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 .
Claims 1-26 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-21 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for the species set forth in claim 22, does not reasonably provide enablement for the magnitude of compounds set forth in formula ARB – L – E3LB. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
In evaluating the enablement question, several factors are to be considered. In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Ex parte Forman, 230 USPQ 546. The factors include: 1) The nature of the invention, 2) the state of the prior art, 3) the predictability or lack thereof in the art, 4) the amount of direction or guidance present, 5) the presence or absence of working examples, 6) the breadth of the claims, and 7) the quantity of experimentation needed.
The nature of the instant invention has claims, which embrace compounds where the E3 ligase binding moiety is
PNG
media_image1.png
60
72
media_image1.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image2.png
61
77
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and the AR binding moiety is
PNG
media_image3.png
127
61
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image4.png
174
87
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image5.png
117
107
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image6.png
137
48
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image7.png
161
55
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image8.png
144
50
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image9.png
156
117
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image10.png
128
123
media_image10.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image11.png
131
127
media_image11.png
Greyscale
. The 39 species of claim 22 embraces the E3LB and ARB in addition to a linker which is a limited subgenus of L.
The magnitude of other possible moieties for ARB and E3LB which are set forth in subgenus claims where E3LB is selected from
PNG
media_image12.png
234
486
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
233
505
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
124
252
media_image14.png
Greyscale
The AR binding subgenus is selected from
PNG
media_image15.png
356
430
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
513
490
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
82
147
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
118
177
media_image18.png
Greyscale
The magnitude of other possible moieties for ARB and E3LB where E3LB is
PNG
media_image19.png
146
171
media_image19.png
Greyscale
and ARB is
PNG
media_image20.png
685
414
media_image20.png
Greyscale
. The magnitude of possible combinations is not described in the disclosure in such a way the one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to prepare the various compositions suggested by claims 1-21 and 22-26. Where are the starting materials for the preparation of compounds where each of the suggested ARB in claims 14-16, E3LB in claim 6 or the suggested linkers in claims 20, 21, etc.
The instant specification teaches 39 examples where E3LB part is
PNG
media_image1.png
60
72
media_image1.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image2.png
61
77
media_image2.png
Greyscale
which does not include the magnitude of possible combinations for E3LB possible nor the L or ARB as claimed herein.
HOW TO USE: Claims 24-26 are drawn to treatment of related diseases regulated by androgen receptors. Any evidence presented must be commensurate in scope with the claims and must clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of the claimed compounds. 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. The scope of claims 24-26 are to the method of treating any and all diseases and/or disorders associated with regulation of androgen receptors, which is not remotely enabled. The scope of claims 24-26 includes diseases and/or disorders not even known at this time, which may be associated with the regulation of androgen receptors. While treatment of prostate cancer and Kennedy’s disease may have been linked with the regulation of androgen receptors, the art does not recognize use of such inhibitors as broad-based drugs for treating all disorders instantly embraced. The control of protein levels afforded by the present disclosure provides treatment of a disease state or condition, which is modulated through the target protein by lowering the level of that protein in the cells of a patient. 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.
The treatment of cancer generally cannot possibly be considered enabled.
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).
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.
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. Here are some assorted categories:
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.
(7) The quantity of experimentation needed: Given the fact that, historically, the development of new cancers drugs 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.
In view of the lack of direction provided in the specification regarding starting materials, the lack of working examples, and the general unpredictability of chemical reaction, it would take an undue amount of experimentation for one skilled in the art to make the claimed compounds and therefore practice the invention. To be enabling, the specification of a patent must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. The applicants are not entitled to preempt the efforts of others. The test for determining compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, is whether the applicants have clearly defined their invention.
Where the utility is unusual or difficult to treat or speculative, the examiner has authority to require evidence that tests relied upon are reasonably predictive of in vivo efficacy by those skilled in the art. See In re Ruskin, 148 USPQ 221; Ex parte Jovanovics, 211 USPQ 907; MPEP 2164.05(a).
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. Tossing out the mere germ of an idea does not constitute enabling disclosure. Genentech Inc. v. Novo Nordisk 42 USPQ2d 1001.
As stated in the MPEP, 2164.08 ''[t]he 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. ln re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Nevertheless, not everything necessary to practice the invention need be disclosed. In fact, what is well known is best omitted. In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 661, 18 USPQ2d 1331, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1991). AII that is necessary is that one skilled in the art be able to practice the claimed invention, given the Ievel of knowledge and skill in the art. Further the scope of enablement must only bear a reasonable correlation to the scope of the claims. See, e.g., In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839,166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970). As concerns the breadth of a claim relevant to enablement, the only relevant concern should be whether the scope of enablement provided to one skilled in the art by the disclosure is commensurate with the scope of protection sought by the claims. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1236, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971). See also Plant Genetic Sys., N.V. v. DeKalb Genetics Corp., 315 F.3d 1335, 1339, 65 USPQ2d 1452, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (alleged pioneer status of invention irrelevant to enablement determination.''
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 1-26 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. The following reasons apply:
Regarding claims 1, 2, 9, 13, 17-21 25, 26 and claims dependent thereon, the phrase "e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 and claims dependent thereon are vague and indefinite in that it is not known what is meant by “bond” in the definition of R5 and R7 which are monovalent moieties.
Claim 1 and claims dependent thereon are vague and indefinite in that it is not known what is meant by the definition of R6 which contains the moieties CR5R7, CR5NR5R7, NR5C(-N=CN)R7, C(C=N-OR5)R7, CR5, CR5R7 and CCR5 where the carbon atom in bold is not valence satisfied.
Claim 1 and claims dependent thereon are vague and indefinite in that it is not known what is meant by the second occurrence of the moiety CR5R7.
Claim 1 and claims dependent thereon are vague and indefinite in that it is not known what is meant by the moieties R5NR5R7 and (R5O)nR7 which are not valence satisfied.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as" renders 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 2 is vague and indefinite in that it is not known what is meant by “as provided in Compound 1.1”
Claim 6 is vague and indefinite in that it is not known what is meant by the definition of X where X is -NH-, N(R10), -O-, or -S-, however, the definition of X in previous claims is C(R9) or -N-.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "R1" in the B rings. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 is vague and indefinite in that it is not known what is meant by the definition of q where q is an integer greater than 1 which does not set forth the limits of the variable.
Claim 20 is vague and indefinite in that it is not known what is meant by the different definitions of the variables m and n.
Claim 21 is vague and indefinite in that it is not known what is meant by the definition of F where there is no “F” in claim 21.
Claim 22 is vague and indefinite in that it is not known what is meant by the F variable in the species claimed herein.
NOTE: Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “F” in claim 20 is used by the claim to mean “wherein each F is a group selected from C3-6 cycloalkyl (e.g., cyclopropyl, cyclobutyl), 3-6 membered heterocycloalkyl (e.g., morpholinyl, piperidinyl, piperazinyl, azetidinyl), aryl (e.g., phenyl), and heteroaryl (e.g., pyridinyl, pyridazinyl, triazolyl, oxadiazolyl, imidazolyl, pyrazolyl, isoxazolyl, pyrrolyl), wherein said cycloalkyl, heterocycloalkyl, and heteroaryl are each optionally substituted with 0-6 RL1 and/or 0-6 RL2 groups” while the accepted meaning is “fluorine.” Applicants are advised that a term such as F which is known in the chemical arts to represent fluorine and generally is not used to defined a variable. The species in claim 22 contain the variable “F” on many of the species and is not defined within the claim.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDA L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0665. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6 (flex).
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 H. Murray can be reached on 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.
/BRENDA L COLEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1624