FINAL REJECTION
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicants' Amendments and Remarks, filed Jan. 29, 2026.
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous Office Actions are hereby withdrawn.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 4, 5, 7-11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28-30, 36-39, 41-44, 48, 53, and 54 have been canceled.
Claims 1-3, 6, 12, 15, 17, 20, 21, 24, 27, 32-35, 40, 45-47, 49, and 50 have been amended and incorporate no new matter.
New claims 55-59 have been added.
Claims 2, 15, 24, 35, 40, 45, 51, 52 stand withdrawn as drawn to nonelected inventions and/or species; and new claims 56-58 are withdrawn as drawn to nonelected species.
Thus, claims 1, 3, 6, 12, 17, 20, 21, 27, 31-34, 46, 47, 49, 50, 55, and 59 now represent all claims currently pending and under consideration.
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on Dec. 23, 2025 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final action on Oct. 29, 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.
Election/Restrictions
In the reply filed Sep. 9, 2025, Applicant elected the compound species of Example 426, having the structural formula,
PNG
media_image1.png
288
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which reads on formula (I) of the newly amended claims, wherein:
R1 is P(O)(R1a)(R1b), where R1a and R1b are each methyl (CH3);
R2 and R3 form a benzo-fused pyridine (quinoline), where R2e is cyclopropyl;
R9, R10, R11, R12, R13, R14, R15, R16, and R17 are hydrogen;
R4 is bromine (Br);
Z1, Z2, Z3, and Z4 are each CRz, where one Rz is methoxy (-OCH3), one Rz is ethyl (C2-alkyl), and two Rz are hydrogen;
L1 is a single bond;
m1 is 2: for the first m1, X1 is N and X2 is CH (piperidine); and for the second m1, X1 and X2 are each N (piperazine)); and n is 0;
PNG
media_image2.png
92
182
media_image2.png
Greyscale
m2 is 0; L2 is a single bond; and m3 (-CH2-) is 1, wherein
L3 is azetidine, when
X4 is N and X3 is CH; X6 and X7 are CH2; and n1 and n2 are 0;
and degron is
PNG
media_image3.png
138
174
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein n7 is 1 and R13 is hydrogen, or n7 is 0
L5 is -CH2-; L6 is -C(O)-; and X9 is CH2.
The elected compound species reads on claims 1, 3, 6, 12, 17, 20, 21, 27, 31-34, 46, 47, 49, 50, 55, and 59; and does not read on claims 2, 15, 24, 35, 40, 45, or 56-58.
Claims 4, 5, 7-11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28-30, 36-39, 41-44, 48, 53, and 54 have been canceled.
Thus, claims 2, 15, 24, 35, 40, 45, 51, 52, and 56-58 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on Sep. 9, 2025.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 12, 17, 20, 21, 27, 31-34, 46, 47, 49, 50, 55, and 59 are currently pending and under consideration.
MAINTAINED REJECTIONS
The following rejections are maintained from the previous Office Action dated Oct. 29, 2025, on the ground that the references cited therein continue to read on the limitations of the amended claims.
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
1. Claims 1, 3, 6, 12, 17, 20, 21, 27, 31-34, 46, 47, 49, 50, 55, and 59 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5, 8, 11, 14, 16, 20, 22, 23, 26, 30-34, 39, 44, 45, 47-50, and 53-57 of co-pending Application No. 18/015,561 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claims recite compound species that would anticipate the examined claims, e.g., the compound of Example 491, recited by reference claim 47:
PNG
media_image4.png
236
374
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
2. Claims 1, 3, 6, 12, 17, 20, 21, 27, 31-34, 46, 47, 49, 50, 55, and 59 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14, 16-20, 88, 95, and 96 of co-pending Application No. 18/391,154 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claims encompass compound species falling within the scope of the examined claims, e.g., the compound of Example 23:
PNG
media_image5.png
166
288
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
3. Claims 1, 3, 6, 12, 17, 20, 21, 27, 31-34, 46, 47, 49, 50, 55, and 59 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10, 12-15, 18, 19, 22-26, 28, and 29 of co-pending Application No. 18/771,529 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claims recite compound species that would anticipate the examined claims, e.g., compound 35, recited by reference claim 23:
PNG
media_image6.png
204
392
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant's arguments, filed Jan. 29, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the provisional nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection over co-pending application 18/015,561, Applicant argues that the compounds of the '561 application do not fall within the scope of the present claims, which recite specific degron moieties that are not taught or suggested by the '561 application (Remarks, p. 78).
