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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/19/2023 and 06/01/2026 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group IV, claims 20-34, drawn to a compound selected from the group consisting of one of Formulae (Ei) - (Mi), and the species election of a compound of Cyclization Substrate 1 at Para. [092] in the reply filed on 06/01/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-8 and 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/01/2026.
The elected species was not found in the prior art. Accordingly, the search was expanded until art was found reading on each claim under examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 24 and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 24 and 30 recite “wherein RAx is hydrogen, C1-6-alkyl” which should recite “wherein RAx is hydrogen or C1-6-alkyl” for clarity, as RAx cannot be both hydrogen and C1-6-alkyl.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 20-32 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc), the Federal Circuit noted the importance of an application's disclosure and stated, “the hallmark of written description is disclosure.” A disclosure adequately describes an invention when it “reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Id. at 1351. “A ‘mere wish or plan' for obtaining the claimed invention is not adequate written description.” Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs, 636 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
What is required to meet the written description requirement “varies with the nature and scope of the invention at issue, and with the scientific and technologic knowledge already in existence.” Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The Federal Circuit explained what is required to meet the written description requirement in Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.:
This inquiry, as we have long held, is a question of fact. Ralston Purina, 772 F.2d at 575. Thus, we have recognized that determining whether a patent complies with the written description requirement will necessarily vary depending on the context. Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357-58 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Specifically, the level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology. Id. For generic claims, we have set forth a number of factors for evaluating the adequacy of the disclosure, including “the existing knowledge in the particular field, the extent and content of the prior art, the maturity of the science or technology, [and] the predictability of the aspect at issue.” Id. at 1359.
A written description of a chemical genus “requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, [or] chemical name” of the claimed subject matter sufficient to distinguish it from other materials. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 199 F.3d 1559, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Federal Circuit reflected on Eli Lilly in Ariad while explaining how to sufficiently describe of a genus of compounds:
We held that a sufficient description of a genus instead requires the disclosure of
either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or
structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can “visualize or recognize” the members of the genus. Id. at 1568-69. We explained that an adequate written description requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, physical properties, or other properties, of species falling within the genus sufficient to distinguish the genus from other materials. Id. at 1568 (quoting Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). We have also held that functional claim language can meet the written description requirement when the art has established a correlation between structure and function. See Enzo, 323 F.3d at 964 (quoting 66 Fed. Reg. 1099 (Jan. 5, 2001)). But merely drawing a fence around the outer limits of a purported genus is not an adequate substitute for describing a variety of materials constituting the genus and showing that one has invented a genus and not just a species.
A "representative number of species" must typify the entire claimed genus and account for variation between the species of the genus.
[A] patentee of a biotechnological invention cannot necessarily claim a genus after only describing a limited number of species because there may be unpredictability in the results obtained from species other than those specifically enumerated. Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1508, 1514 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The present claims encompass compounds of Formulae (Ei) – (Mi) of claim 20.
By contrast, the specification only shows one exemplary compound/narrow genus of compounds corresponding to those of claim 20. See Example 1, Para. [090] – [0105], Cyclization Substrate 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
179
133
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
These few species cannot possibly typify the entire genus claimed or account for all of the variation between species of such a genus. For example, while the claimed genus of compounds encompasses compounds wherein ring A represents a saturated or unsaturated carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring containing 5-7 ring atoms, the specification only provides support for the m-methoxyphenyl group of Cyclization Substrate 1. Note that even when considered in context of the entire disclosure, i.e. the intended use of Cyclization Substate 1 and other compounds of claim 20 in the synthesis of steroid ring systems, support for the entire genus cannot be afforded. A PHOSITA would not, for example, consider embodiments wherein ring A is cyclohexyl supported as it is unclear how it would be capable of participation in the cyclization process. Support for the entirety of the claimed genus cannot be extrapolated from the one species/narrow genus of Cyclization Substrate 1.
Chemistry and biotechnology are generally considered to be unpredictable and/or have unpredictable factors. See, e.g., In re Carleton, 599 F.2d 1021, 202 USPQ 165, 170 (CCPA 1979) ("Although there is a vast amount of knowledge about general relationships in the chemical arts, chemistry is still largely empirical, and there is often great difficulty in predicting precisely how a given compound will behave.”). The pharmaceutical art, that is the use of a chemical compound to affect a desired physiological activity, is generally considered to be unpredictable and/or have unpredictable factors. See, e.g., In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839 (CCPA 1970) (“In cases involving unpredictable factors, such as most chemical reactions and physiological activity, the scope of enablement obviously varies inversely with the degree of unpredictability of the factors involved (emphasis added); In re Bowden, 183 F.2d 115, 86 USPQ 419, 423 (“chemical reactions frequently are unpredictable”).
