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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/03/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments received 09/03/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-5, 11-20, 25-28, 30, 32-58, 61, and 67-82 are pending. Claims 42-58 are withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments have overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Office Action mailed 05/05/2026. Examiner notes that claim 41 was inadvertently marked as cancelled in the office action mailed 05/05/2026 and is acknowledged as pending and under examination herein.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1- directed to an allowable product. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(B), claims 42-58, directed to the process of making or using an allowable product, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Because all claims previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 have been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 10/24/2025 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 09/03/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered in full. A signed copy of list of references cited from the IDS is included with this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 41-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 41, 42, and 56 incorporate the limitations of claims 1 and/or 61. However, claim 61 is set forth after claims 41, 42, and 56. Per 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as above, “a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth” (emphasis added). As claims 41, 42, and 56 refer to a claim yet to be set forth, they fail to further limit the subject matter and include the limitations of a claim previously set forth. Correction is required.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 42-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for pharmaceutically acceptable salts, does not reasonably provide enablement for solvates. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The test of enablement is whether one skilled in the art could make and use the claimed invention from the disclosures in the application coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation. (United States v. Teletronics Inc., 8 USPQ2d 1217 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). Whether undue experimentation is needed is not based on a single factor, but rather a conclusion reached by weighing many factors (See Ex parte Forman 230 USPQ 546 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986) and In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
These factors include the following:
1) Amount of guidance provided by applicant. The instant specification provides no species of solvates of the claimed QPCT inhibitors. The term “solvate” is incredibly broad and 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. Hence, Applicants must show that solvates of these compounds can be made, or limit the claims accordingly.
2) The nature of the invention and predictability in the art. The invention is directed toward compounds of formula (I) and formula (II) and their use in methods of treatment. Regarding predictability in the art, chemistry is generally regarded as unpredictable, particularly the formation of solvates. Additionally see In Re Marzocchi and Horton, 169 USPQ at 367 paragraph 3:
“Most non-chemists would probably be horrified if they were to learn how
many attempted syntheses fail, and how inefficient research chemists are.
The ratio of successful to unsuccessful chemical experiments in a normal
research laboratory is far below unity, and synthetic research chemists, in
the same way as most scientists, spend most of their time working out
what went wrong, and why. Despite the many pitfalls lurking in organic
synthesis, most organic chemistry textbooks and research articles do give
the impression that organic reactions just proceed smoothly and that the
total synthesis of complex natural products, for instance, is maybe a labor-
intensive but otherwise undemanding task. In fact, most syntheses of
structurally complex natural products are the result of several years of
hard work by a team of chemists, with almost every step requiring careful
optimization. The final synthesis usually looks quite different from that
originally planned, because of unexpected difficulties encountered in the initially chosen synthetic sequence. Only the seasoned practitioner who
has experienced for himself the many failures and frustrations which the
development (sometimes even the repetition) of a synthesis usually
implies will be able to appraise such work ......Chemists tend not to publish
negative results, because these are, as opposed to positive results, never
definite (and far too copious)...” Dorwald F. A. Side Reactions in Organic
Synthesis, 2005, Wiley: VCH, Weinheim pg. IX of Preface.
The scope of any compounds or pharmaceutically acceptable salts where the variables were not those mentioned above are not adequately enabled or defined. Applicants provide no guidance as to how these compounds are made.
3) Number of working examples. The compounds claimed as QPCT inhibitors and their synthesis are set forth in the instant disclosure, thus Applicant has provided sufficient guidance to make and use; however, this disclosure is not sufficient to allow extrapolation of the limited examples to enable the scope of the solvates thereof instantly claimed. Applicant has provided no working examples of any solvates.
Within the specification, “specific operative embodiments or examples of the invention must be set forth, Examples and description should be of sufficient scope as to justify the scope of the claims, Markush claims must be provided with support in the disclosure for each member of the Markush group. Where the constitution and formula of a chemical compound is stated only as a probability or speculation, the disclosure is not sufficient to support claims identifying the compound by such composition or formula.” See MPEP 608.01(p).
4) Scope of the claims. The scope of the claims is all of formula (I) and formula (II), used in methods of treatment, as well as solvates of every compound of formula (I) and formula (II).
Therefore, the claims are incredibly broad.
5) Level of skill in the art. The artisan using Applicant’s invention would be an individual with an M.D. or chemist with a Ph.D. degree and having several years of bench experience.
6) Undue experimentation. MPEP §2164.01 (a) states, "A conclusion of lack of enablement means that, based on the evidence regarding each of the above factors, the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557,1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993)."
