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 .
Priority
Examiner acknowledges that, according to the Filing receipt received 02/06/2024, that the instant application 18/490,967 filed 10/20/2023 is a continuation of PCT/EP2022/060644 filed 04/22/2022 which claims foreign priority of PCT/CN2022/083125 filed 03/25/2022 and EP21170090.1 filed 04/23/2021.
However, the limitations of the instant claims are not adequately supported or enabled in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112, first paragraph by EP21170090.1. More specifically, the limitations of B wherein B is (B-7), (B-8), (B-9), or (B-10) are not taught or suggested in their entirety by EP21170090.1. Other deficiencies may be present but are not cited herein. As such, all the instant claims have been awarded the effective filing date of PCT/CN2022/083125 filed 03/25/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 04/19/2024 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(b)
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 1-3 and 5-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “B is a heteroaryl selected from”. However, (B-7) is phenyl, which is not a heteroaryl. The scope of the claims is therefore indefinite. Claims 2-3 and 5-20 recite or require the limitation at issue, do not further clarify the limitation at issue, and are similarly rejected.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the wavy line indicates the point of attachment to the remainder of formula (I)”. This limitation causes confusion as it is unclear what is meant by “the remainder of formula (I)”. To reduce confusion, Examiner recommends amending the claims to recite “wherein the wavy line indicates the point of attachment to formula (I)”. Claims 2-3 and 5-20 recite or require the limitation at issue, do not further clarify the limitation at issue, and are similarly rejected.
Claim 1 sets forth definitions for C, D, E, and L1 through L3. However, the claim provides no earlier recitation of C, D, E, and L1 through L3 in the structure of formula (I). Rather, their structures are depicted after the definitions are set forth. The lack of earlier recitation of C, D, E, and L1 through L3 in the structure of formula (I) causes confusion and the definitions lack antecedent basis. Examiner recommends placing the definitions after the definitions of the R-groups wherein C, D, E, and L1 through L3 are set forth. Claims 2-3 and 5-20 recite or require the limitation at issue, do not further clarify the limitation at issue, and are similarly rejected.
Claims 6, 7, 14, and 15 recite “A is selected from… 2,6-diazaspiro[3.3]heptanyl”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis as it does not specify where the moiety is attached to formula (I). For example, in claim 1, 2,6-diazaspiro[3.3]heptanyl is depicted with the following connection to formula (I).
PNG
media_image1.png
82
152
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Correction is required.
Claim 16 recites the following compounds.
PNG
media_image2.png
270
599
media_image2.png
Greyscale
These compounds are not within the scope of claim 1 and lack antecedent basis because ring B cannot be a fused ring, nor do any of the substituents of B form a fused ring.
PNG
media_image3.png
146
736
media_image3.png
Greyscale
These compounds are not within the scope of claim 1 and lack antecedent basis because ring C in the above compounds is a heteroaryl with more than 5-6 members.
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.
Claim 19 is 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 treating multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, traumatic brain injury, neurotoxicity,, does not reasonably provide enablement for treating neuroinflammation, neurodegenerative disease, pain, cancer, or mental disorders 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.
"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.
Neurological and neurodegenerative diseases span an incredibly broad array of conditions, including Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, Alzheimer’s, Pick’s disease, Lewy body disorders, muscular atrophy, spina bifida, hydrocephalus, cerebral palsy, and Tourette syndrome. All of these disorders are diverse in their etiologies, risk factors, and methods of treatment. 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 the 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.
2) The nature of the invention and predictability in the art.
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).
The great majority of neurodegenerative or neurodevelopmental 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 trillions 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. Further, what little success there has been does not point in this direction. Thus, what very few treatments that the massive research effort on Alzheimer's disease has produced are means of providing Acetylcholinesterase inhibition, unrelated to the mechanism of action in this case.
3) State of the Prior Art. The claimed compounds are of Formula (I). So far as the examiner is aware these compounds have not been successfully used as broad-range therapeutic agents.
4) Working Examples. Applicants have provided no working examples which are successfully used as broad range therapeutic agents, for treatment of cancers, neurological diseases, or otherwise. Applicants have, however, demonstrated the in vitro activity of the claimed compounds as MAGL inhibitors. See the specification, starting on page 111 (Table 1).
