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 .
Current Status
This Action is responsive to the amended claims of 02/10/2026. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-13, and 16-19 are pending. Claims 11 and 19 are withdrawn. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12-13, and 16-18 have been examined on the merits.
Election/Restrictions
The amendments of 02/10/2026 did not overcome the pending prior art rejections. The Markush search was previously extended to the following species:
PNG
media_image1.png
193
252
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
190
266
media_image2.png
Greyscale
; the elected species for disease and anti-cancer agent were accordingly extended to renal cancer and sunitinib.
In view of the amendments, the Markush search has been further extended to:
PNG
media_image3.png
97
155
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
All 3 compounds are taught in 102(a)(2) type prior art references which share at least an assignee with the instant application. These are the only prior art references retrieved by the search (see SEARCH 6 of the attached search notes). Since the search retrieved art, the Markush search will not be unnecessarily extended to further species.
To expedite prosecution, the Markush search was extended to Formula (I) wherein A is 2,3-dihydro-1H-pyrido[2,3-b][1,4]oxazin-7-yl and all other variables are as broadly defined in instant claim 1. This search did not retrieve any prior art (see the attached search notes Pg. 19-21 L1-L9 of the SEARCH 6). The instant claim 12 only recites compounds wherein A is 2,3-dihydro-1H-pyrido[2,3-b][1,4]oxazin-7-yl. Thus, this claim is found free of the art.
The above species read on claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 13, and 16-18.
Claim 12 retrieved no art and is examined on the merits.
Claims 11 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/10/2026.
Priority
The effective filing date is 11/09/2020.
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges receipt of and has reviewed the amendments and remarks of 02/10/2026. New matter has been introduced via the amendments to claim 1 and has warranted the new 112(a) rejections below.
The objection to claims 1 and 18 over punctuation is maintained in part over claim 1. Applicant has amended to address some of the concerns over missing commas; however, the recitations of “R1a, R1b and R1c” and “R2a, R2b and R2c” still lack a comma before “and”. The dependent claims 2, 9-10, 13, and 16-18 are still similarly subject to this objection since they do not rectify the issue. Claims 6-7 (previously withdrawn) are now similarly objected to.
Note, Applicant has taken care of the typo in withdrawn claim 4 as recited in ¶15 of the previous action.
The 112(b) rejection of claim 1 over R2b and R2c is withdrawn because Applicant has amended the recited chemical moiety to clarify the spirocyclic substituents. The rejection over dependent claims 2, 9-10, 13, and 16-18 is similarly withdrawn.
The 112(b) rejection of claims 9-10 over unclear dependency is maintained. Claim 9 still recites “The compound of Claim 1 8,”. Thus, the dependence of claim 9 is still unclear.
The 112(b) rejection of claim 9 over the limitation "R4 is hydrogen or fluoro" is withdrawn due to amendment. Even though claim 9’s dependence is still unclear, claim 8 has been amended to depend directly from claim 1. In this case, both claims 1 and 8 recite wherein R4 is H, CN, Cl, or F. Thus, the limitation of claim 9 has antecedent basis in the claims. The rejection over dependent claim 10 is similarly withdrawn.
Note, Applicant has taken care of Examiner’s concerns over withdrawn claims 8 and 11 as recited in ¶21 of the previous action. Claim 8 now depends from claim 1 providing antecedent basis for its limitations. Claim 11 now clearly depends from only claim 1 which provides antecedent basis for its limitations.
The 112(d) rejection of claims 9-10 is withdrawn. While the dependency of claim 9 is still unclear, in either case, claim 9 properly further limits claim 1 and/or claim 8 since claim 8 now depends directly from claim 1.
Note, Applicant has taken care of Examiner’s concerns over withdrawn claim 8 and 11 as recited in ¶24 of the previous action since claims 8 and 11 now clearly depend from claim 1 and properly further limit this parent claim.
The 102(a)(2) rejection of claims 1, 3, 16, and 18 over KEYLOR, as evidenced by JINGWEN, is modified below to account for the amendments made to the claims. Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite
PNG
media_image4.png
59
626
media_image4.png
Greyscale
. Based on the remarks, it appears applicant intended to limit A to just the 2,3-dihydro-1H-pyrido[2,3-b][1,4]oxazin-7-yl ring. However, the amendment reads “A is a 2,3-dihydro-1H-pyrido[2,3-b][1,4]oxazin-7-yl, ring” (see annotated comma above). Thus, as drafted, A is chosen from the specified oxazin-7-yl or a ring in general. Thus, the compound of KEYLOR still falls under A is a “ring.” Note, if Applicant were to strike the annotated comma, the amendment would overcome the art KEYLOR since KEYLOR does not teach any species with a 2,3-dihydro-1H-pyrido[2,3-b][1,4]oxazin-7-yl ring at the A position.
