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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, corresponding to claims 1-11, in the reply filed on December 15, 2025, is acknowledged. Applicant further elected the compound species of Example 1 on page 109 of the Specification. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the compounds share a substantial core. This is not found persuasive because none of the numerous embodiments of claim 9 are inclusive of the elected species. As such, the examiner must independently search and examiner each embodiment of the non-elected species, which comprises an undue burden. However, if the examiner finds a generic core to be allowable, he will consider rejoinder of those product claims that are encompassed in the generic formula.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 9 and 12-18 are preliminarily withdrawn. Claims 1-8, 10, and 11 are examined.
Claim of Foreign Priority
Applicant’s claim of foreign priority in the ADS filed on October 24, 2023, is acknowledged and Priority Documents have been retrieved/received by the Office. The priority date of the instant application is October 26, 2022.
Objections to the Claims and Specification
The claims and Specification are object to for having illegible compounds and structures. In particular the structures shown in claim 10 are illegible. These are the same compounds that are illegible to a degree in the instant Specification.
The Specification and claim 10 are objected to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Regarding claims 1-8, 10 and 11, the term and/or phrases "preferably" and “more preferably” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (Scope of Enablement)
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 1-8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for most of those compounds set forth in the instant Specification are not considered enabled for breadth of compounds of Formula (I) nor each of the compounds of claim 10, which is limited to those compounds tested in the instant Specification. See Example 39 of Table 2 of numbered page 157 of the instant Specification discussed more below. The Specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to arrive at the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Each compounds within the Scope of Formula (I) of claim 1 is not enabled.
The standard for determining whether the Specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Mineral Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261 (1916) which postured the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? As recognized by the court in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988), that is still the standard to be applied, determined by consideration of the Wands factors (MPEP 2164.01(A)); namely, nature of the invention, breadth of the claims, guidance of the specification, the existence of working examples, state of the art, predictability of the art and the amount of experimentation necessary. All of the Wands factors have been considered, with the most relevant factors discussed below
Nature of the Invention: As stated in MPEP 2164.05(a), “[t]he initial inquiry” for determining whether the Specification is enabling “is into the nature of the invention, i.e., the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains.”
In the instant case, the claimed invention pertains to compounds of Formula (I), which are alleged by the Specification to activate STING shown by assays for interaction with dog STING as determined by DSF (dDSF) shown in Table 2 and cytokine secretion in dog whole blood (sWB) culture system as determined by canine Interferon-beta (IFNb) ELISA assay as shown in Table 3. See p156-161 of the Specification.
The State of the Prior Art and the Relative Skill of those in the Art: As stated in MPEP 2164.05(a), “[t]he state of the prior art is what one skilled in the art would have known, at the time the application was filed, about the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains” and, as stated in MPEP 2164.05(b), “[t]he relative skill of those in the art refers to the skill of those in the art in relation to the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains at the time the application was filed.”
As discussed above, the instantly claimed invention pertains to compounds of Formula (I), which are alleged by the Specification to activate STING in an effort to treat canine and/or feline cancer. At the time the instant application was filed, it would have been known by those of ordinary skill in the art that - compounds, in the vast majority of cases, demonstrate a remarkably high correlation between their structure, specificity and ability to produce a pharmacological effect. At the same time, it would have also been generally assumed that two compounds with similar chemical properties would exhibit similar biological effects. Thus, given a series of compounds that are shown to exert an activity of interest (or given a target of interest), the ordinarily skilled artisan would have expected that a limited genus of related compounds (e.g., compounds exhibiting near equal molecular shapes and volumes, approximately the same distribution of electrons, and similar physical properties such as hydrophobicity) would interact with the given target to elicit a related biological response.
