image9.png
Greyscale
and the Degron moiety is D1,
PNG
media_image10.png
175
101
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The prior art search is extended to the extent necessary to determine patentability of the Markush-type claim. The expanded non-elected species, compound 27, is rejected over Crews in view of Guo under 35 USC§ 103 and made final. Other non-elected species are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected species.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Remarks filed 09/30/2025 have been fully considered. Any objections and rejections found in the previous Office Action and not repeated herein has been withdrawn based upon Applicant’s amendments to the claims. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Improper Markush Grouping
Although compound of Formular I is amended to recite narrow scope of BTK binding moiety, the linker moiety and degron moiety still comprise vast variety of species/groups that do not belong to the same recognized chemical class or share substantial structural feature. For example,
PNG
media_image11.png
285
711
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The combination of different linker moiety (L2 to L6) and degron moiety further render vast variety of species that do not belong to the same recognized chemical class. As such, claims 1, 5, 16, 30, 31, 37- 39 remain rejected on the basis of improper Markush grouping of alternatives.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103
The expanded non-elected compound species, compound 24 and its homologs were removed from amended claim 38. However, claim 38 still recites non-elected species that is similar to compound 24, for example, instant Example 27 having the same degron moiety and similar linker moiety as compound 24.
PNG
media_image8.png
175
404
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Crews teaches variety of linker moiety that reads on or similar to the linker moiety of the expanded non-elected species, e.g.
PNG
media_image12.png
135
594
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(See page 170)
PNG
media_image13.png
54
351
media_image13.png
Greyscale
(See page 207- 208),
In search for more alternative BTK degrader, Crews compound 102 which is a PROTAC of ibrutinib, could be modified by incorporating the BTK binding moiety taught by Guo and arrived at instant non-elected species, compound 24 recited in instant claim 38, which could be further modified to instant compound 27 by incorporating linker moiety taught by Crews,
PNG
media_image14.png
123
572
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
622
701
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
175
404
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Further exploration of linker moiety based on the combined teachings of Crews, and general knowledge of structural similarly/bioisosteric replacement would provide the expanded non-elected compound 27 with reasonable expectation of success. As such, the 103 rejection over Crews in view of Guo is maintained and made final.
Status of Claims
Claim 1, 5, 16, 18, 19, 23, 24, 30, 31, 37-41 are pending in instant application.
Claims 18-19, 23-24, 40, 41 remain withdrawn.
Claims 1, 5, 16, 30, 31, 37- 39 are currently under examination.
Priority
Instant application 17/629,910, filed January 25, 2022, is a U.S. national stage application under 35 U.S.C.§371 of international application No. PCT/CN2020/103988, filed July 24, 2020, which claims priority to Chinese patent application No. PCT/CN2019/098015 , filed on July 26, 2019.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of foreign Application No. PCT/CN2019/098015 in English is filed on January 25, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 09/29/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Reference written in foreign language is considered to the degree of English abstract or patent family of foreign patent by Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 30 and 31 are preliminarily objected to because they are directed to compound subgenus/species comprising degron moiety and/or linker moiety that do not read on the expanded search/examination of non-elected species. The elected species, compound 155, is found free of prior art. In an effort to expedite prosecution as required by MPEP, the examiner has expanded the search/examine additional non-elected species, compound 27 as disclosed by instant specification with structure shown above, wherein the linker moiety is
PNG
media_image12.png
135
594
media_image12.png
Greyscale
.
Specification
Instant specification disclosed vast variety of compounds having complex chemical names and structure thereof. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Improper Markush Grouping
Claims 1, 5, 16, 30, 31 and 37- 39 are rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). The improper Markush grouping includes species of the claimed invention that do not share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature.
A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
A Markush claim contains an “improper Markush grouping” if: (1) The species of the Markush group do not share a single structural similarity,” or (2) the species do not share a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature.
Claim 1 is amended to recite compound of Formula I comprising vast variety of subgenus alternatives of BTK binding moiety, linker moieties, degron moieties, and/or combination thereof wherein the Markush grouping of L, L1-6 , R , etc. and combination thereof embraces different chemical species that don’t belong to the same recognized chemical class and/or do not share substantial structural similarity. Dependent claims 5, 16, 30, 31, 37 only further limit to improper Markush group of linker moiety or degron moiety or combination thereof while other moiety/subgroup remain improper Markush grouping.