It is acknowledged that the previously cited compound of Example 473 of the '561 application no longer reads on the newly amended examined claims. However, the co-pending claims continue to recite compounds which do fall within the scope of the examined claims, e.g., the compound of Example 491, recited by reference claim 47, as shown above. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Regarding the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections over co-pending applications 18/391,154 and 18/771,529 application, Applicant argues that, in accordance with MPEP § 1490 (VI)(D)(2)(a), when a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection is the only rejection remaining in an application having the earlier patent term filing date, the examiner should withdraw the rejection in the application having the earlier patent term filing date and permit that application to issue as a patent (Remarks, pp. 78-79).
However, because the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections over co-pending applications 18/391,154 and 18/771,529 are not the only rejections remaining, the rejections are maintained.
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Zhao et al., Applicant submits that Zhao does not teach or suggest compounds having the presently claimed degron moieties (Remarks, pp. 74-75), i.e., that the rejections are overcome by the amendments to the claims.
However, Zhao et al. does, in fact, disclose compounds that continue to read on the amended claims, as detailed in the new rejections set forth below.
NEW REJECTIONS
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d) (Pre-AIA Fourth Paragraph)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
For example, claim 49 recites the compound of Example 542,
PNG
media_image7.png
246
286
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
148
200
media_image8.png
Greyscale
However, claim 49 depends from amended claim 1, which has been amended to omit the moiety:
from the options for degron (see claim set dated 1/29/2026, p. 14). Thus, claim 49 recites compound species which are excluded from the scope of formula (I) as recited by claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 12, 17, 20, 31, 33, 34, 46, 47, 55, and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhao et al. (US Pub. 2022/0306659, of record).
Zhao et al. exemplify compound C163 (p. 147), having the structural formula,
PNG
media_image9.png
268
696
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
which reads on formula (I) as recited by claims 1, 3, 6, 12, 17, 20, 31, 33, 34, 46, 47, 55, and 59, wherein:
R1 is P(O)(R1a)(R1b), where R1a and R1b are each methyl (CH3);
R2 and R3, together with the carbon atoms to which they are attached, form a 6-membered unsaturated ring comprising 2 nitrogen heteroatoms, where R2e is hydrogen (or absent);
R4 is bromine (Br), and R9, R10, R11, and R12 are each hydrogen;
Z1, Z2, Z3, and Z4 are each CRz, where one Rz is methoxy (-OCH3), one Rz is methyl (C1-alkyl), and two Rz are hydrogen;
L1 is a single bond;
m1 is 2: for the first m1, X1 is N and X2 is CH (piperidine); and for the second m1, X1 and X2 are each N (piperazine)); and n is 0;
L2 is a single bond; m2 and m3 are each 0;
L3 is C7-alkynylene;
and degron is
PNG
media_image10.png
156
192
media_image10.png
Greyscale
where L5 is -CH2-; L6 is -C(O)-;
n7 is 1 and R13 is H; or n7 is 0;
and X9 is -CH2-, and n6 is 1.
The compound of Zhao et al. also reads on claim 3, wherein R1 is P(O)(R1a)(R1b), where R1a and R1b are each methyl (CH3).
The compound of Zhao et al. also reads on claims 6, 17, and 20, wherein
R2 and R3, together with the carbon atoms to which they are attached, form a 6-membered unsaturated ring comprising 2 nitrogen heteroatoms, where R2e is hydrogen (or absent), forming the moiety recited by claim 20:
PNG
media_image11.png
88
76
media_image11.png
Greyscale
.
The compound of Zhao et al. also reads on claim 12, wherein R9, R10, R11, and R12 are each hydrogen.