Accordingly, at the time the invention was made, the relative skill of those in the art tasked with identifying compounds exerting an activity of interest would have been high, as the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had, at minimum, a Ph.D. and experience with screening techniques including computer assisted virtual screening techniques such as ligand-based and structure-based design methods. Deciding which technique to use would have been determined by the skilled artisan’s knowledge regarding the compound and target of interest. Ligand based drug design relies on knowledge of a compound or compounds of interest (i.e., ligands) to derive new compounds that will, in theory, similarly interact with the target of interest to elicit the activity of interest. Conversely, structure based drug design relies on knowledge of the three dimensional structure of the target of interest (i.e., receptor, ion channel, or enzyme) to derive new compounds that will, in theory, interact with the target of interest to elicit the activity of interest. In either case, the compounds derived from these techniques (applied alone or in combination) are then subjected to in vitro testing for validation.
The Level of Predictability in the Art: Once a compound has been identified by ligand based and/or structure based drug design methods as potentially binding to the target molecule, it must be evaluated. However, as discussed by Anderson (Chem and Biol 10:787-797, 2003), “it is important to consider that the ranking assigned by the scoring function is not always indicative of a true binding constant, since the model of the target:ligand interaction is inherently an approximation. Usually, several molecules which scored well during the docking run are evaluated in further tests since even the top scoring molecule could fail in vitro assays… Finally, leads are brought into the wet lab for biochemical evaluation” (Page 794, Column 1). By that point, as noted by Thiel (Nature Biotechnol 2:513-519, 2004), “libraries are small and hit rates are on the order of one in ten” (Page 517, Column 2). This low level of predictability is not surprising considering that even minor structural changes can, and frequently will, drastically alter or eradicate a parent compound’s ability to modulate the activity of a specific receptor or enzyme. Indeed, modifying even a single atom in a compound can dramatically change the compound’s overall structure and - even though complementarity in one portion of the compound might be improved by the chemical revision - the overall binding or activity might be severely compromised. This is certainly true in the case.
For example, comparing the structures of those compounds of 1 to 78 of Table 1, they appear relatively similar. However, the interaction with dog STING assay show substantial differences in even in vitro efficacy. Thus, each change in structure must be evaluated for drastic changes in efficacy. For the most start example, the DELTA TM (°C) for most compounds ranges from a low of 20.9 for compound 21 and 16.0 for compound 37-1 with all of the compounds having a positive delta value with the exception Example 39. Example 39 has a value of -0.03. Thus, it is clear to a POSA that minor structural changes can drastically alter the efficacy and, in fact, the existence of any efficacy, of compounds each of which fall within Formula (I) of claim 1. Moreover, Example 39 is a compound that is claimed in claim 10. The examiner notes that Table 2 does not provide any data for Example 39. As such, the only data is the negative delta value shown in Table 1. See Specification at the bottom of page 157.
Moreover, the variability of Formula (I) compared to those compounds of Tables 1 and 2, and most of claim 10, is extremely broad relative to the narrow variability of compounds of claim 10, e.g. In particular, variables, B, D, and others are limited in their variability. The “B” variable is limited in the structure of the disclosure to be a 5 or 6 membered saturated heterocycle with 1 or 2 nitrogen atoms. Further in every instance that the cycle is as shown below,
PNG
media_image1.png
86
73
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein the substituent is COOH.
Further, in each instant in which the cycle is as shown below,
PNG
media_image2.png
99
94
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, wherein the substituent is CO-Me.
Further, in each instance in which the cycle is shown below,
PNG
media_image3.png
109
114
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, wherein the substituent is COOH.
Additionally, in each instance in which the cycle is shown below,
PNG
media_image4.png
78
143
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, wherein the substituent is CH2-COOH.
Finally, in two examples, the cycle is the following,
PNG
media_image5.png
68
131
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, wherein the substituent is CH2-COOH.
The above 5 embodiments constitute the entire variability of “B.” Thus, the collective variability is higher than the variability of the species of compounds formed. This matter because as Example 39 shows, the function can drastically change even for similar structures.
As shown above for the substituents on cycle B (i.e., R5 and R6), R5 and R6 are shown to be H, COOH, Me-COOH, CO-Me. However, the claims allow for R5 and R6 to include:
PNG
media_image6.png
133
511
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The examiner notes that variable D provides for benzodioxole with R4a, R4b, R4c, and R4d substituents. It does not appear that benzodioxole is shown or used in any embodiment.