The conclusion is clearly justified here that Applicant is not enabled for making and using these compounds.
Claims 42-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for therapeutically treating a disease as recited in claim 46, 48-49, or 51, does not reasonably provide enablement for treating or preventing diseases, such as cancer and neurodegenerative disease, generally. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
As a general rule, enablement must be commensurate with the scope of claim language. MPEP 2164.08 states, "The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that "the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation." In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993)" (emphasis added). The "make and use the full scope of the invention without undue experimentation" language was repeated in 2005 in Warner-Lambert Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., 75 USPQ2d 1865, and Scripps Research Institute v. Nemerson, 78 USPQ2d 1019 asserts: "A lack of enablement for the full scope of a claim, however, is a legitimate rejection." The principle was explicitly affirmed most recently in Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 481 F.3d 1371, 82 USPQ2d 1113; Auto. Tech. Int'l, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 501 F.3d 1274, 84 USPQ2d 1108 (Fed. Cir. 2007), Monsanto Co. v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., 503 F.3d 1352, 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1705 (Fed. Cir. 2007), and Sitrick v. Dreamworks, LLC, 516 F.3d 993, 85 USPQ2d 1826 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Pursuant to In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988), one considers the following factors to determine whether undue experimentation is required: (A) The breadth of the claims; (B) The nature of the invention; (C) The state of the prior art; (D) The level of one of ordinary skill; (E) The level of predictability in the art; (F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) The existence of working examples; and (H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. Some experimentation is not fatal; the issue is whether the amount of experimentation is "undue"; see In re Vaeck, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1444.
The treatment of cancer generally cannot possibly be considered enabled.
By way of background, four cases are of particular relevance to the question of enablement of a method of treating cancers broadly or even generally:
In In re Buting, 57 CCPA 777, 418 F.2d 540, 163 USPQ 689, the claim was drawn to "The method of treating a malignant condition selected from the group consisting of leukemias, sarcomas, adenocarcinomas, lymphosarcomas, melanomas, myelomas, and ascitic tumors" using a small genus of compounds. The Court decided that human testing "limited to one compound and two types of cancer" was not "commensurate with the broad scope of utility asserted and claimed".
In Ex parte Jovanovics, 211 USPQ 907 the claims were drawn to "the treatment of certain specified cancers in humans" by the use of a genus of exactly two compounds, the N-formyl or N-desmethyl derivative of leurosine. Applicants submitted "affidavits, publications and data" for one of the compounds, and a dependent claim drawn to the use of that species was allowed. For the other, no data was presented, applicants said only that the other derivative would be expected to be less effective; claims to the genus were refused.
In Ex parte Busse, et al., 1 USPQ2d 1908, claims were drawn to "A therapeutic method for reducing metastasis and neoplastic growth in a mammal" using a single species. The decision notes that such utility "is no longer considered to be "incredible", but that "the utility in question is sufficiently unusual to justify the examiner's requirement for substantiating evidence. Note also that there is also a dependent claim 5 which specified "wherein metastasis and neoplastic growth is adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, melanoma, cell small lung or glioma." The decision notes that "even within the specific group recited in claim 5 some of the individual terms used actually encompass a relatively broad class of specific types of cancer, which specific types are known to respond quite differently to various modes of therapy."
In Ex parte Stevens, 16 USPQ2d 1379 a claim to "A method for therapeutic or prophylactic treatment of cancer in mammalian hosts" was refused because there was "no actual evidence of the effectiveness of the claimed composition and process in achieving that utility."
Pursuant to In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988), one considers the following factors to determine whether undue experimentation is required: (A) The breadth of the claims; (B) The nature of the invention; (C) The state of the prior art; (D) The level of one of ordinary skill; (E) The level of predictability in the art; (F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) The existence of working examples; and (H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. Some experimentation is not fatal; the issue is whether the amount of experimentation is "undue"; see In re Vaeck, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1444.
The analysis is as follows:
1) Breadth of claims.
The term “treating” is defined on page 25 of the specification to be synonymous with “ameliorating” and includes results of “therapeutic benefit and/or a prophylactic benefit”.
