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 .
Non-Final Rejection
The Status of Claims:
Claims 24-29, 37, 39-48 are pending.
Claims 24-29, 37, 39-48 are rejected.
DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 24-29, 37, 39-48 are under consideration in this Office Action.
Priority
2. It is noted that this application is a 371 of PCT/GB21/50811 03/31/2021.
Drawings
3. The drawings filed on 9/20/23 are accepted by the examiner.
IDS
4. The IDS filed on 9/20/23, 10/25/23 & 3/28/25 were reviewed by the examiner.
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 26-27 and 48 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In Claims 26 and 27, the limitation “ N-(2-aminophenyl)-4-( 1-L ( 1,3-dimethyl-1 H-pyrazol-4-yl)methyl Jpiperidin-4-yl)benzamide ..is administered”. The expression can be confusing because the claims are originally directed to the composition claims. However, the meaning of the compound “ N-(2-aminophenyl)-4-( 1-L ( 1,3-dimethyl-1 H-pyrazol-4-yl)methyl Jpiperidin-4-yl)benzamide being administered is the part of method claims. Therefore, the examiner recommends to remove the portion of the procedural aspect from the claims.
In Claim 48, the phrase” selected from a pre-cancerous condition, cancer, an infectious disease, or an allergy” is recited. is recited. This expression is improper because the Markush expression would require a close ended “and “ instead of an open ended “or” at the end. Appropriate correction is required.
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 24-29, 41-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for making salts of the claimed compounds, does not reasonably provide enablement for making solvates of the claimed compounds. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art of synthetic organic chemistry to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. “The factors to be considered [in making an enablement rejection] have been summarized as a) the quantity of experimentation necessary, b) the amount of direction or guidance presented, c) the presence or absence of working examples, d) the nature of the invention, e) the state of the prior art, f) the relative skill of those in that art, g) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, h) and the breadth of the claims”, In re Rainer, 146 USPQ 218 (1965); In re Colianni, 195 USPQ 150, Ex parte Formal, 230 USPQ 546. In the present case the important factors leading to a conclusion of undue experimentation are the absence of any working example of a formed solvate, the lack of predictability in the art, and the broad scope of the claims.
c) There is no working example of any hydrate or solvate formed. The claims are drawn to solvates, yet the numerous examples presented all failed to produce a solvate. These cannot be simply willed into existence. 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. There is no evidence that solvates of these compounds actually exist; if they did, they would have formed. Hence, applicants must show that solvates can be made, or limit the claims accordingly.
g) The state of the art is that is not predictable whether solvates will form or what their composition will be. In the language of the physical chemist, a solvate of organic molecule is an interstitial solid solution. This phrase is defined in the second paragraph on page 358 of West (Solid State Chemistry). West, Anthony R., "Solid State Chemistry and its Applications, Wiley, New York, 1988, pages 358 & 365. The solvent molecule is a species introduced into the crystal and no part of the organic host molecule is left out or replaced. In the first paragraph on page 365, West (Solid State Chemistry) says, “it is not usually possible to predict whether solid solutions will form, or if they do form what is their compositional extent". Thus, in the absence of experimentation one cannot predict if a particular solvent will solvate any particular crystal. One cannot predict the stoichiometery of the formed solvate, i.e. if one, two, or a half a molecule of solvent added per molecule of host. In the same paragraph on page 365 West (Solid State Chemistry) explains that it is possible to make meta-stable non-equilibrium solvates, further clouding what Applicants mean by the word solvate. Compared with polymorphs, there is an additional degree of freedom to solvates, which means a different solvent or even the moisture of the air that might change the stabile region of the solvate.
h) The breadth of the claims includes all of the hundreds of thousands of compounds of formula *** as well as the presently unknown list of solvents embraced by the term "solvate". Thus, the scope is broad.
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).” That conclusion is clearly justified here. Thus, undue experimentation will be required to practice Applicants' invention.
Claims 41 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for treating specific diseases, does not reasonably provide enablement for preventing diseases. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Applicants are not enabled for preventing any of these diseases. The only established prophylactics are vaccines not the claimed drug such as present here. In addition, it is presumed that “prevention” of the claimed diseases would require a method of identifying those individuals who will develop the claimed diseases before they exhibit symptoms. There is no evidence of record that would guide the skilled clinician to identify those who have the potential of becoming afflicted.