The compound of Zhao et al. also reads on claim 31, wherein L2 is a single bond;
The compound of Zhao et al. also reads on claim 33, wherein R13, R14, R15, R16, and R17 are each hydrogen.
The compound of Zhao et al. also reads on claim 34, wherein Ra and Rb are each H.
The compound of Zhao et al. also reads on claim 46, wherein degron is:
PNG
media_image12.png
84
178
media_image12.png
Greyscale
.
The compound of Zhao et al. also reads on claim 47, wherein Z1, Z2, Z3, and Z4 are each CRz, where one Rz is methoxy (-OCH3), one Rz is methyl (C1-alkyl), and two Rz are hydrogen.
For the foregoing reasons, Zhao et al. anticipates claims 1, 3, 6, 12, 17, 20, 31, 33, 34, 46, 47, 55, and 59.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
1. Claims 1, 3, 6, 12, 17, 20, 21, 27, 31-33, 34, 46, 47, 50, 55, and 59 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US Pub. 2022/0306659, of record).
Zhao et al. exemplify compound C163 (p. 147), having the structural formula,
PNG
media_image9.png
268
696
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
which reads on formula (I) as recited by claims 1, 3, 6, 12, 17, 20, 31, 33, 34, 46, 47, 55, and 59, wherein:
R1 is P(O)(R1a)(R1b), where R1a and R1b are each methyl (CH3);
R2 and R3, together with the carbon atoms to which they are attached, form a 6-membered unsaturated ring comprising 2 nitrogen heteroatoms, where R2e is hydrogen (or absent);
R4 is bromine (Br), and R9, R10, R11, and R12 are each hydrogen;
Z1, Z2, Z3, and Z4 are each CRz, where one Rz is methoxy (-OCH3), one Rz is methyl (C1-alkyl), and two Rz are hydrogen;
L1 is a single bond;
m1 is 2: for the first m1, X1 is N and X2 is CH (piperidine); and for the second m1, X1 and X2 are each N (piperazine)); and n is 0;
L2 is a single bond; m2 and m3 are each 0;
L3 is C7-alkynylene;
and degron is
PNG
media_image10.png
156
192
media_image10.png
Greyscale
where L5 is -CH2-; L6 is -C(O)-;
n7 is 1 and R13 is H; or n7 is 0;
and X9 is -CH2-, and n6 is 1.
The compound of Zhao et al. also reads on claim 3, wherein R1 is P(O)(R1a)(R1b), where R1a and R1b are each methyl (CH3).
The compound of Zhao et al. also reads on claims 6, 17, and 20, wherein
R2 and R3, together with the carbon atoms to which they are attached, form a 6-membered unsaturated ring comprising 2 nitrogen heteroatoms, where R2e is hydrogen (or absent), forming the moiety recited by claim 20:
PNG
media_image11.png
88
76
media_image11.png
Greyscale
.
The compound of Zhao et al. also reads on claim 12, wherein R9, R10, R11, and R12 are each hydrogen.
The compound of Zhao et al. also reads on claim 31, wherein L2 is a single bond;
The compound of Zhao et al. also reads on claim 33, wherein R13, R14, R15, R16, and R17 are each hydrogen.
The compound of Zhao et al. also reads on claim 34, wherein Ra and Rb are each H.
The compound of Zhao et al. also reads on claim 46, wherein degron is:
PNG
media_image12.png
84
178
media_image12.png
Greyscale
.
The compound of Zhao et al. also reads on claim 47, wherein Z1, Z2, Z3, and Z4 are each CRz, where one Rz is methoxy (-OCH3), one Rz is methyl (C1-alkyl), and two Rz are hydrogen.
The compounds of Zhao et al. are disclosed and claimed in pharmaceutical compositions together with a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient (claim 29), as recited by claim 50.
Compound C163 of Zhao et al. differs from claims 21, 27, and 32 in that the C7-alkynylene linker between the piperazine ring and degron (-m2-L2-m3-L3-) is excluded from amended claims 21, 27, and 32.
