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 of Foreign Priority
No claim of foreign priority has been made.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, corresponding to claims 69-86, in the reply filed on June 26, 2026, is acknowledged. Applicant further elected compound A236 without traverse. Claims 69-71, 73, 74, 76-79, and 81-86 read on the elected species.
The elected species is free of the prior art. However, rejections under § 112 are applied below.
Status of the Claims
Claims 69-86 are pending. Claims 72, 75, and 80 are withdrawn. Claims 69-71, 73, 74, 76-79, and 81-86 are examined.
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 69-71, 73, 74, 76-79, and 81-86 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabled for the compounds set forth in the instant Specification, e.g., are not considered enabled for the other compounds encompassed by Formula (Ib) of claim 1. 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 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 (Ib), which are alleged by the Specification to act inhibit mutant Ras proteins, including Ras G12, which is thought to be a therapeutic target for treating Ras-associated conditions including cancers.
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 (Ib), which are alleged by the Specification to act as inhibit mutant Ras proteins, including Ras G12, which is thought to be a therapeutic target for treating Ras-associated conditions including cancers.
At the time the instant application was filed, it would have been known by those of ordinary skill in the art that - due in large part to the strict requirement of complementarity between a compound and its corresponding binding site on a target receptor or enzyme - compounds, in the vast majority of cases, demonstrate a remarkably high correlation between their structure, specificity and ability to produce a pharmacological effect. As noted by Hall et al., “Topological Quantitative Structure–Activity Relationship Applications: Structure Information Representation in Drug Discovery,” Comprehensive Medicinal Chemistry II, Vol 4, 2007, pp537-574, there is a role of structure information representation in drug development. This is based on molecular structure being related to biological activity in structure-activity relationships (QSAR) models. Similarly, structure can be used as a basis to screen a structure library to determine by similarity those that have potential for further development. The basis for this it that structure is correlated to function.
As such, 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, etc.) would interact with the given target to elicit a related biological response.
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. 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. A 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 and even bond orientation alone 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.
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 205 compounds on Table 3, starting on page 790 of the Specification. Table 4 on page 832 provides the efficacy of these compounds in the form of IC50 values for Ratio of IC50 KRAS G12D versus KRAS G12S. Table 5 on page 837 provides for KRAS engagement after 24-hour treatment. This includes values of ND, +++, and ++ wherein ND is not detectable, +++ indicates greater than 20%, and ++ indicates 1-20%. Of the 9 compounds shown in Table 5 with many structural similarities, values ranged from ND (for 5 compounds) to +++ (for 3 compounds). Table 6 provides IC50 values for compounds against GP2D cells using a cell proliferation assay and Table 7 observes IC50 values against A549 cells in a proliferation assay.
Despite the shown variability in IC50 values, there is relative commonality among the structures of these synthesized and tested compounds, relative to the instant claims.
The following moieties are disproportionately present in Table 3 embodiments:
PNG
media_image1.png
72
62
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; in combination with
PNG
media_image2.png
71
86
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, or
PNG
media_image3.png
53
67
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. These two specific bicyclic groups appears to constitute approximately 100% of the variability for this moiety in the examples of Table 3.
Similarly,
PNG
media_image4.png
88
65
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, or
PNG
media_image5.png
86
56
media_image5.png
Greyscale
constitute a substantial portion of the variability for this moiety in Table 3.
Despite such limited variability, R10 is defined to be L7-R7, wherein L7 can be:
PNG
media_image6.png
57
593
media_image6.png
Greyscale
and R7 can be, in part,
PNG
media_image7.png
110
585
media_image7.png
Greyscale
There is relatively limited variability shown among compounds provided in the examples and this is especially the case in view of the breadth of Formula (Ib).
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 (Ib), which are alleged by the Specification to inhibit mutant Ras proteins, including Ras G12, which is thought to be a therapeutic target for treating Ras-associated conditions including cancers.
Considering that Formula (Ib) encompasses tens of thousands of compound species or more, it is evident that the claims are broad. Yet, as discussed above, the instant Specification discloses numerous similarly structured compound species encompassed by Formula (Ib) as recited by the claims. Additionally, the data provided includes substantial potency variability with respect to IC50 values of those compounds despite the similar structure of the tested compounds.
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 (Ib), which are alleged by the Specification to inhibit mutant Ras proteins. 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. In the instant case, this complexity is exacerbated by the broadness of Formula (I) with respect to the disclosure and data. 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 thousands of compounds encompassed by Formula (Ib). 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.
Scope or Breadth of the Claims: As stated in MPEP 2164.01(c), “when a compound or Despite this, the instant claims include thousands of permutations and do not require structural limitations that are present in all or substantially all of the structures of the embodiments shown in the Specification.
The above are examples of limited variability among the combinations despite the Specification also showing that minor structural changes can drastically alter the efficacy of a compound.
Thus, in order to identify usable compounds of Formula (Ib), the skilled artisan (at minimum) would have to carry out ligand based drug design methods using the approximately 200 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. This is prior to identifying which subjects can be treated and if any disorder can be prevented. The skilled artisan would then synthesize lead compounds that are within Formula (Ib) for in vitro testing. Given the unpredictability of the chemical arts, it is highly unpredictable whether any compound within the subgenus of compounds of Formula (Ib) identified by rational drug design based on the instant disclosure would, in fact, be usable. Whether the other compounds of Formula (Ib) (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 hundreds of millions, and potentially billions, of claimed compounds encompassed by Formula (Ib) are usable based on the limited disclosure 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
Claims 69-71, 73, 74, 76-79, and 81-86 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 69-86 are directed to treating a precursor compound of Formula (Ib), which comprises potentially millions of compounds. The Specification sets forth compound A101-A306, which are each highly distinct. The sole requirement for a compound of Formula (Ib) is shown below:
PNG
media_image8.png
139
250
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
Of those examples provided in the Specification, many share a similar structure. That similar structure is:
PNG
media_image9.png
90
202
media_image9.png
Greyscale
. The nitrogen atom two atoms over from the sulfur can also be a carbon atom. Despite the relative homogeneity of compounds shown in the Specification with respect to structure, Table 4 provides variability and ND (no detectable labeling) for many of the compounds. Instant claim 69 provides for tens of thousands of compound species or more.
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 a reasonable genus which is fully described in the specification.
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 69-86 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of copending Application No 18/446,017. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the compounds claimed in the ‘017 application overlap with many of those claimed. With substantial overlap of the claimed Formula Ib of the instant claim and claim 109 of the ‘017 application, it appears that many compounds are claimed by each application.
Claims 69-86 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-51 of copending Application No 19/536,645. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the compounds claimed in the ‘645 application overlap with many of those claimed. With substantial overlap of the claimed Formula Ib of the instant claim and claim 109 of the ‘645 application, it appears that many compounds are claimed by each application. In particular, the R7 set forth in claim 1 of the ‘645 application is set forth in claim 78 of the instant application. Thus, claim 78 of the instant application appears to overlap substantially with claim 1 of the ‘645 application.
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
Prosecution Insights