For example, claim 1 is amended to recite different linker moiety,
PNG
media_image16.png
231
610
media_image16.png
Greyscale
wherein L2-L6 are further defined to recite groups that are not in the same recognized class, e.g. CH2, NH, is not the same as ring moiety
PNG
media_image11.png
285
711
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 is amended to recite variety of Degron moiety D1, D2, D3 and D4 comprising different subgroups with further substitution that do not belong to the same recognized chemical class or share substantial structural feature.
PNG
media_image17.png
120
530
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
89
224
media_image18.png
Greyscale
The combination of different linker moiety and degron moiety further render Markush species that do not belong to the same recognized chemical class. Instant claims 30, 31 and 37 recite linker moiety comprising vast subgroups L1-6 and R further substituted with vast variety of groups that do not belong to the same recognized chemical class or share substantial structural feature.
Claim 38 recites vast variety of compound species comprising different BTK binding moieties, linker and degron moieties that do not belong to the same recognized chemical class or share substantial structural feature.
PNG
media_image19.png
121
390
media_image19.png
Greyscale
(page 30)
PNG
media_image2.png
165
391
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(elected species)
Each of these findings demonstrates that not all members recited in instant Markush group belong to the same recognized physical and chemical class and the species fail to share a single structural similarity or any substantial structural feature.
Since there is only minimal structure similarity
PNG
media_image20.png
312
141
media_image20.png
Greyscale
to the Markush alternative of compound of Formula I, one can conclude that the instantly claimed compounds are substantially structurally different. Further, there is no common uses that flow from the shared structure features. For example, instant claimed compound species exhibit vast variety of BTK inhibitory activity ranging from 0.128uM to > 10uM (See instant Table 1, Degradation result) further attest instant claimed Formula I does not share a common use that flows from the shared minimal structure.
In response to this rejection, Applicant should either amend the claim(s) to recite only individual species or grouping of species that share a substantial structural feature as well as a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature, or present a sufficient showing that the species recited in the alternative of the claims(s) in fact share a substantial structural feature as well as a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. This is a rejection on the merits and may be appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §134 and 37 CFR 41.31(a)(1) (emphasis provided).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 5, 13, 30, 31, 37 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the full-scope of claimed compound of Formula I. This is a written description rejection, rather than an enablement rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Applicant is directed to the MPEP 2163 and Guidelines for the Examination of Patent Applications Under the 35 U.S.C. 112, 1st "Written Description" Requirement, Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 4, pages 1099-1111, Friday January 5, 2001.
MPEP 2163.02 states “ Under Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991), to satisfy the written description requirement, an applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, the inventor was in possession of the invention, and that the invention, in that context, is whatever is now claimed.”
Independent claim 1 refers to compound of formula I with vast varieties of BTK binding moieties, , linker moieties and degron moieties further substituted with multiple R groups. Dependent claims 5, 13, 30, 31, and 37 only further limit to improper Markush group of linker moiety or degron moiety or combination thereof while other moiety/subgroup remain improper Markush grouping. The Applicant is required to provide adequate written description and evidence of possession of the claimed genus, compound of Formula I and subgenus that align with the instantly claimed broad scope.
MPEP 2163 II states; “The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice (see i)(A) above), reduction to drawings (see i)(B) above), or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the inventor was in possession of the claimed genus (see i)(C) above)”. While applicants are not required to disclose every species encompassed by a genus, the description of the genus is achieved by the recitation of a representative number of species falling within the scope of the claimed genus. “A representative number of species" means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus” MPEP 2163 II.
As elaborated in preceding Improper Markush grouping, instant claimed bifunctional compounds comprising vast variety of BTK binding moieties, linker moieties and degron moieties and combination thereof, embraces vast variety of chemical species that don’t belong to the same recognized chemical class and/or do not share substantial structural similarity. Dependent claims 5, 30, 31, and 37 only further limit to improper Markush group of linker moiety or degron moiety or combination thereof while other moiety/subgroup remain improper Markush grouping. There is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus” MPEP 2163 II.