The scope of "neurodegenerative disorder" cannot be deemed enabled. The term "neurodegenerative disorder" covers a broad array of different disorders that have different modes of action and different origins. The term covers such diverse disorders as Alzheimer's Disease; Parkinson's Disease; ALS and variants such as forms of ALS-PDC; Gerstmann-Straussler-Scheinker Disease (GSS); Pick's Disease; Diffuse Lewy Body Disease; Hallervordon-Spatz disease; progressive familiar myoclonic epilepsy; Corticodentatonigral degeneration; progressive supranuclear palsy (Steele-Richardson-Olszewski); Huntington's disease; more than a dozen dementias collectively called "frontotemporal dementia and Parkinsonism linked to chromosome 17" (FTDP-17); Tourette's syndrome; Shy-Drager syndrome; Friedrich's ataxia and other spinocerebellar degenerations; Olivopontocerebellar atrophy (OPCA); spasmotic torticollis; Striatonigral degeneration; various types of torsion dystonia; certain spinal muscular atrophies, such as Werdnig-Hoffmann and Wohlfart-Kugelberg-Welander; Hereditary spastic paraplegia, Primary lateral sclerosis; peroneal muscular atrophy (Charcot-Marie-Tooth); Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD); Hypertrophic interstitial polyneuropathy (Dejerine-Sottas); retinitis pigmentosa; Leber's Disease; and Hypertrophic interstitial polyneuropathy.
These exhibit a very broad range of effects and origins. For example, some give progressive dementia without other prominent neurological signs, such as Alzheimer's disease, whereas other dementias have such signs, such as Diffuse Lewy Body Disease. Some give muscular wasting without sensory changes, e.g., ALS, and some do have the sensory changes such as Werdnig-Hoffmann. Some are abnormalities of posture, movement or speech, such as Striatonigral degeneration, and other are progressive ataxias, such as OPCA. Some are linked to tau mutations, such as Alzheimer's disease and FTDP-17, and other such as Parkinson's clearly do not. Some affect only vision such as retinitis pigmentosa. Even within those that fall into the same category of effects, there are often striking differences. For example, Alzheimer's disease and Pick's disease both give progressive dementia without other prominent neurological signs. But the characteristic Alzheimer's neurofibrillary tangles are not seen in Pick's Disease, which has straight fibrils, as opposed to the paired helical filaments of Alzheimer's disease. Pick's Disease gives lobal atrophy, not seen in Alzheimer's disease. There are differences in origins, even with what little is known. Thus, among progressive dementias, CJD is definitely caused by an infectious agent; so far as can be determined, this is not so for Huntington's disease. Even among hereditary disorders, the origins are different. Thus, FTDP-17 comes from chromosome 17, Huntington's disease from 4, and the neurodegenerative disorder that people with Down's syndrome develop later in life is presumably connected in some way to 21.
"Cancer" is not a single disease, or cluster of closely related disorders. There are hundreds of cancers, which have in common only some loss of controlled cell growth. Cancers are highly heterogeneous at both the molecular and clinical level, something seen especially in, for example, the cancers of the breast, brain and salivary glands. They can occur in pretty much every part of the body. To be able to simply stop cancer cells generally from being able to proliferate. Many of these approaches --- and there have been others as well --- have produced anti-cancer drugs. However, despite high hopes for success, and a plausible theory why these should work for cancers generally, none of these approaches have ever produced a drug which come remotely near such a goal.
Specifically, the prior art knows that there never has been a compound capable of treating cancers generally. "The cancer therapy art remains highly unpredictable, and no example exists for efficacy of a single product against tumors generally." (<http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/1pecba.htm#7> ENABLEMENT DECISION TREE, Example F, situation 1). A similar statement appears at In re Application of Hozumi et al., 226 USPQ 353: "In spite of the vast expenditure of human and capital resources in recent years, no one drug has been found which is effective in treating all types of cancer. Cancer is not a simple disease, nor is it even a single disease, but a complex of a multitude of different entities, each behaving in a different way". There are compounds that treat a modest 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.
The attempts to find compounds to treat the various cancers arguably constitute the single most massive enterprise in all of pharmacology. This has not resulted in finding any treatment for tumors generally. Indeed, the existence of such a "silver bullet" is contrary to our present understanding in oncology. This is because it is now understood that there is no "master switch" for cancers generally; cancers arise from a bewildering variety of differing mechanisms. 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, primarily a wide variety of failures of the body's cell growth regulatory mechanisms, but also such external factors such as viruses (an estimated at least 20% are of viral origin e.g. Human papillomavirus, EBV, Hepatitis B and C, HHV-8, HTLV-1 and other retroviruses, and quite possibly Merkel cell polyomavirus, and there is some evidence that CMV is a causative agent in glioblastoma), exposure to chemicals such as tobacco tars, excess alcohol consumption (which causes hepatic cirrhosis, an important cause of HCC), ionizing radiation, and unknown environment factors.
