Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Status
Claims 1-17 are cancelled.
Claims 18-38 are pending.
Withdrawn rejections
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 1/22/26 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. The Examiner has re-weighed all the evidence of record. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below is herein withdrawn.
The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections and/or objections presently being applied to the instant application.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 1/22/26 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of application 18244141 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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(a) 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.
Claims 18-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US20050186267) and Ma et al. (International Journal of Pharmaceutics 1999; 189:227-234) and Stella et al. (Toxicologic Pathology, 36:30-42, 2008).
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Applicant claims, for example
PNG
media_image1.png
74
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
88
756
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
(MPEP 2141.03)
The “hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art’ to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art.” Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988). The level of skill is that of a medical/pharmaceutical research scientist, as is the case here, then one can assume comfortably that such an educated artisan will draw conventional ideas from medicine, pharmaceutical formulation, physiology and chemistry— without being told to do so.
In addition, the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level (MPEP 2141.03(II)).
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Regarding claims 18, 25, 26, 28, 29 and 37, Thompson et al. teach compositions comprising a sulfoalkyl ether cyclodextrin and one or more active agents (Abstract; claims 1, 15, 18, 20, 23), where the sulfoalkyl ether cyclodextrin is SBE7-β-CD, known as Captisol®, with a degree of substitution between 6-7.1 [0016-0017, 0143], which falls within the range of n = 1-10 and renders obvious the claimed range. The active agent comprises antineoplastics [0196] such as the nitrogen mustards cyclophosphamide [0208] and melphalan [0243] and their salt forms [0195]. Please note Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories, Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) where the prior art patent disclosed a genus of 1200 effective combinations of compounds, including the claimed combination, it was held that “[d]isclos[ure of] a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious." Thompson et al. teach (Examiner added emphasis): “the CD will generally be, but need not be, present in excess of the active agent. The amount of excess will be determined by the intrinsic solubility of the agent, the expected dose of the agent, and the binding constant for inclusion complexation between the specific drug (agent) and the specific CD derivative used. It should be noted that the cyclodextrin derivative can be present in uncomplexed form and therefore in amounts substantially in excess of the amount of active agent present. The weight ratio or molar ratio of derivatized cyclodextrin to active agent can exceed 100, 1000 or even more.” [0145] Thompson et al. even suggest that: “the ratio of derivatized cyclodextrin to active agent may need to be varied from the ratios set forth herein in order to compensate for the abovementioned variables.” [0147] Thus, Thompson et al. teach and suggest a weight ratio with an excess CD in amounts that can exceed 100:1 as well as optimization of the ratio. Thompson et al. teach solid fill compositions [0035, 0037, 0071] and that it is known to have a solid physical mixture of an SAE-CD and an active agent [0022-0023]. Thompson et al. also teach placing the SAE-CD and solid active drug in vial containers in amounts of 3, 5, 25, 50 and 60 mg of active ingredient [0257]. Thompson et al. teach that (Examiner added emphasis): “complexation of drugs with the CAPTISOL® cyclodextrin generally allows for increased solubility and stability of drugs in aqueous solutions.” [0018]
Regarding claims 18, 25-33, 35 and 37, Ma et al. teach freeze dried solid powder, hence a lyophilized powder, composition consisting of (SBE)7m-β-cyclodextrin (SBE = sulfobutyl ether and the subscript 7 indicates the degree of substitution) and melphalan in a simplified one-vial delivery system (Abstract) where 100 ml solution of 0.1 M (SBE)7m-β-cyclodextrin containing 0.5 g melphalan was prepared (page 229-230, 2.5). The MW of the (SBE)7m-β-cyclodextrin is 2248.64 (page 228, 2.1). The 100 ml of a 0.1M solution will have 22.4864 g of (SBE)7m-β-cyclodextrin in it. Therefore, the weight ratio of cyclodextrin to melphalan is 22.4864:0.5 or 44.9:1, which rounds to 45:1. Ma et al. teach that the melphalan comes as the hydrochloride (page 228, left column second paragraph). Ma et al. teach taking 0.5 ml of the stock solution (0.5 grams melphalan in 100 ml solution = 5 mg/ml) and placing into 2 ml vials prior to freeze drying would provide 0.5 ml X 5 mg/ml = 2.5 mg of melphalan per vial and similarly one calculates ~112 mg of SBE (Page 229, 2.5. through page 230 top left column). In Table 1 (Page 230), Ma et al. teaches that 100 mM (SBE)7m-β-CD had a time to 10% loss of 5.01 ± 0.1 hours and the reference co-solvent was 1.69 ± 0.05 hours for about a 3-fold (5.01/1.69 = 2.96) improvement in stability. Ma et al. teach that the commercial product Alkeran® contains in a single vial 50 mg melphalan (Page 228, left column).