However, compound of C163 of Zhao et al. is exemplified as a species of formula (I-1-I''') (claim 9, pp. 251-252), having the structural formula,
PNG
media_image13.png
336
370
media_image13.png
Greyscale
wherein
PNG
media_image14.png
608
712
media_image14.png
Greyscale
.
Thus, Zhao et al. expressly disclose, teach, and suggest modifying the C7-alkynylene linker between the piperazine ring and degron of compound C163 within the genus of formula (I-1-I''') to, e.g., pentylene, wherein L1 is -CH2CH2-; E is -CH2CH2CH2- and m is 1; and L2 is a bon, which reads on claims 21 and 27 wherein, for example,
L1 is a single bond;
L2 is a single bond, and L3 is C5-alkylene, or
L2 is C5-alkylene, and L3 is a single bond; and
m2 and m3 are each 0;
PNG
media_image15.png
114
348
media_image15.png
Greyscale
and reads on claim 32 wherein
PNG
media_image16.png
74
278
media_image16.png
Greyscale
is =>
Further, the compounds of Zhao et al. are disclosed for inhibiting and inducing degradation of EGFR, which can be used for treating diseases related to EGFR kinase, such as cancer (abstract). This is the same mechanism of action and the same utility for treating cancer for which the claimed compounds are disclosed.
Therefore, it would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify the compounds of Zhao et al. to arrive at compounds falling within the scope of claims 21, 27, and 32 by modifying the C7-alkynylene linker of compound C163 to C5-alkylene with a reasonable expectation of success, because compound C163 of Zhao et al. is an exemplified species of formula (I-1-I'''), all of which are disclosed to have the same biological activity, to inhibit and induce degradation of EGFR, and the same utility in the treatment of cancer.
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. The close structural similarity of the prior art compounds, and their disclosure to have the same mechanism of action and the same use as the claimed compounds, create a reasonable expectation they would exhibit similar properties, functions, and utilities.
A prima facie case of obviousness based on structural similarity is rebuttable by proof that the claimed compounds possess unexpectedly advantageous or superior properties. In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
2. Claims 1, 3, 6, 12, 17, 20, 21, 27, 31-34, 46, 47, 49, 50, 55, and 59 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US Pub. 2022/0306659, of record).
Zhao et al. exemplify compound C163 (p. 147), having the structural formula,
PNG
media_image9.png
268
696
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
which reads on formula (I) as recited by claims 1, 3, 6, 12, 17, 20, 31, 33, 34, 46, 47, 55, and 59, wherein:
R1 is P(O)(R1a)(R1b), where R1a and R1b are each methyl (CH3);
R2 and R3, together with the carbon atoms to which they are attached, form a 6-membered unsaturated ring comprising 2 nitrogen heteroatoms, where R2e is hydrogen (or absent);
R4 is bromine (Br), and R9, R10, R11, and R12 are each hydrogen;
Z1, Z2, Z3, and Z4 are each CRz, where one Rz is methoxy (-OCH3), one Rz is methyl (C1-alkyl), and two Rz are hydrogen;
L1 is a single bond;
m1 is 2: for the first m1, X1 is N and X2 is CH (piperidine); and for the second m1, X1 and X2 are each N (piperazine)); and n is 0;
L2 is a single bond; m2 and m3 are each 0;
L3 is C7-alkynylene;
and degron is
PNG
media_image10.png
156
192
media_image10.png
Greyscale
where L5 is -CH2-; L6 is -C(O)-;
n7 is 1 and R13 is H; or n7 is 0;
and X9 is -CH2-, and n6 is 1.
The compound of Zhao et al. also reads on claim 3, wherein R1 is P(O)(R1a)(R1b), where R1a and R1b are each methyl (CH3).
The compound of Zhao et al. also reads on claims 6, 17, and 20, wherein
R2 and R3, together with the carbon atoms to which they are attached, form a 6-membered unsaturated ring comprising 2 nitrogen heteroatoms, where R2e is hydrogen (or absent), forming the moiety recited by claim 20:
PNG
media_image11.png
88
76
media_image11.png
Greyscale
.
The compound of Zhao et al. also reads on claim 12, wherein R9, R10, R11, and R12 are each hydrogen.