Accordingly, there is substantive "reason for one skilled in the art to question the objective truth of the statement of utility or its scope" (In re Langer, 183 USPQ 288, 297), specifically, the scope of covering cancer generally.
Similarly, In re Novak, 134 USPQ 335, 337-338, says "unless one with ordinary skill in the art would accept those allegations as obviously valid and correct, it is proper for the examiner to ask for evidence which substantiates them." There is no such evidence in this case. Likewise, In re Cortright, 49 USPQ2d 1464, states: "Moreover, we have not been shown that one of ordinary skill would necessarily conclude from the information expressly disclosed by the written description that the active ingredient" does what the specification surmises that it does. That is exactly the case here. Moreover, even if applicants' assertion that cancer in general could be treated with these compounds were plausible --- which it is not ---, that "plausible" would not suffice, as was stated in Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 75 USPQ2d 1297, 1301: "If mere plausibility were the test for enablement under section 112, applicants could obtain patent rights to "inventions" consisting of little more than respectable guesses as to the likelihood of their success."
Different types of cancers affect different organs and have different methods of growth and harm to the body, and different vulnerabilities. The skill thus depends on the particular cancer involved. There are some cancers where the chemotherapy skill level is high and there are multiple successful chemotherapeutic treatments. The mechanism in these situations, however, is not necessarily the same as is alleged for these compounds.
One skilled in the art knows that chemotherapy of brain tumors is especially difficult. This is because 1) the blood-brain barrier, which is often intact in parts or all of a brain tumor, will block out many drugs, as it is the purpose of the blood-brain barrier to protect the brain from alien chemicals, and 2) CNS tumors are characterized by marked heterogeneity, which greatly decreases vulnerability to chemotherapy. As a result, many categories of CNS tumors simply have no chemotherapy available. These include, generally, hemangioblastomas, meningiomas, craniopharyngiomas, acoustic neuromas, pituitary adenomas, optic nerve gliomas, glomus jugulare tumors and chordomas, to name just some. With regard to gliomas, GBM is considered untreatable; no effective agents have emerged for the treatment of GBM, despite 20 years of enrolling patients in clinical trials. It is radiation and surgery which are used for low grade gliomas (e.g. pilocytic astrocytoma and diffuse astrocytomas), as no drug has been found effective. There is no drug treatment established as effective for optic nerve gliomas or gangliogliomas. Indeed, very few gliomas of any type are treated with pharmaceuticals; it is one of the categories of cancer that is the least responsive to drugs.
Lymphomas of the stomach are not commonly treated with anti-cancer agents per se, but instead, surgery or radiation and antibiotic therapy (e.g. amoxicillin, metronidazole, bismuth, and omeprazole) are the primary treatments.
Neuroendocrine tumors of the cervix generally do not respond to chemotherapy.
A number of sarcomas, including alveolar soft part sarcoma (ASPS), retroperitoneal sarcoma, most liposarcomas, and the assorted chondrosarcomas, are generally considered not to respond to chemotherapy; no chemotherapeutic agent has been established as effective.
It is important to note that tumors can need to be treated quite differently even though they are tumors of the same organ. For example, the drugs used most often to treat Wilms tumor, the most common malignant tumor of the kidneys in children, are actinomycin D and vincristine. Such drugs are never used with clear cell renal carcinoma, which is treated, although without much success, with immunotherapy using the cytokines interleukin-2 and interferon-alpha. However, such immunotherapy has never been established as effective in non-clear cell RCC forms such as papillary renal cell carcinoma. Despite strenuous efforts over a period of decades, no chemotherapeutic agent has ever been found effective against this cancer. Cancers of the stomach can be lymphomas, GISTs, carcinoid tumors, carcinomas, or soft tissue sarcomas, and for a single agent to be effective against all or even most of these categories would be contrary to what is known in oncology.
The scope of treating inflammation generally is extraordinarily broad. Inflammation is a process which can take place in virtually any part of the body. There is a vast range of forms that it can take, causes for the problem, and biochemical pathways that mediate the inflammatory reaction. It is one of the most pervasive of all body processes. Inflammation is a very general term which encompasses a huge variety of specific processes.
2) The nature of the invention and predictability in the art.
Regarding prevention and/or prophylaxis, there is currently no method in the art by which one could predict who will be afflicted by cancers or neurodegenerative diseases.
