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 .
According to paper filed on June 30, 2026, the applicants have filed RCE. The applicants have also canceled claim 22 and furthermore, have amended claims 24, 25, 27, 28 and 36.
Claims 24-36 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 24-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (Molecules) in view of Kim (Anticancer Res.).
Song discloses Evodiamine derivatives as anticancer agents (see table 1 on page 15753). The compounds 2-2 and 2-3 (see page 15752) disclosed by Song meet all the limitations of instant claims when Evodiamine derivatives are represented by EV 101, EV 104 and EV 109 in instant claim 24 except that the compounds of Song are structural homologs (differ in length of carbon chain for variable R1) and furthermore, Song does not teach synergistic effect with other anticancer agents. However, Song does teach anticancer (cytotoxicity) effect of structural homologs (see compounds 2-2, 2-3 and 2-5 in table 1 on page 15753) while Kim teaches synergistic effect of Evodiamine in combination with cisplatin and paclitaxel in thyroid cancer (see tables 1 and 2 on page 6348 as well as figure 5 on page 6349). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to treat cancer with structural homolog compounds EV 101, EV 104 and EV 109 either alone or in combination with other anticancer agents with reasonable expectation of success.
7. Claims 24-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (J. Med. Chem.) in view of Kim (Anticancer Res.).
Wang discloses Evodiamine derivatives as anticancer agents. The compound 2 (see figure 1 on page 6678) disclosed by Wang meets all the limitations of instant claims when Evodiamine derivatives are represented by EV 304, EV 306 and EV 310 in instant claim 24 except that the compound of Wang has phenyl ring substituted with F (a halogen) instead of instant halogens Cl, Br and I and furthermore, Wang does not teach synergistic effect with other anticancer agents. However, F is also a halogen similar to Cl, Br and I while Kim teaches synergistic effect of Evodiamine in combination with cisplatin and paclitaxel in thyroid cancer (see tables 1 and 2 on page 6348 as well as figure 5 on page 6349). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to treat cancer with compounds EV 304, EV 306 and EV 310 either alone or in combination with other anticancer agents with reasonable expectation of success.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARANJIT AULAKH whose telephone number is (571)272-0678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-3:30.
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, Clinton A Brooks can be reached at 571-270-7682. 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.
/CHARANJIT AULAKH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1621
Prosecution Insights