The Amount of Direction Provided by the Inventor / Existence of Working Examples: The amount of direction provided by the Applicant is considered to be determined by the Specification and the working examples. In the instant case, the Specification discloses approximately 78 examples with limited variability for variables B, D, and R5/R6. Further, the limited examples show that minor structural limitations can drastically alter a compounds function. See Example 39 among the other variability shown.
Scope or Breadth of the Claims: As stated in MPEP 2164.01(c), “when a compound or composition claim is not limited by a recited use, any enabled use that would reasonably correlate with the entire scope of that claim is sufficient to preclude a rejection for nonenablement based on how to use” (emphasis added). Thus, as stated in MPEP 2164.08, “[t]he focus of the examination inquiry is whether everything within the scope of the claim is enabled” (emphasis added). Indeed, 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 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (emphasis added).
At the same time, however, it is also recognized that not everything necessary to practice the invention need be disclosed. Nor is it necessary that an Applicant test all the embodiments of his invention. In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498 (CCPA 1976) (emphasis added). In fact, as stated by the court in In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660 (Fed. Cir. 1991), a patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art.
Accordingly, for purposes of enablement, the relevant concern is whether the scope of enablement provided to one skilled in the art by the disclosure is commensurate in scope with the protection sought by the claims. Thus, while “a patent application is entitled to claim his invention generically” it is necessary that “he provide a disclosure sufficient to enable one skilled in the art to carry out the invention commensurate with the scope of his claims". Amgen, Inc., v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 1991). As noted by the court in In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833 (CCPA 1970), the scope of enablement must bear a “reasonable correlation” to the scope of the claims. See also Ak Steel Corp. v. Sollac, 344 F.3d 1234 (Fed. Cir. 2003) and In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232 (CCPA 1971). As stated in MPEP 2164.08, resolution of this concern requires two stages of inquiry: “[t]he first is to determine how broad the claim is with respect to the disclosure. The entire claim must be considered. The second inquiry is to determine if one skilled in the art is enabled to make and use the entire scope of the claim without undue experimentation”.
As to the first inquiry, as discussed above, the claims are drawn to compounds of Formula (I), which are alleged by the Specification to activate STING shown by assays for interaction with dog STING as determined by DSF (dDSF) shown in Table 2 and cytokine secretion in dog whole blood (sWB) culture system as determined by canine Interferon-beta (IFNb) ELISA assay as shown in Table 3. See p156-161 of the Specification. Ultimately, this to treat cancer including osteosarcoma in a canine.
Yet, as discussed above, the instant Specification discloses approximately 78 similarly structured compound species encompassed by Formula (I) and the slight deviations in structure of those 78 compounds is substantial- yet such structural deviations pale in comparison to the drastic breadth of the claimed compounds. As such, the claim is extremely broad with respect to the disclosure. The second inquiry is discussed in detail below.
Amount of Experimentation Necessary: In view of all of the foregoing, at the time the invention was made, it would have required undue experimentation to practice the entire scope of the invention as claimed. As discussed above, the claims are drawn to compounds of Formula (I), which are alleged by the Specification to activate STING. Since identifying any compound which is capable of modulating the activity of a specific receptor, ion channel, or enzyme is extremely complex, the nature of the instant invention considered to be one of extreme complexity. Although the relative skill of those in the art to which the invention pertains is high, the state of the art and unpredictability within the art is such that even the most talented artisan (armed with screening techniques including computer assisted virtual screening techniques such as ligand-based and structure-based design methods) could not reasonably predict which of the structural changes and embodiments of compounds encompassed by Formula (I) would exert the alleged activity based on the limited disclosure and substantial variability shown in Tables 2 and 3 of the Specification. Although the skilled artisan would have known that certain chemical modifications to the disclosed compounds may predictably provide structurally related compounds having similarly activity, the skilled artisan would have also known that even minor structural changes can, and frequently will, drastically alter or eradicate a parent compound’s ability to modulate the activity of a specific receptor or enzyme.