“The factors to be considered [in making an enablement rejection] have been summarized as the quantity of experimentation necessary, the amount of direction or guidance presented, the presence or absence of working examples, the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the relative skill of those in that art, the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and the breadth of the claims”, In re Rainer, 146 USPQ 218 (1965); In re Colianni, 195 USPQ 150, Ex parte Formal, 230 USPQ 546. 1) As discussed above, preventing diseases requires identifying those patients who will acquire the disease before psoriasis occurs. This would require extensive and potentially opened ended clinical research on healthy subjects. 2) There is no working example of such a preventive procedure in man or animal in the specification. 3) The claims rejected are drawn to clinical preventative medicine and are therefore physiological in nature. 4) The state of the art is that no general procedure is art-recognized for determining which patients generally will become the patients with a disease or disorder or condition response to an immune system before the fact. 6) The artisan using Applicants invention would be a Board Certified physician in the disease or disorder or condition response to the immune system with an MD degree and several years of experience. Despite intensive efforts, pharmaceutical science has been unable to find a way of getting a compound to be effective for the prevention of a disease or disorder or condition response to an immune system generally. Under such circumstances, it is proper for the PTO to require evidence that such an unprecedented feat has actually been accomplished, In re Ferens, 163 USPQ 609. No such evidence has been presented in this case. The failure of skilled scientists to achieve a goal is substantial evidence that achieving such a goal is beyond the skill of practitioners in that art, Genentech vs. Novo Nordisk, 42 USPQ2nd 1001, 1006. This establishes that it is not reasonable to any agent to be able to prevent psoriasis generally. That is, the skill is so low that no compound effective generally against the disease or disorder or condition response to an immune system has ever been found let alone one that can prevent such conditions. 7) It is well established that “the scope of enablement varies inversely with the degree of unpredictability of the factors involved", and physiological activity is generally considered to be an unpredictable factor. See In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970). 8) The claims broadly read on all patients, not just those undergoing therapy for the claimed diseases.
The Examiner suggests deletion of the word “preventing” from the claims.
The claims 37, 39, 41, 48 sets forth the treatment of cancer generally. However, there never has been a compound capable of treating cancer generally. There are compounds that treat a range of cancers, but no one has ever been able to figure out how to get a compound to be effective against cancer generally, or even a majority of cancers. Thus, the existence of such a “silver bullet” is contrary to our present understanding in oncology. Even the most broadly effective antitumor agents are only effective against a small fraction of the vast number of different cancers known. This is true in part because cancers arise from a wide variety of sources, such as viruses (e.g. EBV, HHV-8, and HTLV-1), exposure to chemicals such as tobacco tars, genetic disorders, ionizing radiation, and a wide variety of failures of the body’s cell growth regulatory mechanisms. Different types of cancers affect different organs and have different methods of growth and harm to the body, and different vulnerabilities. Thus, it is beyond the skill of oncologists today to get an agent to be effective against cancers generally, evidence that the level of skill in this art is low relative to the difficulty of such a task.
When the best efforts have failed to achieve a goal, it is reasonable for the PTO to require evidence that such a goal has been accomplished, In re Ferens, 163 USPQ 609. The failure of skilled scientists to achieve a goal is substantial evidence that achieving such a goal is beyond the skill of practitioners in that art, Genentech vs Novo Nordisk, 42 USPQ2nd 1001, 1006.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
5. Claims 24-29, 37, 39-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takasu et al (EP 3299028 A1) in view of Bridle et al (WO2012/122629) and Andrews et al (WO 2007045844 A1).
.
Applicant claims the followings:
24. (Currently Amended) A combination comprising N-(2-aminophenyl)-4-(1-[(l,3-dimethyl-lHpyrazol-4-yl)methyl ]piperidin-4-yl)benzamide, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt or solvate thereof, and a vaccine.
25. (Currently Amended) The combination according to claim 24 wherein the vaccine is an allergen vaccine, an infectious disease vaccine, a mucosal vaccine or an anti-cancer vaccine.