It’s noted instant specification discloses about 159 compounds (See Table 1). However, the disclosed compounds species are not representative for the full scope of compound of Formula I. The disclosure of other moieties/groups, in addition to the species reduced to practice, is in the form of general formula with lists of possible groups. This kind of disclosure is not representation of any species. A "laundry list" disclosure of every possible moiety does not constitute a written description of every species in a genus because it would not "reasonably lead" those skilled in the art to any particular species. MPEP 2163.1.A. and Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 ”.3d 1559, 1571, 39 USPQ2d 1895, 1905 (Fed.Cir. 1996). The definition of linker moiety comprising variety of L2-L6 in combination of variables v, w, r and z are not clear. As elaborated, there are substantial structural variation exists in the genus/subgenus embraced by instant claims and disclosure of species supporting genus is limited to compounds reduced to practice. One of skill in the art would not recognize from the disclosure that the applicant was in possession of full scope of compound of Formula I. The specification does not clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that he or she invented what is claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5, 16, 30, and 39 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(newly applied necessitated by amendment).
Claim 1 is amended to recite variety of linker moiety comprising combination of L2 to L6 subgroups, wherein L3, L4, L5 and L6 comprise the same set of groups and variables r, v, w and z could be 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 , 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10 .
PNG
media_image21.png
212
659
media_image21.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image22.png
370
726
media_image22.png
Greyscale
It’s not clear how to interpretate L5, L3, L4 or L6 and v, w, z, r for the linker moiety. For example, COCH2CH2NCH2CH2 L2, as linker
PNG
media_image23.png
94
374
media_image23.png
Greyscale
Is it L5 is CH2, L3 is CH2, v=w=1 or L5 is CH2, v is 0, L3 is CH2CH2, w is 1, or L5 is CH2CH2, v is 1, L3 is CH2, w is 0? The lack of clear interpretation of L2, L3, L4, L5, L6 and variables v, w, z, r. render instant claim 1 indefinite. An ordinary skilled in the art would not know the scope of linker moiety comprising variety combination of L2 to L6 with v, w, z, r being 0 and 1-10.
Claims 5, 16, 30, and 39 are rejected due to dependency on claim 1.
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 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.
Claims 1, 5, 16, 30, 31, 37- 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crews et al. (US20190276459A1, family member of WO2019177902A1), in view of Guo et al. (WO 2014173289A1, family member of US US9447106B2, Applicant’s IDS dated 06/27/2022), and LI et al. (Cancer Center, Vol. 75, No. 15, Supp. 1, Abstract Number: 2597, 106th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, AACR 2015, Applicant’s IDS dated 06/27/2022, "BGB-3111 is a novel and highly selective Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor"), evidenced by Zanubrutinib PubChem database (See https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Zanubrutinib#section=HMDB-ID) (maintained/ reiterated as necessitated by amendment).
This 103 rejection is directed to non-elected species of compound of Formula I, wherein:
The BTK binding moiety is
PNG
media_image24.png
242
210
media_image24.png
Greyscale
Linker moiety is
Degron moiety is Formula D1,
PNG
media_image25.png
145
208
media_image25.png
Greyscale
and R8 is H.
As disclosed by instant specification (See [0006], [0007]), instant compound of Formula I is proteolysis targeting chimera (PROTAC) compound by conjugating a BTK inhibitor with an E3 ligase ligand via a linker moiety, which targets for BTK degradation. As illustrated by instant compound of Formula I, shared common structure, , is BTK binding moiety that binds to Bruton’s tyrosine kinase receptor.
Regarding bifunctional degrader targeting at Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK), Crews teaches bifunctional compounds, or pharmaceutically acceptable salt, or prodrug thereof, comprising protein target binding moiety PTM (e.g. BTK binding moiety), linker moiety (L) and degron moiety/ULM (i.e. ubiquitin ligase-binding moiety), as modulators of Burton’s Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) through BTK degradation for treating disease/disorder associated with BTK (See abstract; [0085], [0151], claims 1-44),
.