Thus, in order to identify usable compounds of Formula (I), the skilled artisan (at minimum) would have to carry out ligand based drug design methods using the 153 disclosed compounds as a starting point and, assuming the structure of the target receptor was known, combine the findings with data derived from structure based drug design methods to arrive at a small library of “lead” compounds believed to possess the activity of interest. The skilled artisan would then synthesize lead compounds that are within Formula (I) for in vitro testing. At this point, however, even "the top scoring molecule could fail in vitro assays” (Page 794, Column 1) and “hit rates are on the order of one in ten” (Page 517, Column 2). Given the unpredictability of the claimed compounds, as evidenced by Table 3 of the instant Specification, it is highly unpredictable whether any compound within the subgenus of compounds of Formula (I) identified by rational drug design based on the instant disclosure would, in fact, be usable. Whether the other compounds of Formula (I) (i.e., those not identified by rational drug design based on the instant disclosure) would be usable is even less predictable. As such, the only way to ascertain which of the conditions among the many that can be treated with specific claimed compounds would require undue experimentation. That is, the only way one skilled in the art is enabled to use the entire scope of the claim based on the instant disclosure entails undue experimentation.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant should narrow the scope of the claims such that they bear a reasonable correlation with the disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (Written Description)
Claims 1-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Following reasons apply:
Claims 1-8 and 11 are directed to a composition that is an agonist/activator of STING for treating osteosarcoma in canines. In this particular case, these are alleged to result in the non-obviousness of the instant claims.
The instant Specification synthesizes approximately 78 compounds and tests these compounds in two assays in which there are distinct results, as described above. The claims are directed to a Foruma (I), which includes variables B, D, R1-R6, R4a-R4d, 5.1-5.3, and others. The only compounds made and/or tested in any manner are described in claim 10 in the instant set of claims.
The Specification does not describe other nor test nor contemplate any other specific compounds. Claimed invention is not fully described in the specification. The written description requirement implements the principle that a patent must describe the technology that is sought to be patented; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor's obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee was in possession of claimed invention.
Applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention, and demonstrate that by disclosure in the specification of the patent.
To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Written description requirement, serves both to satisfy the inventor's obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee was in possession of the invention that is claimed. A patentee can lawfully claim only what he has invented and described, and if he claims more his patent is void.
See MPEP 2163.01-02) for General principles governing compliance with the written description requirement applications. 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 require that the “specification shall contain a written description of the invention The written description requirement has several policy objectives. “[T]he ‘essential goal’ of the description of the invention requirement is to clearly convey the information that an applicant has invented the subject matter which is claimed.” In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 592 n.4, 194 USPQ 470, 473 n.4 (CCPA 1977). Another objective is to convey to the public what the applicant claims as the invention. See Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d 1559, 1566, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1089 (1998). "The ‘written description’ requirement implements the principle that a patent must describe the technology that is sought to be patented; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee was in possession of the invention that is claimed." Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, the written description requirement promotes the progress of the useful arts by ensuring that patentees adequately describe their inventions in their patent specifications in exchange for the right to exclude others from practicing the invention for the duration of the patent’s term.
Genentech Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S (CA FC) 42 USPQ2d 1001, states that “a patent is not a hunting license. It is not a reward for search, but compensation for its successful conclusion" and "patent protection is granted in return for an enabling disclosure of an invention, not for vague intimations of general ideas that may or may not be workable".
Whenever the issue of written description arises, the fundamental factual inquiry is whether the specification conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, applicant was in possession of the invention as now claimed. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991). An applicant shows possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP 2163.02).
Whether the written description requirement is satisfied is a fact-based inquiry that will depend on the nature of the claimed invention and the knowledge of one skilled in the art at the time an invention is made and a patent application is filed. The written description requirement is not satisfied by the appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim. . A description of what a material does, rather than of what it is, usually does not suffice." Enzo, 323 F.3d at 968 (citing Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568); see Rochester, 358 F.3d at 926 ("[G]eneralized language may not suffice if it does not convey the detailed identity of an invention.").