Similarly, the 102(a)(2) rejection of claims 1-2, 9-10, 13, 16, and 18 over ACTON, as evidenced by JINGWEN, is modified below to account for the amendments made to the claims. By the same logic as applied in ¶17, above, the compounds of ACTON still fall under A is a “ring.” Note, if Applicant were to strike the annotated comma, the amendment would overcome the art ACTON since ACTON does not teach any species with a 2,3-dihydro-1H-pyrido[2,3-b][1,4]oxazin-7-yl ring at the A position.
Similarly, the 103 rejection of claims 1 and 16-18 over KEYLOR, in view of JINGWEN, and further in view of RIZZO is modified below to account for the amendments made to the claims. By the same logic as applied in ¶17, above, the compounds of KEYLOR still fall under A is a “ring.” Note, if Applicant were to strike the annotated comma, the amendment would overcome the art.
Similarly, the 103 rejection of claims 1 and 16-18 over ACTON, in view of JINGWEN, and further in view of RIZZO is modified below to account for the amendments made to the claims. By the same logic as applied in ¶17, above, the compounds of ACTON still fall under A is a “ring.” Note, if Applicant were to strike the annotated comma, the amendment would overcome the art.
The anticipatory double patenting rejection of claims 1 and 13 over previously co-pending App. No. 17/769,814, now published U.S. Patent 12,540,131 is modified below to account for the amendments made to claim 1. For the same reasons as in ¶17, above, the compounds recited in the Patent claims fall under A is a “ring.”
The obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1 and 16-18 over previously co-pending App. No. 17/769,814, now published U.S. Patent 12,540,131, in view of JINGWEN and RIZZO is modified below to account for the amendments made to claim 1. For the same reasons as in ¶17, above, the compounds recited in the Patent claims fall under A is a “ring.”
The anticipatory double patenting rejection of claims 1-2, 9-10, and 13 over co-pending App. No. 18/041,849, now published U.S. Patent 12,570,640, is modified below to account for the amendments made to the claims. For the same reasons as in ¶17, above, the compounds recited in the reference claims fall under A is a “ring.”
The obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1 and 16-18 over co-pending App. No. 18/041,849, now published U.S. Patent 12,570,640, in view of JINGWEN and RIZZO is modified below to account for the amendments made to claim 1. For the same reasons as in ¶17, above, the compounds recited in the reference claims fall under A is a “ring.”
Response to Amendment
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 13, and 16-18 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 6-7, and 10 each recite lists of at least options: claims 1 and 6 recite “R1a, R1b and R1c”, claims 1 and 7 recite “R2a, R2b and R2c”, and claim 10 recites “R3 is hydrogen, R4 is hydrogen and R5 is hydrogen”. Please add a comma before the word “and” in each cited recitation. The dependent claims 2, 4, 8-9, 13, and 16-18 are similarly objected to since they do not rectify the issue.
Note: withdrawn claim 11 similarly requires a comma after “fluoro”.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 is marked as Currently Amended and reflects multiple amendments with proper markup. However, the text “2,3-dihydro-1H-pyrido[2,3-b][1,4]oxazin-7-yl,” was added under variable A, but this text is not underlined. Claim text should be properly marked-up so it is obvious where amendments have been made (see MPEP 714.II.C.). The dependent claims 2, 4, 6-10, 13, and 16-18 are similarly objected to since they do not rectify the issue.
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, 4, 6-10, 13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a new matter rejection.
MPEP § 2163 states that, “[n]ew or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations which are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement. See, e.g., In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ 795 (CCPA 1971) (subgenus range was not supported by generic disclosure and specific example within the subgenus range); In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389,1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) (a subgenus is not necessarily described by a genus encompassing it and a species upon which it reads).” Further, the MPEP states, “[w]hile there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure.”
Regarding claim 1, on Pg. 4 of 30, choice (18) under R2a, R2b and R2c has been amended to recite wherein the azetidinyl may be substituted with “-C(O)(C1-6alkyl)”. The original claims do not provide support for the full scope of this substitution. Original independent claim 1 never recited wherein azetidinyl may be substituted with “-C(O)(C1-6alkyl)” or any -CO(alkyl) of broader scope. Similarly original independent claim 12 only recites 3 species wherein one of R2a, R2b, and R2c are chosen as azetidinyl wherein the azetidinyl is either unsubsituted (e.g., compound 2-5
PNG
media_image5.png
158
193
media_image5.png
Greyscale
; see also specification Pg. 67) or the azetidinyl is substituted by -C(O)(C2alkyl) (e.g., compound 1-3
PNG
media_image6.png
181
186
media_image6.png
Greyscale
and compound 2-1
PNG
media_image7.png
196
180
media_image7.png
Greyscale
; see also specification Pg. 52 & 66). Similarly, the specification does not provide support for the full scope of the amendment. The definitions provided on Pg. 4 of the specification for R2a, R2b, and R2c are not any broader than those found in the original claims. Further, the specification does not provide any exemplary compounds beyond those already discussed.