Regarding claims 18, 28-29 and 37, Stella et al. teach: “A number of workers have attempted to identify, prepare, and evaluate various CD derivatives with superior inclusion complexation and maximal in vivo safety for various biomedical uses. A systematic study led to SBE-β-CD (Captisol), a polyanionic variably substituted sulfobutyl ether of β-CD, as a non-nephrotoxic derivative and HP-β-CD, a modified CD developed by Janssen. SBE-β-CD and HP-β-CD have undergone extensive safety studies and are currently used in six products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (four for Captisol and two for HP-β-CD). They are also in use in numerous clinical and preclinical studies.” (Abstract)
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02) and Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
The difference between the instant application and Thompson et al. is that Thompson et al. do not expressly teach a solid lyophilized powder pharmaceutical composition comprising 25-125 mg melphalan hydrochloride salt, 2000-3000 mg SBE, in a vial container or the functional limitations “wherein when…” of claims 19-24. This deficiency in Thompson et al. is cured by the teachings of Ma et al. and Stella et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the composition of Thompson et al. comprising 25-125 mg melphalan hydrochloride and 2000-3000 mg sulfobutyl ether-β-cyclodextrin in a weight ratio of at least 50:1; 50:1 to 100:1; or about 54:1, as a lyophilized solid powder in a vial container, as suggested by Ma et al. and Stella et al., with the functional limitations “wherein when…”of claims 19-24 and produce the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because for the following sound articulated reasoning with rational underpinning based upon the evidence. As noted above, Thompson et al. teach and suggest a solid embodiment with where the cyclodextrin can be Captisol®. Stella et al. teach that Captisol® was identified in systematic studies from other CD derivatives and has the desirable distinction as being approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Thus, it is desirable to select Captisol® for the sulfoalkyl ether-β-cyclodextrin. Ma et al. teach and suggest a lyophilized solid powder composition comprising melphalan, which is available as the hydrochloride salt, and the sulfobutyl ether-β-cyclodextrin in a weight ratio of 45:1 and Thompson et al. teach and suggest optimization of the weight ratio including in excess of 100:1. That reasonably provides a weight ratio range of 45:1 to greater than 100:1, which encompasses the claimed ranges of at least 50:1, 50:1 to 100:1 or about 54:1. See MPEP 2144.05(I): “A range can be disclosed in multiple prior art references instead of in a single prior art reference depending on the specific facts of the case.” See also MPEP 2144.05(I): In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Ma et al. further teaches the advantages of freeze-dried melphalan/cyclodextrin formulation: “A freeze-dried melphalan/(SBE)7m-b-CD formulation was successfully prepared and was found to be very stable over a period of 1 year. This formulation approach simplifies the two-vial delivery system to a one-vial system as well as having the other advantages noted in this work.” (Page 234, 4. Conclusions). Consequently, in view of the combined references the ordinary artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in formulating a solid lyophilized powder composition comprising melphalan hydrochloride and sulfobutyl ether-β-cyclodextrin Captisol®, for its desirable non-nephrotoxicity and Food and Drug Administration approval, in the amounts and weight ratios claimed and placing it in a vial container. Furthermore, it is expected that the stability of the active agent is increased upon increasing CD concentration as taught by Ma et al. and Thompson et al.