Considering the unpredictability found in chemistry and biotechnology. Accordingly, when a claim presents a genus with substantial variation as that currently presented by Applicant, the disclosure must adequately reflect such variation with a representative number of species. The lack of any disclosure of examples may be considered in determining whether a claimed invention was adequately described. Boston Scientific Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 647 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
A few species is not a “representative number of species” for unpredictable arts such as chemistry and biotechnology. See, e.g., Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1354-55 (claiming that the inventor has an obligation to disclose examples when the art is unpredictable). The specification, then, is considered devoid of sufficiently detailed, relevant, identifying characteristics demonstrating that Applicant was in possession of the entirety of the genus now claimed, i.e., additional complete or partial structures, other physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or some combination thereof demonstrating possession of the entirety of the claimed genus.
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 20-34 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 20 recites “J is a group that contains a nucleophile to participate in the cyclization process”. The term “the cyclization process” lacks antecedent basis and it is therefore unclear what cyclization process the claim refers to. Furthermore, “a nucleophile to participate in the cyclization process” is interpreted as intended use and whether the nucleophile is capable of participating in the cyclization process structurally limits the variable J. It is unclear what structural components are necessary to be considered a nucleophile capable of participation. For example, a phenyl ring is capable of acting as a nucleophile to varying degrees depending on substitution, and it is unclear whether an electron donating group such as -OMe is necessary to render a phenyl group capable of participation in the cyclization process. Dependent claims 21-34 which fail to rectify the indefiniteness issues of claim 20 are included in this rejection.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 33 depends from claim 21 which requires a compound of Formula (Mi) of claim 20. The stereochemistry of the methyl group in the structure of claim 33 at the position corresponding to R13 of formula (Mi) is different from that of Formula (Mi) in claim 20:
PNG
media_image2.png
32
23
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Formula (Mi)) versus
PNG
media_image3.png
31
24
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(claim 33). Claim 33 therefore fails to further limit the claim(s) from which it depends because the compound lies outside the scope of the claim(s) from which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 20-26 and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CAPlus Registry Number: RN 156412-67-8. [Database Registry Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio, Accession No. RN156412-67-8, Entered STN: 19 Jul 1994].
PNG
media_image4.png
504
645
media_image4.png
Greyscale
RN 156412-67-8 is a compound of Formula (Mi) or claim 20 wherein m is 1; Y is hydroxy; G is an unsubstituted carbon atom; RA is OMe; R9 and R13 are each Me; Rc is not present; there are three RD and two are methyl and one is oxo; and each dashed bond is a single bond. Accordingly, claims 20-26 and 28-31 are anticipated.
Registry number RN 156412-67-8 is available as prior art as of 19 Jul 1994, the day it was indexed into the CAplus database.
See MPEP 2128: ELECTRONIC PUBLICATIONS AS PRIOR ART Status as a "Printed Publication" An electronic publication, including an on-line database or Internet publication, is considered to be a “printed publication” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (b) provided the publication was accessible to persons concerned with the art to which the document relates. See In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 227, 210 USPQ 790, 795 (CCPA 1981) Since this date represents the date that each compound entered the CAPlus database on STN, this represents the date that each compound was made accessible to the public.
The aforementioned compounds anticipate the instantly claimed compounds: It is further noted that for the purposes of determining if a reference is a “printed publication” for the purposes of 102(b), MPEP 2128 states the following:
PNG
media_image5.png
181
880
media_image5.png
Greyscale
where “prior art disclosures…on an on-line database are considered to be publicly available as of the date the item was publicly posted.” Since each of the database entries above lists the date that each compound was entered into the on-line database, the compounds were made publicly available as of that date in each citation, and the claims are anticipated.
Allowable Subject Matter
The elected species and claims 27 and 32-34 are allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Claims 20-34 are rejected.
Claims 5-8 and 11 are withdrawn.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JED A KUCHARCZK whose telephone number is (571)270-5206. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 to 5.
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, Adam Milligan can be reached at (571) 270-7674. 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.
/JED A KUCHARCZK/Examiner, Art Unit 1623
/VALERIE RODRIGUEZ-GARCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1621
Prosecution Insights