With specific reference to cancer, Ex parte Kranz, 19 USPQ2d 1216, 1219 notes the "general unpredictability of the field [of] …anti-cancer treatment." In re Application of Hozumi et al., 226 USPQ 353 notes the "fact that the art of cancer chemotherapy is highly unpredictable".
More generally, the invention is directed toward medicine and is therefore physiological in nature. 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).
3) State of the Prior Art. The claimed compounds are of formula (I) and (II). So far as the examiner is aware these compounds have not been successfully used as broad range anticancer agents, agents for treating neurodegenerative diseases, or prophylactic agents.
4) Working Examples. Applicants have provided no working examples which are successfully used as broad-range anticancer agents or agents for treating neurodegenerative diseases. No examples of prophylaxis of any diseases, let alone cancer or neurodegenerative diseases, have been disclosed. Applicants have, however, demonstrated that the claimed compounds inhibit QPCT in in vitro assays. See specification pages 227-238.
5) Skill of those in the art.
The great majority of neurodegenerative diseases have no treatment at all, and of those that do, none or virtually none have been treated with such inhibitors as are disclosed here. The great diversity of diseases falling within the "neurodegenerative disorder" category means that it is contrary to medical understanding that any agent (let alone a genus of compounds) could be generally effective against such diseases. The intractability of these disorders is clear evidence that the skill level in this art is low relative to the difficulty of the task.
Many, many mechanisms have been proposed over the decades as methods of treating the assorted cancers generally. Cytotoxic agents could be applied directly to the tumor cells, directly killing them. Immunotherapy involves stimulating the patient's immune system to attack cancer cells generally, either by immunization of the patient, in which case the patient's own immune system is trained to recognize tumor cells as targets, or by the administration of therapeutic antibodies as drugs, so the patient's immune system is recruited to destroy tumor cells by the therapeutic antibodies. Another approach would be to increase the amount or activity of the body's tumor suppressor genes, e.g. p53, PTEN, APC and CD95, which can for example activate DNA repair proteins, suppress the Akt/PKB signaling pathway, or initiate apoptosis of cancer cells. The angiogenesis inhibitor strategy was based on cutting off the blood supply that growing tumors need by shutting off the growth of new blood vessels by, for example, suppressing proliferation of endothelial cells or inducing apoptosis of endothelial cells. There is also the cancer stem cell paradigm, which hypothesizes that cancer could be treated generally, either by targeting the cancer stem cells themselves, or by targeting the epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition which supposedly generates the cancer stem cells. Yet another approach is to inhibit one or more of the assorted HSP90 proteins, which will supposedly disrupt the proper folding of signaling proteins that all cancers rely on. Inhibiting telomerase was said to be able to be able to simply stop cancer cells generally from being able to proliferate. Many of these approaches --- and there have been others as well --- have produced anti-cancer drugs. However, despite high hopes for success, and a plausible theory why these should work for cancers generally, none of these approaches have ever produced a drug which come remotely near such a goal.
Accordingly, there is substantive "reason for one skilled in the art to question the objective truth of the statement of utility or its scope" (In re Langer, 183 USPQ 288, 297), specifically, the scope of covering cancer generally. Moreover, even if applicants' assertion that cancer in general could be treated with these compounds were plausible --- which it is not ---, that "plausible" would not suffice, as was stated in Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 75 USPQ2d 1297, 1301: "If mere plausibility were the test for enablement under section 112, applicants could obtain patent rights to "inventions" consisting of little more than respectable guesses as to the likelihood of their success."
6) Scope of the claims. The scope of the claims involves the compounds of the following formulae:
PNG
media_image1.png
228
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and their use as potential treatment or prophylaxis of diseases such as cancers or neurodegenerative diseases. Thus, the scope of claims is very broad.
7) The quantity of experimentation needed. Given the fact that, historically, the development of new drugs for treating cancer and neurodegenerative diseases has been difficult and time consuming, and especially in view of factors 1 and 4 and 6, the quantity of experimentation needed is expected to be great.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20, 25-28, 30, 32-40, 61, and 67-82 are allowed. The closest prior art is that which has been cited in the Office Actions mailed 12/16/2025 and 05/05/2026 and does not teach or suggest the instantly claimed compounds or methods of use thereof.
Conclusion
Claims 1-5, 11-20, 25-28, 30, 32-40, 61, and 67-82 are allowed. Claims 41-58 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADELINE E BRAUN whose telephone number is (703)756-4533. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:00pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Murray can be reached at (571) 272-9023. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MADELINE E BRAUN/Examiner, Art Unit 1624 09/24/2026