Regarding the amounts of 25-125 mg melphalan and 2000-3000 mg sulfobutyl ether-β-cyclodextrin, it is merely routine optimization by the ordinary artisan to provide sufficient melphalan for therapeutic benefit and the amount of sulfoalkyl ether-beta-cyclodextrin to satisfy the range or 45:1 to an excess of 100:1 with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) (A): “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Especially when Thompson et al. teach and suggest 25, 50 and 60 mg of active ingredients [0257-0258]. In a hypothetical example, the Thompson et al. embodiment with a weight ratio of 100:1 with 25 mg active ingredient would have 2500 mg of sulfobutyl ether-β-cyclodextrin. Thus, the claimed amounts are readily derived from the teachings of Thompson et al.
Regarding the functional “wherein when” limitations and claims dependent therefrom, what one does with the solid pharmaceutical composition is an intended use of the composition and such intended use is inherent in the composition itself. An intended use will not limit the scope of the claim because it merely defines a context in which the invention operates. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Thus, dilution with normal saline not including propylene glycol or ethanol at a pH between 4-6 and dilution to 0.45 mg/ml melphalan; the degradation of melphalan and AUC0-t, are naturally present in the composition consisting of the same two components taught by Thompson et al. and Ma et al. Especially when Thompson et al. guide the artisan to Captisol® for the sulfoalkyl ether-β-cyclodextrin to combine with melphalan. The Examiner's finding is based on the principle that products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. This is a well settled principle in patent law. See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381,391 (CCPA 1963) ("From the standpoint of patent law, a compound and all of its properties are inseparable; they are one and the same thing."). Where patentability rests upon a property of the claimed material not disclosed within the art, the USPTO has no reasonable method of determining whether there is, in fact, a patentable difference between the prior art materials and the claimed material. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977). Therefore, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the USPTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Id.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103(a).
From the combined teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the combined references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments:
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/22/26 have been carefully considered but are not persuasive.
On pages 5-6 of remarks, Applicant summarizes the rejection.
On page 6 of remarks, Applicant asserts that: “A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would not have modified Thompson's disclosure with that of Ma as alleged by the Examiner.” And: “There is no reason, whatsoever, to presume that Ma's evaluation of injectable formulations are at all relevant to Thompson's orally administered capsule dosage forms and aqueous fill compositions therefore.” Respectfully, the Examiner has a different perspective. The test for obviousness is "what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 4I3, 425 (CCPA I98I) (MPEP 2145(III)). The instant claims are directed to a solid pharmaceutical composition comprising sulfoalkyl ether-beta-cyclodextrin and melphalan in a weight ratio of at least 50:1. Thompson et al. is directed to sulfoalkyl ether cyclodextrin-active agent compositions where the fill composition can be a solid [0037] and the active agent can be melphalan [0243] with a weight ratio of cyclodextrin to active agent exceeding 100 or more [0145], which is at least 50:1. Thompson et al. not only relates to aqueous fill compositions as alleged by Applicant but also Thompson et al. relate to solid fill compositions. Thompson et al. alone renders obvious the claimed subject matter. Ma et al. provides more specific guidance on which active agent (melphalan) to combine with the (SBE)7m-β-CD in a calculated weight ratio of 45:1. The combined references reasonable provides a weight ratio range of 45:1 to greater than 100:1, which encompasses the claimed ranges of at least 50:1, 50:1 to 100:1 or about 54:1. See MPEP 2144.05(I): “A range can be disclosed in multiple prior art references instead of in a single prior art reference depending on the specific facts of the case.” The Examiner is relying on Stella for extolling SBE-β-CD (Captisol) as desirable to select. Applicant also discloses Captisol. ([0065]; Example 1 [00159]; Example 2 [00162]; Example 8 [00173], Examples 10-15, for example). So, respectfully the Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s position and maintains that Ma et al. is relevant to Thompson et al. and in view of the combined references would have a reasonable expectation of success in formulating a solid pharmaceutical composition comprising sulfoalkyl ether-beta-cyclodextrin and melphalan in a weight ratio of at least 50:1.