5) Skill of those in the art. The level of skill in the art of neurology is high, that of an MD or PhD. Despite the high level of skill in the art, treatment of neurological and neurodegenerative diseases is incredibly unpredictable.
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_image4.png
172
306
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and their use as potential treatment to cancers, neurodevelopmental diseases, pain, etc. Thus, the scope of claims is very broad.
7) The quantity of experimentation needed. Given the fact that, historically, the development of new pharmaceuticals 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Guillemont et al. (WO 2017/001660 A1).
Guillemont et al. discloses the following compound (p. 112).
PNG
media_image5.png
112
256
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The compound is within the scope of the claims wherein A and B are phenyl, X is N, and B is substituted by cyano. Claims 17-18 necessarily require the above compound and are similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 1 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CHEMCATS (RN 2379977-92-9; 2019).
CHEMCATS discloses the following compound.
PNG
media_image6.png
228
379
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The compound is within the scope of the claims wherein A is pyridinyl, B is phenyl, X is CH, and A is substituted by halo-alkyl. Claims 17-18 necessarily require the above compound and are similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 13, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CHEMCATS (RN 2379996-22-0; 2019).
CHEMCATS discloses the following compound.
PNG
media_image7.png
227
434
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The compound is within the scope of the claims wherein A is phenyl, B is phenyl, X is CH, and A is substituted by L1-ring C wherein L1 is SO2 and ring C is a 5-membered heterocyclyl. Claims 17-18 necessarily require the above compound and are similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 1 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CHEMCATS (RN 2390009-96-9; 2019).
CHEMCATS discloses the following compound.
PNG
media_image8.png
202
344
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The compound is within the scope of the claims wherein A is piperazinyl, B is phenyl, X is CH, and A is substituted by alkyl. Claims 17-18 necessarily require the above compound and are similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 1 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CHEMCATS (RN 2636668-04-5; April 22, 2021).
CHEMCATS discloses the following compound.
PNG
media_image9.png
189
382
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The compound is within the scope of the claims wherein A is phenyl, B is pyrimidinyl, X is N, A is substituted by cycloalkyl, and B is substituted by halogen. Claims 17-18 necessarily require the above compound and are similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 13 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CHEMCATS (RN 2640969-38-4; May 20, 2021).
CHEMCATS discloses the following compound.
PNG
media_image10.png
193
400
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The compound is within the scope of the claims wherein A is phenyl, B is phenyl, X is CH, A is substituted by L1-ring C wherein L1 is a bond and ring C is a 5-membered heteroaryl. Claims 17-18 necessarily require the above compound and are similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 1 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Alcazar et al. (US 20220089538 A1; effectively filed 2020).
Alcazar et al. discloses monoacylglycerol lipase modulators with the following structures and compositions thereof (p. 67, 68, 70, 74; paragraph [0076]).
PNG
media_image11.png
374
717
media_image11.png
Greyscale
These compounds are within the scope of the claims wherein X is CH, A is cyclobutyl, B is phenyl, A is substituted by hydroxy and methyl, and B is substituted by methyl, halo-alkyl, halo-alkoxy, cycloalkyl, or heterocyclyl.
Alcazar et al. additionally discloses methods of treating disorders causing pain, psychiatric disorders, neurological disorders, and cancers comprising administering a therapeutically effective amount of the disclosed compounds (paragraph [0088]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5-15, and 17-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16, 18-20, and 25-26 of copending Application No. 18/832,840 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The claims of the ‘840 application are directed to compounds of formula (I), compositions thereof, and methods of treating neuroinflammation, neurodegenerative diseases, pain, cancer, and mental disorders. The compounds of the ‘840 application differ from those of the instant invention in that the moiety in the B position is bound to formula (I) at a different location on the ring structure as below (circled by Examiner).
PNG
media_image12.png
144
288
media_image12.png
Greyscale
However, per MPEP 2144.09, “Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977).” As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be apprised that, given the identical function and substantial structural similarity of the compounds of both inventions, that the compounds would have similar properties and as such are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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.
/M.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1624 04/22/2026
/BRENDA L COLEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1624
Prosecution Insights