26. (Currently Amended) The combination according to claim 24 wherein N-(2-aminophenyl)-4-( 1-L ( 1,3-dimethyl-1 H-pyrazol-4-yl)methyl Jpiperidin-4-yl)benzamide or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt or solvate thereof, is administered simultaneously, separately or sequentially with the vaccine.
27. (Currently Amended) The combination according to claim 24 wherein N-(2-aminophenyl)-4-( 1-[ ( 1,3-dimethyl-1 H-pyrazol-4-yl)methyl ]piperidin-4-yl)benzamide ,or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt or solvate thereof, is administered at dosage of 0.1 mg to 40 mg per day.
28. (Currently Amended) A pharmaceutical product comprising a combination according to claim 24.
29. (Currently Amended) The pharmaceutical product according to claim 28 which is a pharmaceutical composition comprising a combination according to claim 24, and one or more pharmaceutically acceptable excipients.
37. (Currently Amended) A method of preventing or treating a disease, disorder or condition to which an immune response is required in a subject, the method comprising administering a therapeutically effective amount of the combination according to claim 24 to the subject in need thereof.
(New) The method according to claim 37, wherein the disease, disorder or condition is allergy, infectious disease, a pre-cancerous condition, or cancer.
40. (New) The method according to claim 39, wherein the infectious disease is a viral infectious disease or a bacterial infectious disease.
41. (New) A method of treating or preventing a disease, disorder or condition to which an immune response is required, the method comprising administering to a subject in need thereof a therapeutically effective amount of N-(2-aminophenyl)-4-( 1-[ ( 1,3-dimethyl-l H-pyrazol-4-yl)methyl ]piperidin-4-yl)benzamide, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt or solvate thereof, to the subject. an subject.
42. (New) The method according to claim 41, wherein the subject is receiving vaccine therapy.
43. (New) The method according to claim 41, wherein the method comprises administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of N-(2-aminophenyl)-4-(1-[(l,3-dimethyl-lH-pyrazol-4-yl)methyl]piperidin-4-yl)benzamide, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt or solvate thereof, and a therapeutically effective amount of a vaccine.
44. (New) The method according to claim 43, wherein the N-(2-aminophenyl)-4-(1-[(l,3-dimethyllH-pyrazol-4-yl)methyl]piperidin-4-yl)benzamide, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt or solvate thereof, is administered simultaneously, separately or sequentially with a vaccine.
45. (New) The method according to claim 44, wherein the vaccine is an allergen vaccine, an infectious disease vaccine, a mucosal vaccine or an anti-cancer vaccine.
46. (New) The method according to claim 45, wherein the infectious disease vaccine is a vaccine used to treat or prevent viral, bacterial, fungal, protozoa and/or parasite infections.
47. (New) The method according to claim 43, wherein the N-(2-aminophenyl)-4-(1-[(l,3-dimethyllH-pyrazol-4-yl)methyl]piperidin-4-yl)benzamide, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt or solvate thereof, is administered at a dosage of 0.1 mg to 40 mg per day.
48. (New) The method according to claim 41, wherein the disease, disorder or condition is selected from a pre-cancerous condition, cancer, an infectious disease, or an allergy.
20
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
Takasu et al teaches a combination use of a WT1 antigen peptide or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof and an immunomodulator for treating or preventing cancer (see abstract).
Further, it specifies that anti-cancer vaccine comprises a WT1 antigen peptide, which induces WT1 -specific killer T-cells that further is enhanced by the co-administered immunomodulator (see page 3, paragraph [0014]). The immunomodulator such as CXD-101(AZO-9468) is used as an adjuvant for the antigen peptide vaccine and increases the efficiency by enhancing the immune response and acting as an immune potentiating and sensitizing agent as in claims 24-25, 28-29. (see pages 24-25, a paragraph#0072).
Also, It also discloses the method for treating or preventing cancer, comprising administering the WT1 antigen peptide or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof and the immunomodulator wherein the WT1 antigen peptide and the immunomodulator are administered simultaneously or separately as in claims 26,37, 39, 41-45 (see page 10 ,claims 67-68).