On pages 6-7 of remarks, Applicant acknowledged that Thompson teaches: “the "weight ratio or molar ratio of derivatized cyclodextrin to active agent can exceed 100, 1000 or even more." Applicant argues that: “this description does not teach or suggest the presently claimed amounts of melphalan and cyclodextrin. Instead, these disclosures are unconnected to any specific "active" and Thompson provides no specific category or motivation of selection of active agents.” Respectfully, the Examiner cannot agree because the Examiner has shown that Thompson et al. specifically name melphalan as an active agent [0243], thus inviting the ordinary artisan to try melphalan, and Ma et al. provide precedent for successfully combining a sulfoalkyl ether-beta-cyclodextrin and melphalan. Just because Thompson et al. teach a wide variety of active agents does not render any particular active agent formulation less obvious. Especially when Ma et al. provide proven success in producing the combination. Applicant makes arguments concerning the weight ratio of cyclodextrin interaction with the capsule shell and that: “There is no basis to presume that a POSA would have reduced cyclodextrin content to weight ratios below those disclosed in Thompson while also retaining Thompson's required capsule-shell protection (even if Ma were relevant to Thompson, which it is not). Any contrary assertion relies on impermissible hindsight rather than a reasonable expectation of success.” Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree with Applicant’s interpretation of Thompson et al. because Thompson et al. teach that the amount of CD will be determined by the intrinsic solubility of the agent, the expected dose of the agent, and the binding constant for inclusion complexation between the specific drug (agent) and the specific CD derivative used. [0145]. Thompson et al. teach that the weight ratio can exceed 100 and therefore it is optimized by the ordinary artisan. Weight ratios exceeding 100 are permissive (“can exceed”) and other weight ratios are possible. No hindsight was employed in determination of the facts.
On pages 7-8, Applicant discusses Loftsson et al. and asserts: “Stella teaches that, "if, for example, excess CD is used to stabilize the drug, then insufficient free drug is available for corneal permeation…A POSA would not have increased the cyclodextrin content of Ma's formulations where "insufficient free drug is available." See 33. There is no basis, whatsoever, to contend that Ma's citation to Loftsson, the Examiner's acknowledgements regarding Loftsson' s disclosures, and Stella's confirmation that any alleged routine optimization would not have been performed or reasonably identified the claimed weight ratios and resultant unexpected bioavailability and stability, are "moot." The rejection is deficient and withdrawal is warranted.” Respectfully, the Examiner has a different perspective. Ma et al. is directed to melphalan compositions for treatment of cancers (Ma et al., Introduction) and is not concerned with corneal permeation. Ma et al. report a binding constant of 360 M-1 (Page 231, left column last paragraph), which Applicant reports as being a low binding affinity (Specification [0065]). Consequently, Applicant’s concerns about insufficient free melphalan drug being present in the presence of excess CD is not persuasive due in part to melphalan’s known low binding affinity and to the fact that Ma et al. already teach and suggest a ratio of 45:1 and is unconcerned about insufficient free melphalan drug being present. Simply to increase that weight ratio to at least 50:1 is obvious in view of the combined references and lack of any unexpected results from so doing.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Strickley (Pharmaceutical Research, Vol. 21, No. 2, February 2004: 201-230) teaches solubilizing excipients including sulfobutylether-β-cyclodextrin (Title; Abstract) including:
PNG
media_image3.png
412
1104
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Page 212).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERNST V ARNOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-8509. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-3:30.
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, Brian Y Kwon can be reached at 571-272-0581. 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.
/ERNST V ARNOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613