A finding of written description support is not similar to obviousness analysis where one can assume Applicants intended to claim the full scope of R2a, R2b, and R2c as azetidinyl substituted by -C(O)(C1-6alkyl). Applicants must actually have support for all limitations of the claims in the original disclosure. In this case, the limitation wherein for R2a, R2b, and R2c are chosen as azetidinyl substituted by -C(O)(C1 alkyl) and -C(O)(C3-6alkyl) lacks written description support in the original disclosure and hence is new matter. As such, claim 1 and its dependent claims (2, 4, 6-10, 13, and 16-18) lack written description support.
Further regarding claim 1, variable A has been amended to recite “A is a 2,3-dihydro-1H-pyrido[2,3-b][1,4]oxazin-7-yl, ring.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, A is chosen as either 1) the specified oxazin-7-yl ring or 2) any ring. The original claims do not provide support for the full scope A is any ring. Original independent claim 1 provides A may be phenyl, cycloalkyl, or heterocyclyl; however, this does not provide support for the full scope of “ring” (e.g., aromatic cycles other than phenyl such as naphthalene). The specification recites, at its broadest, the same limitation for A as original claim 1 (Pg. 2). Original independent claim 12 similarly does not provide exemplary compounds covering any and every possible ring in position A.
A finding of written description support is not similar to obviousness analysis where one can assume Applicants intended to claim the full scope of A is a ring. Applicants must actually have support for all limitations of the claims in the original disclosure. In this case, the limitation A is a “ring” lacks written description support in the original disclosure for any ring outside of the scope of phenyl, cycloalkyl, and heterocyclyl. Hence, the amendment is new matter and claim 1 and its dependent claims (2, 4, 6-10, 13, and 16-18) lack written description support.
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.
Claims 9-10 are 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.
Claims 9-10 are rejected based on unclear dependency. Claim 9 recites “the compound of claim 1 8,” thus it is unclear if the claim depends from claim 1, claim 8, or both. While the amendment to claim 8 has provided antecedent basis for the moieties of claim 9-10, the dependency of claims 9-10 is still unclear. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are undefined rendering the claim indefinite. Claim 10 is similarly rejected since it depends from claim 9 and does not rectify the underlying issue.
Note: claim 9 properly further limits either one of claims 1 or 8, thus, no 112(d) rejection is made.
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.
Claim 1, 8, 13, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by KEYLOR (WO 2021/080929, effectively filed 10/25/2019, cited in IDS of 08/26/2024) as evidenced by JINGWEN (Jingwen, S. et al. Cancer Cell, pub. 12 Oct. 2020, 38, 551-566); note KEYLOR’s priority document is cited as “PD” hereafter.
Note: this rejection is modified here to account for the amendments to the claims. In particular, claim 8 is added since the dependency of claim 8 has been amended to claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, KEYLOR teaches
PNG
media_image1.png
193
252
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Pg. 118 Scheme 52 Ex 4.2 & Pg. 238 claim 14; PD Claim 9 Pg. 119 Table 2nd row) which reads on Formula (I) wherein X is a bond, A is heterocyclyl ring (i.e., a ring), R1a and R1b are H, R1c is halogen, R3 and R5 are H, R4 is Cl, B is pyrazolyl, R2a is H, R2b is Cl, and R2c is C3 cycloalkyl. Note, KEYLOR teaches a multitude of similar compounds which similarly read on the compound of claim 1; a majority of the compounds appear to share the factor that X is a bond and R4 is Cl.
Regarding claim 8, the compound of KEYLOR teaches wherein R3 is H.
Regarding claim 13, KEYLOR teaches a pharmaceutical composition comprising a compound of claim 14 (i.e., ex-4.2) and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier (Pg. 308 claim 16; PD claim 10 Pg. 143), i.e., an inert carrier.
