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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of the invention of group I and a species of Formula (I) of Example 28 in the reply filed on 05/04/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Examiner searched the elected compound and did not find art. Examiner expanded the search scope to the entirety of Formula (I). The election of species requirement is therefore withdrawn. Claims 1, 2, 12-13, 19-24, 70-78, and 80 are examined herein.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges that, according to the Filing receipt received [date], that the instant application 18/227,643 filed 07/28/2023 claims domestic benefit of U.S. provisional application 63/393,541 filed 07/29/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner notes that no IDS has been submitted, but multiple references are cited throughout the specification. The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: p. 148, line 16, "The%" should read "The %"; p. 148, line 19, "the% should read "the %".
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 2 recite "E is an E3 ubiquitin ligase binding moiety, which binds to an E3 ubiquitin ligase" wherein "which binds to an E3 ubiquitin ligase" is redundant; in claims 1 and 2 "Cyclopentylamino" should not be capitalized. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 78 is 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.
Claim 78 recites “or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt of any of the aforementioned”. The limitation “the aforementioned” lacks antecedent basis as it is unclear what is being referred to. Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 12-13, 19-24, 74-77, and 80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a compound of Formula (I) wherein E is an E3 ubiquitin ligase binding moiety selected from the moieties listed in claims 70-73, does not reasonably provide enablement for a compound of Formula (I) wherein E is an E3 ubiquitin ligase binding moiety generally. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The test of enablement is whether one skilled in the art could make and use the claimed invention from the disclosures in the application coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation. (United States v. Teletronics Inc., 8 USPQ2d 1217 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). Whether undue experimentation is needed is not based on a single factor, but rather a conclusion reached by weighing many factors (See Ex parte Forman 230 USPQ 546 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986) and In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
These factors include the following:
1) Amount of guidance provided by applicant. Applicant has demonstrated within the application how to make compounds and compositions of Formula (I). However, the instant specification (see pages 94-147) provides no species of Formula (I) wherein E is an E3 ubiquitin ligase binding moiety other than those recited in claims 70-73. Moreover, the substituent E in claims 1 and 2 is defined purely by function and provides no guidance as to what structures would be expected to bind to an E3 ubiquitin ligase.
No working examples exist of any other substituents or groups as previously mentioned. As was stated in Morton International Inc. v. Cardinal Chemical Co., 28 USPQ2d 1190 “The specification purports to teach, with over fifty examples, the preparation of the claimed compounds with the required connectivity. However...there is no evidence that such compounds exist...the examples of the '881 patent do not produce the postulated compounds...there is...no evidence that such compounds even exist.” The same circumstance appears to be true here. Hence, Applicants must show that these compounds can be made, or limit the claims accordingly.
2) The nature of the invention and predictability in the art. The invention is directed toward PARP14 inhibitors bound to an E3 ubiquitin ligase binding moiety. Regarding predictability in the art, chemistry is generally regarded as unpredictable. See In Re Marzocchi and Horton, 169 USPQ at 367 paragraph 3:
“Most non-chemists would probably be horrified if they were to learn how
many attempted syntheses fail, and how inefficient research chemists are.
The ratio of successful to unsuccessful chemical experiments in a normal
research laboratory is far below unity, and synthetic research chemists, in
the same way as most scientists, spend most of their time working out
what went wrong, and why. Despite the many pitfalls lurking in organic
synthesis, most organic chemistry textbooks and research articles do give
the impression that organic reactions just proceed smoothly and that the
total synthesis of complex natural products, for instance, is maybe a labor-
intensive but otherwise undemanding task. In fact, most syntheses of
structurally complex natural products are the result of several years of
hard work by a team of chemists, with almost every step requiring careful
optimization. The final synthesis usually looks quite different from that
originally planned, because of unexpected difficulties encountered in the initially chosen synthetic sequence. Only the seasoned practitioner who
has experienced for himself the many failures and frustrations which the
development (sometimes even the repetition) of a synthesis usually
implies will be able to appraise such work ......Chemists tend not to publish
negative results, because these are, as opposed to positive results, never
definite (and far too copious)...” Dorwald F. A. Side Reactions in Organic
Synthesis, 2005, Wiley: VCH, Weinheim pg. IX of Preface.
The scope of any compounds, compositions, or pharmaceutically acceptable salts where the variables were not those mentioned above are not adequately enabled or defined. Applicants provide to guidance as how the compounds are made.