PNG
media_image26.png
164
459
media_image26.png
Greyscale
Regarding instantly claimed degron moieties recited in instant claims 1 and 2, Crews teaches embodiments comprising variety of degron/ULM moiety, e.g. CLM binding to cereblon (See [0741]- [0800], claims 2, 10-12) (that read on instantly claimed degron moieties D1 and D3). For example,
PNG
media_image27.png
147
292
media_image27.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image28.png
140
295
media_image28.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image29.png
183
409
media_image29.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image30.png
124
419
media_image30.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image31.png
46
408
media_image31.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image32.png
65
391
media_image32.png
Greyscale
Crews teaches the attaching point of the degron /ULM moiety with linker moiety or PTM is variable and/or through 1 to 4 functional groups, e.g. O, OH, N, C1-6 alkyl, C1-6 alkoxy, -alkyl-aryl, amine, amide, or carboxy, any of which is optionally modified to be covalently joined to a PTM, a chemical linker
group (L), a ULM, CLM (or CLM') or combination thereof (See [0791]-[0797]).
Crews teaches exemplary CLM moiety (See Table 3) that read on instant elected species ( cpd 155) and expanded non-elected species , for example,
PNG
media_image33.png
138
273
media_image33.png
Greyscale
(See page 85, [0781])
PNG
media_image34.png
128
277
media_image34.png
Greyscale
(See page 78, [0763])
Regarding the linker moiety, Crews teaches embodiments comprising variety of linker moiety and combination thereof (See Linkers, [1020]-[1072], claims 16- 25). For example, YL1 as NR, O, CO, C1-6 alkyl (linear or branched), CRR, etc. in combination with optionally substituted WL1 and QL would read on instantly claimed linker moiety. Please refer to Crews for complete list of linker moiety that might read on instant claimed linker moiety.
PNG
media_image35.png
240
405
media_image35.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image36.png
157
435
media_image36.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image37.png
137
430
media_image37.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image38.png
245
434
media_image38.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image39.png
81
391
media_image39.png
Greyscale
(see page 147, [1035])
PNG
media_image40.png
115
263
media_image40.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image41.png
53
302
media_image41.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image42.png
101
350
media_image42.png
Greyscale
(See claim 18, page 303)
PNG
media_image43.png
257
842
media_image43.png
Greyscale
Crews also teaches exemplary linker embodiment (See page 170; page 216, Table 2) which would read on instant non-elected compound 24 and 27.
PNG
media_image44.png
219
685
media_image44.png
Greyscale
Crews teaches variety of PTM moiety that binds to BTK (See [1091]-[1109], Table 1).
PNG
media_image45.png
174
438
media_image45.png
Greyscale
Crews teaches bifunctional BTK degrader compound species comprising exemplary BTK binding moiety linked to ubiquitin ligase-binding degron moiety through variety of linker moiety(See Table 4, Compounds 100-135), for example,
PNG
media_image46.png
160
725
media_image46.png
Greyscale
Crews teaches design of bifunctional PROTAC compounds comprising BTK binder linked with E3 ubiquitin ligase binder wherein the target protein (BTK) is placed in proximity to the ubiquitin ligase to effect degradation (and inhibition) of BTK might overcome relapse due to resistance from prolonged therapy of small molecule therapeutic agents (e.g. ibrutinib) and its inability to target/ modulate mutant BTKs (See abstract,[0009], [0012]-[0016], [0019], Figure 1 and 6). Crews teaches Compound 102 is the bifunctional / PROTAC degrader based on ibrutinib and activity that is comparable with ibrutinib(See Figure 2-13):
PNG
media_image47.png
171
653
media_image47.png
Greyscale
Crews collectively teaches bifunctional BTK degrader comprising BTK moiety, linker moiety and ULM/degron moiety. The main difference between Crews and instant application is the BTK binding moiety pyrazolo[3,4-d]pyrimidine
PNG
media_image48.png
187
138
media_image48.png
Greyscale
vs tetrahydropyrazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidine
PNG
media_image49.png
193
126
media_image49.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding BTK binding moiety recited in instant claims 1, 15 and 16, Guo teaches variety of BTK inhibitors, compound of Formula I, IV, V, comprising the core structure of instant claimed BTK binding moiety (See abstract, [0007], [044], Tables I-III, claims 1-15),
PNG
media_image50.png
334
237
media_image50.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image51.png
345
993
media_image51.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image52.png
410
992
media_image52.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image53.png
145
983
media_image53.png
Greyscale
Guo teaches tetrahydropyrazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidine carboxamide embodiment
PNG
media_image54.png
301
234
media_image54.png
Greyscale
wherein R4 is substituted piperidin-4-yl. (See [0112]-[0114], claims 5-12, Table I).