Regarding claims 16 and 18, KEYLOR teaches a method for treatment or prophylaxis of an indication in which LRRK2 is involved comprising administering an effective amount of a compound of claim 14 (i.e., ex-4.2) or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, said indication is renal cancer (Pg. 308-309 claim 19; PD Pg. 144 claim 13). Examiner understands renal cancer is an HPK1-associated disease, as evidenced by JINGWEN. JINGWEN discloses high expression of MAP4K1 (which encodes HPK1) in patients with kidney renal clear cell carcinoma had lower survival rates than those with low expression of MAP4K1/HPK1 (Pg. 553 Fig. 1 & Pg. 554 Left Col. last para). Thus, KEYLOR teaches treatment of an HPK1-associated disease, renal cancer, by administering a compound of instant claim 1.
The applied reference has a common Assignee (Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.) and Inventors (Fuller, Peter & Yu, Elsie) with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 13, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by ACTON (WO 2022/051337; effectively filed 09/02/2020, cited in IDS of 08/26/2024) as evidenced by JINGWEN (Jingwen, S. et al. Cancer Cell, pub. 12 Oct. 2020, 38, 551-566); note ACTON’s priority document is cited as “PD” hereafter.
Note: this rejection is modified here to account for the amendments to the claims. In particular, claims 4 and 6-8 are added since the dependency of these claims has been changed. They previously depended from (now canceled) claim 3 which required A is phenyl, pyridyl, or 2,3-dihydro-1H-pyrido[2,3-b][1,4]oxazin-7-yl. Now these claims depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 and A may be any ring.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4, ACTON teaches a compound 1.12:
PNG
media_image2.png
190
266
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Pg. 194 claim 17; PD claim 17) wherein X is a bond, A is a heterocyclyl ring (i.e., a ring), R1a and R1b are C1 alkyl, R1c is H, R3-R5 are H, B is pyrazol-4-yl, R2a is H, R2b is C1 alkyl, and R2c is C2 alkyl substituted with fluoro.
ACTON further teaches compound 1.10:
PNG
media_image3.png
97
155
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Pg. 194 claim 17; PD claim 17) wherein X is a bond, A is a ring, R1a is C1 alkyl, R1b and R1c are H, R3-R5 are H, B is pyrazol-4-yl, R2a and R2b are C1-2 alkyl, and R2c is H.
Regarding claim 6, ACTON compound 1.12 teaches wherein R1a and R1b are each -CH3 and R1c is H. ACTON compound 1.10 teaches wherein R1a is -CH3 and R1b-R1c are H.
Regarding claim 7, ACTON compound 1.10 teaches wherein R2a and R2b are C1-2 alkyl and R2c is H.
Regarding claims 8-10, both compound 1.12 and 1.10 of ACTON teach wherein R3, R4, and R5 are all H. Note, whether claims 9-10 depend from claim 1 or claim 8, this teaching holds.
Regarding claim 13, ACTON teaches a pharmaceutical composition comprising a compound of claim 17 (i.e., ex-1.12 & 1.10) and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier (Pg. 217 claim 18; PD Pg. 206 claim 18), i.e., an inert carrier.
Regarding claims 16 and 18, ACTON teaches a method for treatment or prophylaxis of an indication in which LRRK2 is involved comprising administering an effective amount of a compound of claim 17 (i.e., ex-1.12 & 1.10) or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, said indication is renal cancer (Pg. 217 claim 22; PD Pg. 206-207 claim 22). Examiner understands renal cancer is an HPK1-associated disease, as evidenced by JINGWEN. JINGWEN discloses high expression of MAP4K1 (which encodes HPK1) in patients with kidney renal clear cell carcinoma had lower survival rates than those with low expression of MAP4K1/HPK1 (Pg. 553 Fig. 1 & Pg. 554 Left Col. last para). Thus, ACTON teaches treatment of an HPK1-associated disease, renal cancer, by administering a compound of instant claim 1.
The applied reference has a common assignee (Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.) with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
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.
Claims 1 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KEYLOR (WO 2021/080929, effectively filed 10/25/2019, cited in IDS of 08/26/2024) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JINGWEN (Jingwen, S. et al. Cancer Cell, pub. 12 Oct. 2020, 38, 551-566) and in view of RIZZO (Rizzo, M. and Porta, C. Therapeutic Advances in Urology, 2017, 9(8), 195-207).
The instant claims are drawn to a compound of Formula (I) (claim 1) and a method of treating an HPK1-associated disease (claim 16) that is cancer (claim 18) via administration of the compound of Formula (I); wherein the method may further include administration of another anti-cancer agent (claim 17). Addition of another anti-cancer agent to a method of treating cancer is a well-known technique in the art.
Determining the Scope and Contents of the Prior Art:
KEYLOR teaches a compound of instant claim 1 wherein A is a ring (ex-4.2) and a method of use thereof treating renal cancer, see above 102.
