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 .
DETAILED ACTION
RESPONSE TO ELECTION/RESTRICTION
Applicant’s election of group I, drawn to compounds of the formula I and simple compositions thereof and elected species:
PNG
media_image1.png
138
372
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in the reply filed on 10/16/2025 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 § 818.03(a)).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 2-3,5,7,9-11,13-14,17,20-22 and 24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
An action on the merits of claims 1,8,12,15-16, and 19 is contained herein. The elected species was found free of the prior art and search expanded to cover this species more broadly.
Priority
This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Appl. Ser. No. 63/344,929, filed May 23, 2022, which is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 5/23/2023. These drawings are not accepted due to illegible text and figures (e.g. FIGS. 1A-1C). The examiner requests that the drawings are replaced with more legible Figures.
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 1,8,12,15-16 and 19 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 the instant claim 1, the scope of “wherein A is a ligand for the bromodomains of at least one of BPTF, CECR2, BRD9, and PCAF/GCN5; B is an E3 ligase ligand” is not clearly articulated in the claims itself or the specification. The claims recite functional language wherein the particular structures needed to achieve the function are not described. “Notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that the Supreme Court explained that a vice of functional claiming occurs "when the inventor is painstaking when he recites what has already been seen, and then uses conveniently functional language at the exact point of novelty") (quoting General Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371 (1938)); see also United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 234 (1942) (holding indefinite claims that recited substantially pure carbon black "in the form of commercially uniform, comparatively small, rounded smooth aggregates having a spongy or porous exterior"). Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim. Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). See also Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software Inc., 75 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2005) where a claim directed to a software based system for creating a customized computer interface screen recited that the screen be "aesthetically pleasing," which is an intended result and does not provide a clear cut indication of scope because it imposed no structural limits on the screen.” Therefore the scope of the claim and claims which depend from them which do not rectify the issue are considered indefinite. In terms of prior art, the examiner cannot reasonably apply any art not being the elected species until the issues are resolved.
See In re Zletz, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322, “An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct and unambiguous.”
Claim 8 recites variables Z2 and Y2. With respect to variable Z2, the definition is not defined within the claim while variable Y2 and a definition associated with it is recited in the claim albeit it is not embraced the formula for group A. Thus the claim is indefinite.
Claim Rejections – Improper Markush Grouping Rejection
Claims 1,8,12,15, 16, and 19 are rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 706.03(y).
In re Harnish, 206 USPQ 300, 305, says, “ …we think it should be clear from our actions in Weber and Haas II that we there recognized the possibility of such a thing as an "improper Markush grouping." The court went on to reverse the rejection, (which had been made by the Board under Rule 196(b)) but not on the lack of a specific statutory basis but rather, “Clearly, they are all coumarin compounds which the board admitted to be "a single structural similarity." We hold, therefore, that the claimed compounds all belong to a subgenus, as defined by appellant, which is not repugnant to scientific classification (see claim 1 below for pictorial example):
PNG
media_image2.png
605
882
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Under these circumstances we consider the claimed compounds to be part of a single invention so that there is unity of invention…” Thus, the rejection was overturned because of the specific facts in the case. The Markush group was held proper in that case, as was the case also in Ex parte Price 150 USPQ 467, Ex parte Beck and Taylor, 119 USPQ 100, and Ex parte Della Bella and Chiarino 7 USPQ2d 1669. Cases where the Markush group was held improper include Ex Parte Palmer, 7 USPQ 11, In re Winnek, 73 USPQ 225, In re Ruzicka, 66 USPQ 226, Ex parte Hentrich, 57 USPQ 419, Ex parte Barnard, 135 USPQ 109, Ex parte Reid, 105 USPQ 251, Ex parte Sun and Huggins, 85 USPQ 516, In re Thompson and Tanner, 69 USPQ 148, In re Swenson, 56 USPQ 180, and In re Kingston, 65 USPQ 371.
Indeed, as was stated in Ex parte Haas, 188 USPQ 374, “The rejection of a claim as containing an improper Markush grouping has a relatively long history in Office practice. The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, at least as far back as 1942, has recognized that a rejection may be based upon the Examiner's holding that the claim has an improper Markush group. See In re Swenson, 30 CCPA 764, 132 F.2d 336, 56 USPQ 180 , citing Ex parte Palmer, 398 OG 707, 1930 CD 3.”
It should be noted that in Harnish, there was a substantial structural feature from which the common use flowed and that the claimed compounds all belong to a subgenus. That is exactly what is lacking in this case, as there is no substantial structural feature when viewing the compound as a whole. The Markush grouping is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons:
Due to the compound variability in the general formula I, classifying said formula into one subgeneric group would be repugnant to scientific classification. Thus, the first requirement is not met as described above. Secondly, there is little evidence provided that the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature (e.g. the common use may flow from “A” or some other portion of the molecule).
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 1,8,12,15-16, and 19 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The skilled artisan would not have adequate reason to believe that Applicant had possession of the claimed “prodrugs” of formula I. No where does the specification allude to the specific identities of these structures. There are no working examples of these unknown prodrugs in the disclosure. Once again, little to no guidance is provided in the disclosure. Thus, how would one skilled in the art expect that Applicant was indeed of possession of the claimed prodrugs of formula I? 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). Note also the following:
The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice (see i)(A), above), reduction to drawings (see i)(B), above), or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see i)(C), above). See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406.
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The courts have applied this criteria in a more recent decision stating the following referencing genus claims drawn to chemical compounds:
“For example, a generic claim may define the boundaries of a vast genus of chemical compounds, and yet the question may still remain whether the specification, including original claim language, demonstrates that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to a genus. The problem is especially acute with genus claims that use functional language to define the boundaries of a claimed genus. In such a case, the functional claim may simply claim a desired result, and may do so without describing species that achieve that result. But the specification must demonstrate that the applicant has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus.” see Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 94 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Therefore, based on the lack of working examples and nature of the described genus, Applicants are not in possession of the claimed prodrugs.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN E MCDOWELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5755. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-6 MF.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN E MCDOWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1624