Guo disclosed BTK inhibitor species comprising piperidine moiety as R4 and activities thereof, e.g. compound 170-177, 186-188 and 191-194 (See claims 5-12, Table I-III).
PNG
media_image55.png
209
182
media_image55.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image56.png
207
162
media_image56.png
Greyscale
Guo also disclosed compound species further comprising a linker moiety and a degron moiety (See compound 178).
PNG
media_image57.png
193
653
media_image57.png
Greyscale
Li teaches BGB-3111 is a novel, highly selective second generation Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor under clinical investigation and BGB-3111 (i.e. Zanubrutinib) has tetrahydropyrazolo[1,5-a] pyrimidine core structure taught by Guo as evidenced by Zanubrutinib PubChem database (See https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Zanubrutinib#section=HMDB-ID).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of instant application to explore more bifunctional/ PROTAC BTK modulator comprising BTK binding moiety, linker moiety, degron /ULM moiety and combination thereof, based on combined teachings of Crews and Guo, together with optimization based on general knowledge of structure similarity and bioisosteric modification for SAR study of bifunctional degraders, and arrive at instantly claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
For example, Crew’s compound 102 which is a PROTAC of ibrutinib, could be modified by incorporating the BTK binding moiety taught by Guo and arrived at instant non-elected species, compound 24 recited in instant claim 38, which could be modified to instant compound 27 by incorporating linker moiety taught by Crew,
PNG
media_image14.png
123
572
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
622
701
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image58.png
250
586
media_image58.png
Greyscale
At the time of instant invention was made, it was already known that bifunctional /PROTAC BTK modulator (e.g. ibrutinib PROTAC compound 102) comprising BTK binding moiety, linker moiety, degron moiety/ULM targeting at BTK degradation could be made as taught by Crews. Crews further teaches variety of ULM moiety, linker groups and combination thereof. Guo teaches variety of BTK inhibitors comprising novel tetrahydropyrazolopyrimidine carboxamide BTK binding moiety. Li teaches BGB-3111 is a novel, highly selective Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor under clinical investigation and BGB-3111 (i.e. Zanubrutinib ) has tetrahydropyrazolopyrimidine core structure taught by Guo as evidenced by Zanubrutinib PubChem. The exploration of different linker moiety and attachment for the targeting ligand BTK moiety and degron/ULM moiety based on general knowledge of structural similarity and bioisosteric modification would be within the knowledge of one ordinary skilled in the art.
As stated in MPEP § 2144.08 II subsection II. A. 4.(c), "Structural relationships may provide the requisite motivation or suggestion to modify known compounds to obtain new compounds". A skilled artisan would be motivated to further explore more bifunctional BTK modulators based on combined teachings of prior art, because all teachings are directed to BTK inhibitor/ modulators and Crews teaches bifunctional BTK compounds might provide novel strategy to overcome resistance from prolonged BTK therapy and/or mutant BTKs. The further exploration/ SAR study of linker moiety, degron/ULM moiety based on the combined teachings of prior art, together with modification/ optimization based on general knowledge of structure similarity and bioisosteric modification would provide more alternative bifunctional compounds comprising tetrahydropyrazolopyrimidine BTK binding moiety that are reasonably expected to exhibit BTK modulating activity.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIYUAN MOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1791. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video 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, Amy L Clark can be reached on (571)272-1310. 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 Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LIYUAN MOU/Examiner, Art Unit 1628
/JARED BARSKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1628