3) Number of working examples. The compound core depicted with specific substituents as above represents a narrow subgenus for which Applicant has provided sufficient guidance to make and use; however, this disclosure is not sufficient to allow extrapolation of the limited examples to enable the scope of the compounds instantly claimed. Applicant has provided no working examples of any compounds, compositions, or pharmaceutically acceptable salts where the variables were not those mentioned above.
Within the specification, “specific operative embodiments or examples of the invention must be set forth, Examples and description should be of sufficient scope as to justify the scope of the claims, Markush claims must be provided with support in the disclosure for each member of the Markush group. Where the constitution and formula of a chemical compound is stated only as a probability or speculation, the disclosure is not sufficient to support claims identifying the compound by such composition or formula.” See MPEP 608.01(p).
4) Scope of the claims. The scope of the claims is all of the millions of possible compounds represented by general Formula (I).
PNG
media_image1.png
202
424
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Given the varying substituent modifications, the claims are incredibly broad. The guidance provided in the instant disclosure regarding the structure of E, an E3 ubiquitin ligase binding moiety, is substantially more limited that the breadth of any moiety that could bind to E3 ubiquitin ligase.
5) Level of skill in the art. The artisan using Applicant’s invention would be a chemist with a Ph.D. degree and having several years of bench experience.
6) Undue experimentation. MPEP §2164.01 (a) states, "A conclusion of lack of enablement means that, based on the evidence regarding each of the above factors, the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557,1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993)."
The conclusion is clearly justified here that Applicant is not enabled for making these compounds or compositions.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 12-13, 22-24, 70-72, 74, and 80 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Schenkel et al. (WO2020257416A1; 2020).
Schenkel et al. discloses the following pharmaceutically acceptable salt form of a PARP14 degrader (p. 68-69).
PNG
media_image2.png
346
778
media_image2.png
Greyscale
While the compound itself is excluded by the proviso of instant claims 1 and 2, the pharmaceutically acceptable salt form (trifluoroacetate) as above is not clearly excluded.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 12-13, 22-24, 70-72, 74-75, and 80 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schenkel et al. (WO2020257416A1; 2020).
Schenkel et al. discloses the following compounds (p. 46-47).
PNG
media_image3.png
474
586
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
406
542
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The above compounds are excluded from the scope of claims 1 and 2 by proviso. However, Schenkel et al. additionally discloses the following generic structure (p. 5).
PNG
media_image5.png
398
654
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Schenkel et al. discloses additional species for moiety E (p. 41-42) and suggests variable alkyl lengths for the moiety in the L1 position (p. 44).
The MPEP 2144.09 states “Compounds which are… homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). As such, absent unexpected results, it would be prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teachings of Schenkel et al., to lengthen or shorten the alkyl groups by successive addition or removal of 1-2 -CH2- groups under the expectation that such compounds would exhibit the same properties.
Additionally, it would be prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the moieties in the E position with those taught on p. 41-42 of Schenkel et al. One would be motivated to do so, with reasonable expectation of success, as the moieties are taught to be functionally equivalent to each other as E3 ubiquitin ligase binding moieties and they are suggested to be known alternatives for the same purpose.
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 1, 2, 12-13, 22-24, 70-72, 74-75, and 80 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8, and 45-54 of copending Application No. 19/216,120 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The ‘120 application claims a compound of Formula (A1) which substantially overlaps in scope with the instantly claimed Formula (1). The compounds of claim 53 are excluded from the scope of instant claims 1 and 2 by proviso. However, for the same reasons as in the above 103 rejection, and because the claims overlap significantly in scope, it would be prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at a compound of the instant invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 73 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. However, claim 73 is free of the art. The closest prior art is Schenkel et al. (cited above). However, Schenkel et al. does not teach or suggest an E3 ubiquitin ligase binding moiety with the structure in claim 73, let alone a compound of Formula (I) with and E3 ubiquitin ligase binding moiety with the structure as in claim 73.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 2, 12-13, 19-24, 70-72, 74-78, and 80 are rejected. Claim 73 is objected to.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADELINE E BRAUN whose telephone number is (703)756-4533. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:00pm ET.
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, Jeffrey Murray can be reached at (571) 272-9023. 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.
/M.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1624 05/15/2026
/BRENDA L COLEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1624
Prosecution Insights