DETAILED ACTION
All rejections and objections not listed below have been withdrawn.
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP19306429.2, filed on 11/04/2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/26/2022 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 -Edited Due to Amendments
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.
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(s) 16, 29-31, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable STN (STN, 257277-34-2 REGISTRY, ACS, 29 Feb 2000) in view of Liu (Liu et al., Harnessing ruthenium(II) as photodynamic agents: Encouraging advances in cancer therapy, Coordination Chemistry Reviews 363 (2018) 17–28, previously provided) in view of Thota (Thota et al., Ru(II) Compounds: Next-Generation Anticancer Metallotherapeutics? J. Med. Chem. 2018, 61, 5805−5821).
The reference STN teaches the following compound:
PNG
media_image1.png
349
479
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This helps to teach claims 16 and 33.
The reference STN does not teach PF6 (all claims) and the methods of claims (16, 29, 30, 31).
The reference Liu teaches “Harnessing ruthenium(II) as photodynamic agents: Encouraging advances in cancer therapy” (title) and “PDT has emerged to circumvent the problems of traditional cancer treatment regimens by virtue of its three nontoxic elements. Work is now focusing on strategies to overcome the problems of insufficiency of oxygen, light and PS in the targeted area during PDT. In recent years the exploration of Ru(II) complexes in a biological context has evolved from DNA interactions to PDT applications that involves not only anticancer but also antimicrobial aspect [155,156]. As promising alternative candidates to conventional organic PSs, Ru(II) complexes exhibit advantages including superior photostability, favorable biocompatibility, proper in vivo retention times, impressive TPA properties and abundant modification potential. Ru(II) complexes integrated with nanomaterials have brought a new perspective to cancer treatment”(section 6). The reference Liu teaches “The essence of the role played by PS[photosensitizer] in PDT [photodynamic therapy] is the absorption of light and subsequent reaction with oxygen. Due to the heavy atom effect Ru(II) complexes can achieve efficient intersystem crossing (ISC), which enables its interaction with oxygen to produce ROS. With this in mind, Ru(II) PSs, with more efficient light-harvesting properties and longer triplet excited state lifetimes are ideal [63– 65]”(page 20) . This helps to teach claim 16.
The reference Liu teaches “Photodynamic therapy (PDT), an emerging clinical modality
dealing with light-matter interactions [1], has evolved as a promising therapeutic regimen for the management of localized cancers [2], such as cancers of the skin, oesophagus, lung, and bladder,
etc [3–6], and non-malignant diseases, such as fungal strains, atherosclerosis, bacterial infection, and viral infection, etc [7–13]” (section 1). This helps to teach claim 29.
The reference Lui teaches “Bonnet and colleagues. reported a thioether-glucose coordinated Ru(II) complex (41, Ref. [94], Fig. 1) with a dual photoactivated action [98]. The glucose moiety was introduced in order to target cancer cells. Upon irradiation, the solvent exchange reaction of the 41 with water was accelerated…” This helps to teach claim 30.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955.) This helps to teach claim 31.
The reference Thota teaches “A new photodynamic therapy based Ru(II) therapeutic, TLD 1433, has also entered clinical trials. Ru(II)-based compounds can also be photosensitizers for photodynamic therapy, which has proven to be an effective new, alternative, and noninvasive oncotherapy modality”(abstract) as well as several PF6 anions figure 1. This helps to teach claims 16 and 33.
PNG
media_image2.png
627
877
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would be prima facie obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified STN with Lui because STN demonstrates a Ru(II) complex and Lui teaches that Ru(II) can be useful for PDT. One would have a reasonable expectation of success because Lui demonstrates that many Ru(II) complexes are potentially useful for PDT and one would be motivated to do so to treat cancer by testing different Ru(II) complexes that may have superior activity.
It would be prima facie obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified STN and Lui with Thota because STN demonstrates a Ru(II) complex and Lui and Thota teach that Ru(II) are useful for PDT. One would have a reasonable expectation of success to change anions to PF6 because Thota demonstrates that Ru(II) complexes which are potentially useful for pharmaceuticals use PF6 and one would be motivated to do so to treat cancer by testing different anions complexes that may have superior activity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16, 29-31, 33 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Claims 16, 29-31, 33 are rejected.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALISON AZAR SALAMATIAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4584. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30am-5pm EST Friday 7:30-4pm EST (every other Friday off).
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, Kortney Klinkel can be reached at (571) 270-5239. 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.
/A.A.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 1627
/Kortney L. Klinkel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1627