The teachings of JINGWEN are in the above 102.
RIZZO teaches Sunitinib is a multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor and represents a key molecule in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (Pg. 195 Abstract).
Ascertaining the Differences Between the Prior Art and the Claims at Issue:
KEYLOR is silent as to the role of HPK1 in renal cancer and does not teach the treatment further comprising administration of another anti-cancer agent.
RIZZO and JINGWEN do not teach treatment of renal cancer with the instant compound.
Resolving the Level of Ordinary Skill in the Pertinent Art:
The level of ordinary skill in the art is represented by an artisan who has sufficient background in the development of a combination useful for treatment of renal cancer and possesses the technical knowledge necessary to make adjustments to the combination to optimize/enhance the treatment. Said artisan has also reviewed the problems in the art regarding treatment options for renal cancer and understands the solutions that are widely-known in the art.
Considering Objective Evidence Present in the Application Indicating Obviousness or Nonobviousness:
The instant claims are prima facie obvious in light of the combination of references KEYLOR, in view of JINGWEN, and in view of RIZZO.
The artisan would recognize renal cancer is an HPK1-associated disease, as taught by JINGWEN (Pg. 553 Fig. 1 & Pg. 554 Left Col. last para). Thus, KEYLOR is understood to teach treatment of an HPK1-associated disease, renal cancer, by administering a compound of instant claim 1.
The artisan would be expected to include another anti-cancer agent that is sunitinib in the method of KEYLOR in view of the teachings of RIZZO. Specifically, the artisan would have been motivated to treat renal cancer with the combination sunitinib and KEYLOR ex-4.2 because of each of the compounds have been individually taught in the prior art to be suitable for the treatment of renal cancer (see KEYLOR Pg. 308-309 claim 19; PD Pg. 144 claim 13 and RIZZO Pg. 195 Abstract). Moreover, the instant situation is amenable to the type of analysis set forth in In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980) wherein the court held that it is prima facie obvious to combine two agents each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the very same purpose. The idea of combining them flows logically from having been individually taught in the prior art. Applying the same logic to the instant claims, the artisan would have been imbued with at least a reasonable expectation of success that by combining KEYLOR’s ex-4.2 with sunitinib, one would have achieved a composition useful for treating renal cancer.
Claims 1 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ACTON (WO 2022/051337; effectively filed 09/02/2020, cited in IDS of 08/26/2024) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JINGWEN (Jingwen, S. et al. Cancer Cell, pub. 12 Oct. 2020, 38, 551-566) and in view of RIZZO (Rizzo, M. and Porta, C. Therapeutic Advances in Urology, 2017, 9(8), 195-207).
The instant claims are drawn to a compound of Formula (I) (claim 1) and a method of treating an HPK1-associated disease (claim 16) that is cancer (claim 18) via administration of the compound of Formula (I); wherein the method may further include administration of another anti-cancer agent (claim 17). Addition of another anti-cancer agent to a method of treating cancer is a well-known technique in the art.
Determining the Scope and Contents of the Prior Art:
ACTON teaches two compounds of instant claim 1 wherein A is a ring (Ex-1.10 & 1.12) and a method of use thereof treating renal cancer, see above 102.
The teachings of JINGWEN are in the above 102.
RIZZO teaches Sunitinib is a multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor and represents a key molecule in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (Pg. 195 Abstract).
Ascertaining the Differences Between the Prior Art and the Claims at Issue:
ACTON is silent as to the role of HPK1 in renal cancer and does not teach the treatment further comprising administration of another anti-cancer agent.
RIZZO and JINGWEN do not teach treatment of renal cancer with the instant compound.
Resolving the Level of Ordinary Skill in the Pertinent Art:
The level of ordinary skill in the art is represented by an artisan who has sufficient background in the development of a combination useful for treatment of renal cancer and possesses the technical knowledge necessary to make adjustments to the combination to optimize/enhance the treatment. Said artisan has also reviewed the problems in the art regarding treatment options for renal cancer and understands the solutions that are widely-known in the art.
Considering Objective Evidence Present in the Application Indicating Obviousness or Nonobviousness:
The instant claims are prima facie obvious in light of the combination of references ACTON, in view of JINGWEN, and in view of RIZZO.
The artisan would recognize renal cancer is an HPK1-associated disease, as taught by JINGWEN (Pg. 553 Fig. 1 & Pg. 554 Left Col. last para). Thus, ACTON is understood to teach treatment of an HPK1-associated disease, renal cancer, by administering a compound of instant claim 1.
