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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 68-69, 76-77, 82, and 84 are pending in this application. Claims 1-67, 70-75, 78-81, 83, and 85-92 have been cancelled by applicant.
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 68-69, 76-77, 82, and 84 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 12,686,673 B2 (US ‘673) (previously cited as Copending ‘954); in view of Morita et al. (Obtained From gousei.f.u-tokyo.ac.jp [Retrieved on September 11th, 2025] <URL: https://gousei.f.u-tokyo.ac.jp/seminar/index.html#2012> - Published May 2012 – previously cited) (“Morita”).
Regarding instant claim 68, US ‘673 claims the compound 115 below, for example, with an activity of 100 nM (see spec. of Copending ‘954, page 316). This compound renders the instant compound 67 obvious in view of Morita (US ‘673 claims 1-14) – compound 67 is reported to have an activity of 213 nM (see page 158 of instant spec.), thus the instant compounds are not unexpectedly more potent than US ‘673’s and therefore, compounds are obvious in view of Morita.
US ‘673 compound:
PNG
media_image1.png
153
270
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Instant Compound:
PNG
media_image2.png
133
272
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding instant claims 69, 76-77, 82, and 84, US ‘673 claims pharmaceutical compositions comprising their compounds and methods of treating cancers comprising EGFR mutations (US ‘673 claims 17-19).
While US ‘673 does not teach their compounds wherein their R1 phenyl ring contains 2 substituents (as shown in the examples above), the teachings of Morita are relied upon for these disclosures.
Morita discloses that H and F as monovalent classical bioisosteres in medicinal chemistry (page 4, box under classical bioisosteres). Morita teaches that the design of bioisosteres introduces structural changes that can be beneficial by modulating size, shape, lipophilicity, etc., resulting in improvements of potency, selectivity, metabolism, etc. (see bottom of page 3).
Therefore, regarding instant claim 68, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to prepare any of the instant compounds in view of US ‘673’s compounds, in view of Morita. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success in view of US ‘673 disclosure of the compounds of Formula I, including the specific examples shown above, and Morita’s teachings that H and F are monovalent bioisosteres, and that the design of bioisosteres introduces structural changes that can be beneficial by modulating size, shape, lipophilicity, etc., resulting in improvements of potency, selectivity, metabolism, etc.
Applicant is further advised that the courts have found that similar properties may normally be presumed when compounds are very close in structure. Dillon, 919 F.2d at 693, 696, 16 USPQ2d at 1901, 1904. See also In re Grabiak, 769 F.2d 729, 731, 226 USPQ 870, 871 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“When chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities, without more a prima facie case may be made.”). Thus, evidence of similar properties or evidence of any useful properties disclosed in the prior art that would be expected to be shared by the claimed invention weighs in favor of a conclusion that the claimed invention would have been obvious. Dillon, 919 F.2d at 697-98, 16 USPQ2d at 1905; In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 461, 195 USPQ 426, 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972) (see MPEP 2144.08(d)).
Response to Arguments
Claims
Claim amendments are acknowledged. No new matter has been introduced.
Double Patenting
Applicant's amendments are not sufficient to overcome provisional non-statutory double patenting rejections of record. Previously Copending ‘954 is now an issued patent and has been cited as US ‘673.
Conclusion
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 JACKSON J HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5382. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 7:30 to 5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 L. 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.
/JACKSON J HERNANDEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 1627
/SARAH PIHONAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1627