The function of description requirement is to ensure that the inventor had possession, as of filing date of the application relied on, the specific subject matter claimed by him. See Genentech, 108 F 3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. at 1366, 78, 1999).
Written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116.
However, a showing of possession alone does not cure the lack of a written description. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969-70, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 2002). For example, it is now well accepted that a satisfactory description may be found in originally-filed claims or any other portion of the originally-filed specification. See In re Koller, 613 F.2d 819, 204 USPQ 702 (CCPA 1980); In re Gardner, 475 F.2d 1389, 177 USPQ 396 (CCPA 1973); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). However, that does not mean that all originally-filed claims have adequate written support. The specification must still be examined to assess whether an originally-filed claim has adequate written support.
Regardless whether a compound is claimed per se or a method is claimed that entails the use of the compound, the inventor cannot lay claim to that subject matter unless he can provide a description of the compound sufficient to distinguish infringing compounds from non-infringing compounds, or infringing methods from non-infringing methods. Where the specification provides only constructive examples in lieu of working examples, it must still "describe the claimed subject matter in terms that establish that the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention, including all of the elements and limitations.
It is suggested to amend the claims to represent the embodiments in the Specification that were possessed at the time of filing.
Double Patenting (Non-Provisional and Provisional Rejections)
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 1-8, 10, and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-40 of U.S. Patent No. 12,065,427. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the core structures overlap and identical compounds are claimed in both the ‘427 patent that the instant application. Further, many of the compounds differ only in that they include an additional fluorine atom substituted for a hydrogen and/or they include an ethyl rather than a methyl. The examiner notes isomers, homologues, and bioisosteric substitutions of a fluorine for a hydrogen render obvious one compound in view of another. A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963). 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). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious); Aventis Pharma Deutschland v. Lupin Ltd., 499 F.3d 1293, 84 USPQ2d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (5(S) stereoisomer of ramipril obvious over prior art mixture of stereoisomers of ramipril.). Further, while claims 39 and 40 of the ‘427 patent are methods, those methods require compounds, which are inclusive of those claimed therein and obvious in light of the instant claims.
Claim 1-8, 10, and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of copending Application No. 18/383,135. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the core structures overlap and identical compounds are claimed in both the ‘135 application that the instant application. Further, many of the compounds differ only in that they include an additional fluorine atom substituted for a hydrogen and/or they include an ethyl rather than a methyl. The examiner notes isomers, homologues, and bioisosteric substitutions of a fluorine for a hydrogen render obvious one compound in view of another. Additionally, substituting one halogen for another, absent evidence to the contrary is of sufficient structural similarity to provide an expectation of functional similarity. A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963). 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). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious); Aventis Pharma Deutschland v. Lupin Ltd., 499 F.3d 1293, 84 USPQ2d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (5(S) stereoisomer of ramipril obvious over prior art mixture of stereoisomers of ramipril.).
Claim 1-8, 10, and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/493,142. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the core structures overlap and identical compounds are claimed in both the ‘142 application that the instant application. Further, many of the compounds differ only in that they include an additional fluorine atom substituted for a hydrogen and/or they include an ethyl rather than a methyl. The examiner notes isomers, homologues, and bioisosteric substitutions of a fluorine for a hydrogen render obvious one compound in view of another. Additionally, substituting one halogen for another, absent evidence to the contrary is of sufficient structural similarity to provide an expectation of functional similarity. A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963). 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). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious); Aventis Pharma Deutschland v. Lupin Ltd., 499 F.3d 1293, 84 USPQ2d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (5(S) stereoisomer of ramipril obvious over prior art mixture of stereoisomers of ramipril.).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
As such, no claim is allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED D BARSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-2795. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amy Clark can be reached on 571-272-1310. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JARED BARSKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1628