The artisan would be expected to include another anti-cancer agent that is sunitinib in the method of ACTON in view of the teachings of RIZZO. Specifically, the artisan would have been motivated to treat renal cancer with the combination sunitinib and ex-1.10/ex-1.12 because each of the compounds have been individually taught in the prior art to be suitable for the treatment of renal cancer (see ACTON Pg. 217 claim 22; PD Pg. 206-207 claim 22 and RIZZO Pg. 195 Abstract). Moreover, the instant situation is amenable to the type of analysis set forth in In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980) wherein the court held that it is prima facie obvious to combine two agents each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the very same purpose. The idea of combining them flows logically from having been individually taught in the prior art. Applying the same logic to the instant claims, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been imbued with at least a reasonable expectation of success that by combining the ex-1.10/ex-1.12 with sunitinib, one would have achieved a composition useful for treating renal cancer.
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, 8, and 13 are rejected on the ground of anticipatory nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 14-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,540,131 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Note: this rejection was previously a provisional rejection over App. No. 17/769,814. The application has since been issued as a patent. The rejection is updated accordingly. Further, instant claim 8 is added due to the amendment which changes its dependency directly to claim 1.
Reference claims 14-15 recite a series of compounds which are species of the instant Formula (I). As drawn out in reference claim 15, the following are found to be species of the instant claims: Pg. 205 # 1; Pg. 206 # 2, 9, 11-12; Pg. 207 #3, 6; Pg. 208 #1, 7; Pg. 213 #7; Pg. 214 #3, 9, 12; Pg. 215 #8-9; Pg. 216 4, 8; Pg. 217 # 8-9; Pg. 218 #3; Pg. 219 #6; Pg. 220 #4-6; Pg. 221 #3, 5, 8; Pg. 222 #3, 6; Pg. 223 #1, 4, 8-9; Pg. 228 #2, 5; Pg. 229 #2, 6, 10; Pg. 232 #7; Pg. 239 #1. For example,
PNG
media_image1.png
193
252
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which reads on Formula (I) wherein X is a bond, A is heterocyclyl ring (i.e., a ring), R1a and R1b are H, R1c is halogen, R3 and R5 are H, R4 is Cl, B is pyrazolyl, R2a is H, R2b is Cl, and R2c is C3 cycloalkyl. Thus, reference claims 14-15 and their parent claim 1 anticipate instant claims 1 and 8.
Reference claim 16 is drawn to a pharmaceutical composition comprising a compound of reference claim 1 and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier. In view of reference claims 14-15, reference claim 16 reads on instant claim 13.
Reference claims 17-18 are drawn to a method of treatment comprising administering the compound of reference claim 1. In view of the species taught in reference claims 14-15, the reference claims 17-18 also read on the instant claims. In order to practice the method of treatment, the artisan would have to be in possession of the compound.
Due to the large number of compounds recited in both the instant application and the reference application, Applicant is asked to review all of claimed compounds for any other compounds which they may understand as overlapping.
Claims 1 and 16-18 are rejected on the ground of obviousness-type nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 14-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,540,131 (reference application) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of JINGWEN (Jingwen, S. et al. Cancer Cell, pub. 12 Oct. 2020, 38, 551-566) and in view of RIZZO (Rizzo, M. and Porta, C. Therapeutic Advances in Urology, 2017, 9(8), 195-207).
Note: this rejection was previously a provisional rejection over App. No. 17/769,814. The application has since been issued as a patent. The rejection is updated accordingly.
The instant claims are drawn to a compound of Formula (I) (claim 1) and a method of treating an HPK1 cancer by administering Formula (I) (claims 16 & 18) with an additional anti-cancer agent (claim 17).
Determining the Scope and Contents of the Prior Art:
Patent No. ‘131 teaches the compound of instant claim 1 wherein A is a ring, above. Further, reference claims 17-18 are directed towards a treatment of renal cancer.
JINGWEN teaches high expression of MAP4K1 (which encodes HPK1) in patients with kidney renal clear cell carcinoma had lower survival rates than those with low expression of MAP4K1/HPK1 (Pg. 553 Fig. 1 & Pg. 554 Left Col. last para).
RIZZO teaches Sunitinib is a multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor and represents a key molecule in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (Pg. 195 Abstract).
Ascertaining the Differences Between the Prior Art and the Claims at Issue:
Patent No. ‘131 is silent as to the role of HPK1 in renal cancer and the method does not further comprise administration of another anti-cancer agent.
Resolving the Level of Ordinary Skill in the Pertinent Art:
The level of ordinary skill in the art is represented by an artisan who has sufficient background in the development of a combination useful for treatment of renal cancer and possesses the technical knowledge necessary to make adjustments to the combination to optimize/enhance the treatment. Said artisan has also reviewed the problems in the art regarding treatment options for renal cancer and understands the solutions that are widely-known in the art.