The current invention, however, differs from the prior art in that the combination comprising N-(2-aminophenyl)-4-(1-[(l,3-dimethyl-lHpyrazol-4-yl)methyl ]piperidin-4-yl)benzamide being administered simultaneously, separately or sequentially with the vaccine and the infectious disease being a viral or bacterial infectious disease and the specific dosage range of the CXD-101 are unexemplified in the prior art.
Bridle et al discloses a method of vaccination, and in particular, relates to a vaccination method in which a viral vaccine is co-administered with a histone deacetylase inhibitor in the following:.
1. A vaccination method comprising administering to a mammal a histone deacetylase inhibitor and a vaccine that delivers an antigen to which the mammal has a pre-existing immunity.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the antigen is selected from the group consisting of include tumour antigens, antigens from viral pathogens and antigens from bacterial pathogens as in claim 40, 45-48 (partially) ,
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the histone deacetylase inhibitor is selected from the group consisting of hydroxamic, benzamides, cyclic tetrapeptides, depsipepties(see page 19 ,claims 1-2 and 5).
14. A composition comprising a vaccine and a histone deacetylase inhibitor.
17. The composition of claim 14, wherein the histone deacetylase inhibitor is
selected from the group consisting of hydroxamic, benzamides, cyclic tetrapeptides, depsipeptides, electrophilic ketones, and aliphatic acid compounds. (see page 20 ,claims 14 and 17).
Furthermore, Andrews et al teaches one of the benzamide compounds such as N-(2-aminophenyl)-4-{1-[(1,3-dimethyl-l H-pyrazol-5-yl)methyl]piperidin-4- yl}benzamide (see page 6, lines 19-20; page 41, ex. 41) useful as histone deceacetylase inhibitors.
Also, it teaches that HDAC inhibitory activity may be applied as a sole therapy or may involve one or more other substance and/or treatments. (See pg 30). Further, it describes that the HDAC inhibitory activity defined hereinbefore may be applied as a sole therapy or may involve, in addition to a compound, one or more other substances and/or treatments. Such conjoint treatment may be achieved by way of the simultaneous, sequential or separate administration of the individual components of the treatment as in claims 26, 44 (partially)(see page 30, lines 7-11).
Further, the use of a compound of the formula (I), or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt or pro-drug thereof, as defined hereinbefore, for use in the manufacture of a medicament for the treatment of cancer such as lung cancer, colorectal cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, lymphoma and/or leukaemia (see page 29, lines 20-26).
Also, a compound of the formula (I), or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt or pro-drug thereof, is for use as a medicament in the treatment of inflammatory diseases, autoimmune diseases and allergic/atopic diseases in a warm-blooded animal such as man. In particular a compound of the formula (I), or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt or pro-drug thereof, as defined hereinbefore, is provided for use as a medicament in the treatment of inflammation of the joint (especially rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis and gout), inflammation of the gastro-intestinal tract (especially inflammatory bowel disease, ulcerative colitis and gastritis), inflammation of the skin (especially psoriasis, eczema, dermatitis), multiple sclerosis, atherosclerosis, spondyloarthropathies (ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, arthritis connected to ulcerative colitis), AIDS-related neuropathies, systemic lupus erythematosus, asthma, chronic obstructive lung diseases, bronchitis, pleuritis, adult respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, and acute and chronic hepatitis (either viral, bacterial as in claims 39-40,46, 48 or toxic). (see page 33, lines 1-10)
In addition, the compound of formula (I) will normally be administered to a warm-blooded animal at a unit dose within the range 5-5000 mg/m.sup.2 body area of the animal, i.e. approximately 0.1-100 mg/kg, and this normally provides a therapeutically-effective dose. A unit dose form such as a tablet or capsule will usually contain, for example 1-250 mg of active ingredient. Preferably a daily dose in the range of 1-50 mg/kg as in claims 27, 47 (partially) is employed. However, the daily dose will necessarily be varied depending upon the host treated, the particular route of administration, and the severity of the illness being treated. Accordingly the optimum dosage may be determined by the practitioner who is treating any particular patient. (see page 27, line 27 to page 28, line 3)
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
1. The difference between the current application and the applied Takasu et al art is that the Takasu et al does not expressly exemplify the claimed combination comprising N-(2-aminophenyl)-4-(1-[(l,3-dimethyl-lHpyrazol-4-yl)methyl ]piperidin-4-yl)benzamide (CXD-101)being administered simultaneously, separately or sequentially with the vaccine and the infectious disease being a viral or bacterial infectious disease and the dosage range of the CXD-101. The deficiencies of the Takasu et al are cured by the Bridle et al and Andrews et al.
