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, 3-5, 8, 10, 13-15, 17, 22-24, 32, 36-37, 41-43 and 46 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10, 13-15, 17, 22-24, 32, 36-37, 41-43 and 46 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.
i) The term “substituted” without saying which substituents are intended is indefinite. One skilled in the art cannot say which substituents are permitted and which ones are not. The intended optional substituents need to be listed in the claims.
ii) The term “heterocyclyl” is indefinite because it is not known which atoms are present, how many of each may be present and what kind of a ring (monocyclic, bicyclic, spiro, fused, bridged, saturated, etc.) is intended. See also the ring formed when R4 and R5 are taken together.
iii) The term “heteroaryl” is indefinite because it is not known how many and what kind of heteroatoms are involved and how many rings are present.
iv) The term “carbocyclyl” is indefinite because it is not known what kind of a ring is intended (monocyclic, bicyclic, spiro, fused, bridged, saturated, etc.).
v) The group “optionally substituted carbamide” is unclear because it is not a proper substituent but a compound. The group -C(O)-NH2 is a carboxamido and the group -NH-C(O)-NH2 is a ureido. Applicants’ intention is not known and a clarification is required.
v) The group “optionally substituted 2-10 membered heteroalkyl” is unclear. One skilled in the art cannot say what is intended. Is a group, such as alkoxy intended where the heteroatom is the point of attachment to the rest of the molecule. or is it a group, such as, haloalkyl, trimethylsilyl? Are these groups then considered the substituents or are they part of the group? Does the 2-10 just refer to the carbon count or are all the atoms counted? Note, R6 is attached to oxygen. Appropriate clarification is required.
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 37 and 41-43 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 enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention.
Regarding claims 37, 41 and 42 these claims read on kinase inhibition in subjects with below normal kinase activity, in subjects with normal kinase activity, or in asymptomatic mammals with up-regulated kinase activity. The specification fails to teach any benefit to be gained from such actions. Is extensive experimentation required on the part of a potential infringer to determine if his use of Applicants' inhibitor falls within the limitations of applicants' claim? In re Kirk and Petrow, 153 USPQ 48 (CCPA 1967).
The how to use portion of the statute has not been met. Applicants must teach the skilled practitioner, in this case a physician, how to treat a given subject. The physician clearly must know what diseases and what symptoms are to be treated. In this case, Applicants have not provided what is being treated by the claims, who the subject is, how one can identify said subject (i.e. how one can identify a subject in need), given no specific dose, given no specific dosing regimen, given no specific route of administration, and do not specify what diseases or symptoms they intend to treat.
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 the Supreme Court said in Brenner v. Manson, 148 USPQ at 696: “a patent is not a hunting license. It is not a reward for the search, but compensation for its successful conclusion.” As U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals stated In re Diedrich 138 USPQ at 130, quoting with approval from the decision of the board: “We do not believe that it was the intention of the statutes to require the Patent Office, the courts, or the public to play the sort of guessing game that might be involved if an applicant could satisfy the requirements of the statutes by indicating the usefulness of a claimed compound in terms of possible use so general as to be meaningless and then, after his research or that of his competitors has definitely ascertained an actual use for the compound, adducing evidence intended to show that a particular specific use would have been obvious to men skilled in the particular art to which this use relates.”
The treatment of cancer, autoimmune disease and Duchenne muscular dystrophy 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 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). See also In re Cortright, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1466 and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1370.
Pursuant to In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988), one considers the following factors to determine whether undue experimentation is required: (A) The breadth of the claims; (B) The nature of the invention; (C) The state of the prior art; (D) The level of one of ordinary skill; (E) The level of predictability in the art; (F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) The existence of working examples; and (H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. Some experimentation is not fatal; the issue is whether the amount of experimentation is “undue”; see In re Vaeck, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1444.
The analysis is as follows:
(1) Breadth of claims.
(a) Scope of the compounds. The scope of compound is broad.
(b) Scope of the diseases covered. Cancer, autoimmune disease and Duchenne muscular dystrophy are not a single disease, or cluster of closely related diseases. 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. For example, leukemia is any malignant neoplasm of the blood-forming tissues. Leukemia can arise from many different sources. These include viruses such as EBV, which causes Burkitt's lymphoma, and HTLV-1, linked to certain T cell leukemias. Others are linked to genetic disorders, such as Fanconi's anemia, which is a familial disorder, and Down's syndrome. Other leukemias are caused by exposure to carcinogens such as benzene, and some are actually caused by treatment with other neoplastic agents. Still other leukemias arise from ionizing radiation, and many are idiopathic. Leukemias also differ greatly in the morphology, degree of differentiation, body location (e.g., bone marrow, lymphoid organs, etc.) There are dozens of leukemias. There are B-Cell Neoplasms such as B-cell prolymphocytic leukemia and Hairy cell leukemia (HCL, a chronic Lymphoid leukemia). There are T-Cell Neoplasms such as T-cell prolymphocytic leukemia, aggressive NK cell leukemia, adult T cell leukemia/lymphoma (ATLL), and T-cell granular Lymphocytic leukemia. There are different kinds of acute myeloid leukemias (undifferentiated AML, acute myeloblastic, acute myelomonocytic leukemia, acute monocytic leukemias, acute monoblastic, acute megakaryoblastic (AmegL), acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL), and erythroleukemia). There is also lymphoblastic leukemia, hypocellular acute myeloid leukemia, Ph-/BCR- myeloid leukemia, and acute basophilic leukemia. Chromic leukemias include chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL, which exists in a B-cell and a T-cell type), prolymphocytic leukemia (PLL), large granular lymphocytic leukemia (LGLL, which goes under several other names as well), chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML), chronic neutrophilic leukemia, chronic eosinophilic leukemia (CEL), and many others.