Considering Objective Evidence Present in the Application Indicating Obviousness or Nonobviousness:
The instant claims are prima facie obvious in light of the combination of references Patent No. ‘131, in view of JINGWEN, and in view of RIZZO.
The artisan would recognize renal cancer is an HPK1-associated disease, as taught by JINGWEN (Pg. 553 Fig. 1 & Pg. 554 Left Col. last para). Thus, the reference claims are understood to teach treatment of an HPK1-associated disease, renal cancer, by administering a compound of instant claim 1.
Further, the artisan would be motivated to include another anti-cancer agent that is sunitinib in the method of Patent No. ‘131 in view of the teachings of RIZZO. Specifically, the artisan would have been motivated to treat renal cancer with the combination sunitinib and a species of the reference claims (e.g., ex-4.2 above) because of each of the compounds have been individually taught in the prior art to be suitable for the treatment of renal cancer (see reference claims 17-18 and RIZZO Pg. 195 Abstract). Moreover, the instant situation is amenable to the type of analysis set forth in In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980) wherein the court held that it is prima facie obvious to combine two agents each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the very same purpose. The idea of combining them flows logically from having been individually taught in the prior art. Applying the same logic to the instant claims, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been imbued with at least a reasonable expectation of success that by combining for example, ex-4.2, with sunitinib, one would have achieved a composition useful for treating renal cancer.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of anticipatory nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 17-18, and 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,570,640 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Note: this rejection was previously a provisional rejection over App. No. 18/041,849. The application has since been issued as a patent. The rejection is updated accordingly. Further, this rejection is modified here to account for the amendments to the claims. In particular, claims 4 and 6-8 are added since the dependency of these claims has been changed. They previously depended from (now canceled) claim 3 which required A is phenyl, pyridyl, or 2,3-dihydro-1H-pyrido[2,3-b][1,4]oxazin-7-yl. Now these claims depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 and A may be any ring.
Reference claim 17 is drawn to a series of compounds which are species of the instant Formula (I). At least compounds Ex. 1.3, 1.6-1.15,1.17-1.21,1.23,1.26, 1.29-1.32, 1.34-1.36,1.38-1.42, 3.2-3.14, 3.19-3.20, 3.25-3.28, 3.30, 3.32, 3.35, 3.38-3.41, 3.47-3.50, 3.54, 3.56-3.57, 4.11, 4.23-4.28, 4.34-4.38, 4.40, 4.42, 4.45, 4.71, 6.3-6.6, 6.8-6.17, 6.19-6.20, 6.55, 9.1-9.2, 11.1, and 12.10 read on the instant claims. For example,
Compound Ex-1.12
PNG
media_image2.png
190
266
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein X is a bond, A is a heterocyclyl ring (i.e., a ring), R1a and R1b are C1 alkyl, R1c is H, R3-R5 are H, B is pyrazolyl, R2a is H, R2b is C1 alkyl, and R2c is C2 alkyl substituted with fluoro. Thus, reference claim 17 and its parent claim 1 anticipate the instant claims 1-2, 4, and 6-10.
Reference claim 18 is drawn to a pharmaceutical composition comprising a compound of reference claim 1 and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier. In view of reference claim 17, reference claim 18 reads on the instant claim 13.
Reference claims 19-20 are drawn to a method of treatment comprising administering the compound of reference claim 1. In view of the species taught in reference claim 17, the reference claims 19-20 also read on the instant claims. In order to practice the method of treatment, the artisan would have to be in possession of the compound.
Due to the large number of compounds recited in both the instant application and the reference application, Applicant is asked to review all of claimed compounds for any other compounds which they may understand as overlapping.
Claims 1 and 16-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of obviousness-type nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 17-18, and 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,570,640 (reference application) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of JINGWEN (Jingwen, S. et al. Cancer Cell, pub. 12 Oct. 2020, 38, 551-566) and in view of RIZZO (Rizzo, M. and Porta, C. Therapeutic Advances in Urology, 2017, 9(8), 195-207).
Note: this rejection was previously a provisional rejection over App. No. 18/041,849. The application has since been issued as a patent. The rejection is updated accordingly.
The instant claims are drawn to a compound of Formula (I) (claim 1) and a method of treating an HPK1 cancer by administering Formula (I) (claims 16 & 18) with an additional anti-cancer agent (claim 17).