2. The difference between the current application and the applied the Bridle et al prior art is that the Bridle et al does not expressly teach the claimed specific combination comprising N-(2-aminophenyl)-4-(1-[(l,3-dimethyl-lHpyrazol-4-yl)methyl ]piperidin-4-yl)benzamide (CXD-101)being administered simultaneously, separately or sequentially with the vaccine and the dosage range of the CXD-101. The deficiencies of the Bridle et al are cured partially by the Takasu et al and Andrews et al.
3. The difference between the instant application and the applied Andrews et al prior art is that the Andrews et al does not expressly teach the use of vaccine therapy in the combination with N-(2-aminophenyl)-4-(1-[(l,3-dimethyl-lHpyrazol-4-yl)methyl ]piperidin-4-yl)benzamide(CXD-101). The deficiency of Andrews et al is partially cured by the Takasu et al and the Bridle et al.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Regarding the Claims 27 and 47, with respect to the lack of disclosing the specific dosage range of the CXD-101 from 0.1 mg to 40 mg per day, the Andrews does give guidance at least that one of the benzamide compounds such as N-(2-aminophenyl)-4-{1-[(1,3-dimethyl-l H-pyrazol-5-yl)methyl]piperidin-4- yl}benzamide (see page 6, lines 19-20; page 41, ex. 41) can be used with preferably a daily dose in the range of 1-50 mg/kg. From this teaching, it is very reasonable for the skilled artisan in the art to be able to figure out what its daily dose per a day would be in terms of mg per the day. Furthermore, the daily dose will necessarily be varied depending upon the host treated, the particular route of administration, and the severity of the illness being treated. Accordingly the optimum dosage may be determined by the practitioner who is treating any particular patient. (see page 27, line 27 to page 28, line 3) . Therefore, the Andrews prior art is relevant to the claimed invention.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Takasu et al does teach the combination of a WT1 antigen peptide or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof and an immunomodulator(see abstract) such as CXD-101 (see pages 24-25, a paragraph#0072) ;also, Takasu et al does mention the method for treating cancer by administering the vaccine containing WT1 antigen peptide and the immunomodulator. Similarly, Bridle et al does describe the method of vaccination by using a viral or tumor vaccine in combination with the histone deacetylase inhibitor during the administration.
Furthermore, Andrews et al does describe one of the benzamide compounds such as N-(2-aminophenyl)-4-{1-[(1,3-dimethyl-l H-pyrazol-5-yl)methyl]piperidin-4- yl}benzamide (see page 6, lines 19-20; page 41, ex. 41) as histone deceacetylase inhibitors, which can be used to treat a cancer, a viral or bacterial infection.
Both of Takasu et al and Bridle et al are commonly involved in the composition containing a vaccine and an immunomodulator for treating cancer or a vaccine and a histone deacetylase inhibitor for treating tumor or viral or bacterial infection, whereas Andrews et al does specify that N-(2-aminophenyl)-4-{1-[(1,3-dimethyl-l H-pyrazol-5-yl)methyl]piperidin-4- yl}benzamide as a histone deacetylase inhibitor is used for treating cancer or viral or bacterial infection.
So, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Bridle Bridle’s vaccine therapy containing a histone deacetylase inhibitor in combination with Andrews et al’s specific compound of N-(2-aminophenyl)-4-{1-[(1,3-dimethyl-l H-pyrazol-5-yl)methyl]piperidin-4- yl}benzamide compound as a histone deacetylase inhibitor into Takasu et al cancer treatment-method in order to expand the coverage of the treatment including viral and bacterial infections.
This is because the skilled artisan in the art would expect such combined prior art teachings to be successful and feasible as guidance shown in the prior art.
Conclusion
Claims 24-29, 37, 39-48 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYLOR V OH whose telephone number is (571)272-0689. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00.
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.
/TAYLOR V OH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1625 12/10/2025