The treatment of “autoimmune diseases” generally would be unprecedented feat. For a compound or genus to be effective against “autoimmune diseases” generally is contrary to medical science. The “autoimmune diseases” are a process that can take place in virtually any part of the body. There is a vast range of forms that it can take, causes for the problem, and biochemical pathways that mediate the inflammatory reaction. There are hundreds of such diseases, which have fundamentally different mechanisms and different underlying causes. There are both chronic and acute “autoimmune diseases,” most of which lack satisfactory treatment. The intractability of these disorders is clear evidence that the skill level in this art is low relative to the difficulty of the task.
Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a genetic disorder and lacks effective treatment to date.
Under such circumstances, it is proper for the PTO to require evidence that such an unprecedented feat has actually been accomplished, In re Ferens, 163 USPQ 609. No such evidence has been presented in this case. The failure of skilled scientists to achieve a goal is substantial evidence that achieving such a goal is beyond the skill of practitioners in that art, Genentech vs Novo Nordisk, 42 USPQ2nd 1001, 1006.
(2) The nature of the invention and predictability in the art: With specific reference to cancer, Ex parte Kranz, 19 USPQ2d 1216, 1219 notes the “general unpredictability of the field [of] …anti-cancer treatment.” In re Application of Hozumi et al., 226 USPQ 353 notes the “fact that the art of cancer chemotherapy is highly unpredictable.” More generally, the invention is directed toward medicine and is therefore physiological in nature. It is well established that “the scope of enablement varies inversely with the degree of unpredictability of the factors involved,” and physiological activity is generally considered to be an unpredictable factor. See In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970).
(3) Direction or Guidance: That provided is very limited. There is no dosage information.
(4) State of the Prior Art: The claimed compound is a quinazoline derivative. So far as the examiner is aware these have not been successfully used as treatment against cancer generally, autoimmune diseases generally or Duchenne muscular dystrophy.
(5) Working Examples: Applicants results against the specific cell lines shown in Tables 2 and 3 are sufficient to support colon cancer and ovarian cancer.
(6) Skill of those in the art: the prior art knows that there never has been a compound capable of treating cancers generally. “The cancer therapy art remains highly unpredictable, and no example exists for efficacy of a single product against tumors generally.” (<http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/1pecba.htm#7> ENABLEMENT DECISION TREE, Example F, situation 1). A similar statement appears at In re Application of Hozumi et al., 226 USPQ 353: “In spite of the vast expenditure of human and capital resources in recent years, no one drug has been found which is effective in treating all types of cancer. Cancer is not a simple disease, nor is it even a single disease, but a complex of a multitude of different entities, each behaving in a different way.” There are compounds that treat a modest range of cancers, but no one has ever been able to figure out how to get a compound to be effective against cancer generally, or even a majority of cancers.
The attempts to find compounds to treat the various cancers arguably constitute the single most massive enterprise in all of pharmacology. This has not resulted in finding any treatment for tumors generally. Indeed, the existence of such a "silver bullet" is contrary to our present understanding in oncology. This is because it is now understood that there is no “master switch” for cancers generally; cancers arise from a bewildering variety of differing mechanisms. Even the most broadly effective antitumor agents are only effective against a small fraction of the vast number of different cancers known. This is true in part because cancers arise from a wide variety of sources, primarily a wide variety of failures of the body's cell growth regulatory mechanisms, but also such external factors such as viruses (an estimated at least 20% are of viral origin e.g. Human papillomavirus, EBV, Hepatitis B and C, HHV-8, HTLV-1 and other retroviruses, and quite possibly Merkel cell polyomavirus, and there is some evidence that CMV is a causative agent in glioblastoma), exposure to chemicals such as tobacco tars, excess alcohol consumption (which causes hepatic cirrhosis, an important cause of HCC), ionizing radiation, and unknown environment factors.
Accordingly, there is substantive “reason for one skilled in the art to question the objective truth of the statement of utility or its scope” (In re Langer, 183 USPQ 288, 297).
Similarly, In re Novak, 134 USPQ 335, 337-338, says “unless one with ordinary skill in the art would accept those allegations as obviously valid and correct, it is proper for the examiner to ask for evidence which substantiates them.” There is no such evidence in this case. Likewise, In re Cortright, 49 USPQ2d 1464, states: “Moreover, we have not been shown that one of ordinary skill would necessarily conclude from the information expressly disclosed by the written description that the active ingredient” does what the specification surmises that it does. That is exactly the case here. Even if applicants’ assertion that cancer in general could be treated with these compounds were plausible--- which it is not ---, that would not suffice, as was stated in Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 75 USPQ2d 1297, 1301: “If mere plausibility were the test for enablement under section 112, applicants could obtain patent rights to “inventions” consisting of little more than respectable guesses as to the likelihood of their success.”
Different types of cancers affect different organs and have different methods of growth and harm to the body, and different vulnerabilities. The skill thus depends on the particular cancer involved. There are some cancers where the chemotherapy skill level is high and there are multiple successful chemotherapeutic treatments. The mechanism in these situations, however, is not necessarily the same as is alleged for these compounds.
(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.
There are numerous compounds excluded by proviso. If these compounds are excluded to avoid prior art rejections, Applicants are urgently requested to point to these compounds in the prior art because the disclosure of these excluded compounds is material to the examination of the instant application. Thus, compounds of the instant claims that differ from the excluded compounds by being homologues, analogues, ring position isomers or having different linking carbon chain lengths are rendered obvious by the excluded compounds should these be present in the prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCK KIFLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0668. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 6 PM, M-F.
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 at 571-272-9023. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
April 4, 2026
/BRUCK KIFLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1624