FINAL REJECTION
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicants' Amendments and Remarks, filed Dec. 4, 2025.
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous Office Actions are hereby withdrawn. The rejections and/or objections set forth below are either maintained or newly applied, and constitute the complete set presently applied to the instant claims.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-12 and 26-30 have been canceled, and no new claims have been added.
Claim 13 has been amended to omit prior art compounds and incorporates no new matter.
Claims 17-25 stand withdrawn as drawn to nonelected inventions and/or species.
Thus, claims 13-16 now represent all claims currently pending and under consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on Sep. 22, 2025 was filed before the mailing date of the non-final action on Sep. 24, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments, filed Dec. 4, 2025, overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Degnan et al. (US 2023/0322803), which is withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Degnan et al. (US 2023/0322803) and Degnan et al. (US 2021/0147383), as set forth below.
New Rejections
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.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degnan et al. (US Pub. 2023/0322803, of record).
Degnan et al. exemplify and claim compounds 77 and 78 (para. [0249]; claim 11),
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
as species of formula (I) (claim 1), having the structural formula
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein ring A is
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
n is 1, and R1 is -CN or C(O)NH2.
Compounds 77 and 78 of Degnan et al. differ from claimed compounds I-21 and I-22,
3-(5-(5-(ethylamino)-pyridazin-3-yl)-1-oxoisoindolin-2-yl)piperidine-2,6-dione and 3-(5-(6-(ethylamino)pyridazin-3-yl)-1-oxoisoindolin-2-yl)piperidine-2,6-dione, respectively, as recited by claim 13, having the structural formulae,
PNG
media_image4.png
171
474
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image5.png
208
522
media_image5.png
Greyscale
in that the R1 substituent on the pyridazine ring is cyano or carboxamide, rather than ethylamino.
However, Degnan et al. claim compounds of formula (I) wherein R1 is also -NRyRy, wherein each Ry is independently H or C1-6-alkyl (claim 1), e.g., ethylamino.
Degnan et al. further claim compounds of formula (I) in pharmaceutical compositions comprising a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier (claim 12), as recited by claim 14.
The pharmaceutical compositions of Degnan et al. may optionally comprise one or more additional therapeutic agent(s), e.g., an anticancer agent or other pharmaceutically active material (para. [0181]), as recited by claim 15.
Degnan et al. further claim methods for the treatment of cancer in a patient comprising administering to said patient a therapeutically effective amount of a compound of formula (I) (claims 13-14); and methods of decreasing Helios or Eos protein levels, Helios or Eos activity level, or Helios or Eos expression level in a cell comprising contacting said Helios or Eos protein with a compound of formula (I) (claims 15-18).
As evidenced by the instant specification, Helios protein is also known as IKAROS Family Zinc Finger 2 (IKZF2); and Eos protein is also known as IKZF4 (p. 1, lines 15-20).
Thus, the compounds of Degnan et al. are disclosed in pharmaceutical compositions for use in the treatment of a disease or disorder that is affected by the reduction of IKZF2 protein levels, as recited by claim 16.
Therefore, it would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify compounds 77 and 78 of Degnan et al. to arrive at claimed compounds I-21 and I-22 with a reasonable expectation of success, because Degnan et al. explicitly disclose, teach, and suggest modifying the R1 pyridazine substituent within the scope of formula (I), which compounds are disclosed and claimed to have the same mechanism of action when administered to treat the same conditions in the same patient population.
As recognized by MPEP § 2144.09, a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have (1) very close structural similarities and (2) similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degnan et al. (US Pub. 2021/0147383, of record).
Degnan et al. disclose and claim compounds of formula (I), having the structural formula,
PNG
media_image6.png
200
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
200
400
media_image7.png
Greyscale
which encompasses compound 43 (3-(5-(6-((diethylamino)methyl)-pyridazin-3-yl)-1-oxoisoindolin-2-yl)piperidine-2,6-dione), as recited by claim 13, having the structural formula,
PNG
media_image8.png
150
408
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein Z is CH2; R4 and R5 are hydrogen; Ring A is pyridazine; m is 0; R1 is C(RzRz)-N(R1a)(R1b), where each Rz is H (CH2) and R1a and R1b are each ethyl (C2-alkyl).
The compounds of Degnan et al. are disclosed and claimed in pharmaceutical compositions with a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier (claim 12), as recited by claim 14.
The compounds of Degnan et al. are further disclosed and claimed in methods for the treatment of cancer in a patient, comprising administering to said patient a therapeutically effective amount of a compound of formula (I), alone or in combination with a therapeutically effective amount of an anti-viral agent, a chemotherapeutic agent, radiation, an anti-tumor vaccine, an antiviral vaccine, cytokine therapy and/or a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (claims 13-14), as recited by claim 15.
Degnan et al. further claim methods of decreasing Helios or Eos protein levels, Helios or Eos activity level, or Helios or Eos expression level in the cells comprising contacting said Helios or Eos protein with a compound of formula (I), or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof (claims 15-17).
As evidenced by the instant specification, Helios protein is also known as IKAROS Family Zinc Finger 2 (IKZF2); and Eos protein is also known as IKZF4 (p. 1, lines 15-20).
Thus, the compounds of Degnan et al. are disclosed in pharmaceutical compositions for use in the treatment of a disease or disorder that is affected by the reduction of IKZF2 protein levels, as recited by claim 16.
Therefore, it would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to prepare compounds within the genus of formula (I) of Degnan et al. to arrive at the claimed compounds with a reasonable expectation of success, because Degnan et al. claim a narrow subgenus of compounds of formula (I) with pyridazine at Ring A which requires an aminomethyl or aminoethyl substituent, which compounds are disclosed and claimed to have the same mechanism of action when administered in methods of treating the same conditions in the same patient population.
As recognized by MPEP § 2144.09, a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have (1) very close structural similarities and (2) similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
Citation of Additional Prior Art
Additional references made of record are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US Pub. 2007/0105903 and US Pub. 2022/0306659 (both cited on PTO-892).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA E. TOWNSLEY whose telephone number is (571) 270-7672. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 6:00 pm (EST) Mon-Fri.
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, JEFF S. LUNDGREN can be reached at 571-272-5541. 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.
/SARA ELIZABETH TOWNSLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 1629
/JEFFREY S LUNDGREN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1629