Determining the Scope and Contents of the Prior Art:
Patent No. ‘640 teaches the compound of instant claim 1 wherein A is a ring, above. Further, reference claims 19-20 are directed towards a treatment of renal cancer.
JINGWEN teaches high expression of MAP4K1 (which encodes HPK1) in patients with kidney renal clear cell carcinoma had lower survival rates than those with low expression of MAP4K1/HPK1 (Pg. 553 Fig. 1 & Pg. 554 Left Col. last para).
RIZZO teaches Sunitinib is a multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor and represents a key molecule in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (Pg. 195 Abstract).
Ascertaining the Differences Between the Prior Art and the Claims at Issue:
Patent No. ‘640 is silent as to the role of HPK1 in renal cancer and the method does not further comprise administration of another anti-cancer agent.
Resolving the Level of Ordinary Skill in the Pertinent Art:
The level of ordinary skill in the art is represented by an artisan who has sufficient background in the development of a combination useful for treatment of renal cancer and possesses the technical knowledge necessary to make adjustments to the combination to optimize/enhance the treatment. Said artisan has also reviewed the problems in the art regarding treatment options for renal cancer and understands the solutions that are widely-known in the art.
Considering Objective Evidence Present in the Application Indicating Obviousness or Nonobviousness:
The instant claims are prima facie obvious in light of the combination of references Patent No. ‘640, in view of JINGWEN, and in view of RIZZO.
The artisan would recognize renal cancer is an HPK1-associated disease, as taught by JINGWEN (Pg. 553 Fig. 1 & Pg. 554 Left Col. last para). Thus, the reference claims are understood to teach treatment of an HPK1-associated disease, renal cancer, by administering a compound of instant claim 1.
Further, the artisan would be motivated to include another anti-cancer agent that is sunitinib in the method of Patent No. ‘640 in view of the teachings of RIZZO. Specifically, the artisan would have been motivated to treat renal cancer with the combination sunitinib and a species of the reference claims (e.g., ex-1.12 above) because of each of the compounds have been individually taught in the prior art to be suitable for the treatment of renal cancer (see reference claims 19-20 and RIZZO Pg. 195 Abstract). Moreover, the instant situation is amenable to the type of analysis set forth in In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980) wherein the court held that it is prima facie obvious to combine two agents each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the very same purpose. The idea of combining them flows logically from having been individually taught in the prior art. Applying the same logic to the instant claims, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been imbued with at least a reasonable expectation of success that by combining for example, ex-1.12, with sunitinib, one would have achieved a composition useful for treating renal cancer.
Conclusion
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 13, and 16-18 are rejected.
Claim 12 is presently allowable as drafted.
Note: a search for the compound of Formula (I) wherein A is 2,3-dihydro-1H-pyrido[2,3-b][1,4]oxazin-7-yl did not return any prior art (see SEARCH 6 of the attached search notes). This covers the species of independent claim 12. The closest art is considered ACTON (WO 2022/051337, cited in IDS of 08/26/2024) or KEYLOR (WO 2021/080929, cited in IDS of 08/26/2024).
ACTON teaches analogous compounds 1.12
PNG
media_image2.png
190
266
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Pg. 194 claim 17) and 1.10
PNG
media_image3.png
97
155
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Pg. 194 claim 17) wherein A is a ring. None of the species of ACTON teach wherein A is 2,3-dihydro-1H-pyrido[2,3-b][1,4]oxazin-7-yl (
PNG
media_image8.png
148
236
media_image8.png
Greyscale
). Since the rings taught by ACTON are very different from the specified oxazin-7-yl of each of the species of instant claim 12, this is understood to constitute at least 2 differences in structure. Thus, ACTON does not anticipate nor would it make obvious the compounds of instant claim 12.
KEYLOR teaches analogous compounds such as
PNG
media_image1.png
193
252
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Pg. 118 Scheme 52 Ex 4.2 & Pg. 238 claim 14) wherein A is a heterocyclyl ring (i.e., a ring). None of the species of KEYLOR teach wherein A is 2,3-dihydro-1H-pyrido[2,3-b][1,4]oxazin-7-yl (
PNG
media_image8.png
148
236
media_image8.png
Greyscale
). Since the rings taught by KEYLOR are very different from the specified oxazin-7-yl of each of the species of instant claim 12, this is understood to constitute at least 2 differences in structure. Thus, KEYLOR does not anticipate nor would it make obvious the compounds of instant claim 12.
Thus, independent claim 12 is found free of the prior art.
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 SARA ELIZABETH BELL whose telephone number is (703)756-5372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, Andrew Kosar can be reached at 571-272-0913. 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.
/S.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1625
/JOHN S KENYON/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1625
Prosecution Insights