The compound of Zhao et al. also reads on claim 31, wherein L2 is a single bond;
The compound of Zhao et al. also reads on claim 33, wherein R13, R14, R15, R16, and R17 are each hydrogen.
The compound of Zhao et al. also reads on claim 34, wherein Ra and Rb are each H.
The compound of Zhao et al. also reads on claim 46, wherein degron is:
PNG
media_image12.png
84
178
media_image12.png
Greyscale
.
The compound of Zhao et al. also reads on claim 47, wherein Z1, Z2, Z3, and Z4 are each CRz, where one Rz is methoxy (-OCH3), one Rz is methyl (C1-alkyl), and two Rz are hydrogen.
The compounds of Zhao et al. are disclosed and claimed in pharmaceutical compositions together with a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient (claim 29), as recited by claim 50.
Compound C163 of Zhao et al. differs from the elected compound species in that the terminal heteroaryl ring is quinoxaline, rather than quinoline with a cyclopropyl substituent; the methoxyphenyl ring is substituted by methyl instead of ethyl; and the -m2-L2-m3-L3- linker is C7-alkynylene rather than azetidine-CH2, as shown below:
Compound C163 of Zhao et al. (p. 147)
Elected compound species (Example 426)
PNG
media_image9.png
268
696
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
288
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, compound C163 of Zhao et al. is exemplified as a species of generic formula (X) (claim 1), having the structural formula,
PNG
media_image17.png
334
340
media_image17.png
Greyscale
wherein
L is -NH-;
ring A is, e.g., C5-10 heteroaryl (including quinoxaline or quinoline), optionally substituted by, e.g., C3-7 cycloalkyl, e.g., cyclopropyl, and -P(O)(C1-6-alkyl)2,
R1 is halogen , e.g., Br; R2 is H; R3 is -OCH3 (methoxy);
Z is CR#, and R# is C1-6-alkyl, e.g., methyl or ethyl;
T is 5- to 6-membered heterocyclylene (e.g., piperidine) substituted with 5- to 6-membered heterocyclylene (e.g., piperazine);
-L1-(E)m-L2- is, e.g., C7-alkynylene, or
L1 is a bond; L2 is -CH2-; and Em is
PNG
media_image18.png
98
92
media_image18.png
Greyscale
, where H1 is N and H2 is CH; and
ring B is
PNG
media_image19.png
200
400
media_image19.png
Greyscale
.
Thus, Zhao et al. expressly disclose, teach, and suggest modifying the terminal heteroaryl ring from quinoxaline to quinoline with a cyclopropyl substituent; the substituent on the methoxyphenyl ring from methyl to ethyl; and the -m2-L2-m3-L3- linker from C7-alkynylene to azetidine-CH2, to arrive at the elected compound species, as encompassed by claims 21, 27, and 32, and recited by claim 49.
Further, the compounds of Zhao et al. are disclosed for inhibiting and inducing degradation of EGFR, which can be used for treating diseases related to EGFR kinase, such as cancer (abstract). This is the same mechanism of action and same use for treating cancer for which the claimed compounds are disclosed.
Therefore, it would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify compound C163 of Zhao et al. to arrive at the elected compound by replacing the quinoxaline moiety with quinoline, substituted by cyclopropyl; modifying the methoxyphenyl ring substituent from methyl to ethyl; and replacing the C7-alkynylene linker with azetidine-CH2, with a reasonable expectation of success, because compound C163 of Zhao et al. is an exemplified species of formula (X), all of which are disclosed to have the same biological activity, to inhibit and induce degradation of EGFR, and the same utility in the treatment of cancer, with no loss of function.
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. The close structural similarity of the prior art compounds, and their disclosure to have the same mechanism of action and the same use as the claimed compounds, create a reasonable expectation they would exhibit similar properties, functions, and utilities.
A prima facie case of obviousness based on structural similarity is rebuttable by proof that the claimed compounds possess unexpectedly advantageous or superior properties. In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
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 on Mon-Fri from 10:00 am to 6:00 pm (EST). 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SARA E. TOWNSLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 1629
Prosecution Insights