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 1-6 are currently pending in this Application.
Priority
CONTINUING DATA
This application is a 371 of PCT/KR2022/005451 04/15/2022
FOREIGN APPLICATIONS
KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2021-0049613 04/16/2021
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement, filed on 10/12/2023; 05/03/2024; 07/05/2024; 08/14/2024 and 11/19/2024 have been considered. Please refer to Applicant’s copies of the 1449 submitted herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 8,729,273 B2 in view of Gennaro ( Gennaro, A.R; Remington’s Pharmaceutical Sciences, Mack Publishing Co., Easton, PA; 1985)
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art (See MPEP § 2141.01)
The instant invention is drawn to a composite formulation for oral administration comprising 1-(3-cyano-1-isopropyl-indol-5-yl)pyrazol-4-carboxylic acid,
PNG
media_image1.png
196
317
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof. The claim also recites the particle size of the API. Dependent claims recite that formulation further comprises one or more excipients such as glidants and does not specifically list silicon compounds as the glidants.
US Patent No. 8,729,273 B2 claims are directed to an oral formulation comprising an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) selected from 1-(3-cyano-1-isopropyl-indol-5-yl)pyrazol-4-carboxylic acid or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof; and a glidant.
Ascertainment of the differences between the prior art and the claims (See MPEP § 2141.02)
US Patent No. 8,729,273 B2 does not specifically describe any “glidant” or specifically outline a singular formulation that includes each and all the excipient categories of diluent, disintegrant, glidant and lubricant.
Gennaro provides an encyclopedic review of pure and applied scientific topics relevant to the theory and practice of pharmacy, including the formulation of drug compounds. Gennaro teaches that a glidant is a substance which improves the flow characteristics of a powder mixture.
Finding of prima facie obviousness --- rationale and motivation (See MPEP § 2142-2143)
Applicants invention is unpatentable over the disclosure of US Patent No. 8,729,273 B2 in view of the teaching of Gennaro, because a PHOSITA, at the effective time of filing, would have a reasonable expectation at preparing an oral formulation comprising Tigulixostat along with glidant because US Patent No. 8,729,273 B2 provides Tigulixostat as a xanthine oxidase inhibitor and further provides for pharmaceutical compositions for oral administration comprising a range of suitable excipients including an excipient that Gennaro teaches. MPEP § 2144(II) states:
An “obvious to try” rationale may support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious where one skilled in the art is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. “[A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success to prepare the claimed oral composition.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
Claims 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/255,241 in view of US Patent No. 5,879,706 to Cater et al.
An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but an examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined claims are either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to the same art specific subject matter.
The instant invention is drawn to a composite formulation for oral administration comprising 1-(3-cyano-1-isopropyl-indol-5-yl)pyrazol-4-carboxylic acid,
PNG
media_image1.png
196
317
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof. The claim also recites the particle size of the API. Dependent claims recite that formulation further comprises one or more excipients such as glidants and does not specifically list silicon compounds as the glidants.
U.S. Patent Application No. 18/255,241 claims are directed to an oral formulation comprising an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) selected from 1-(3-cyano-1-isopropyl-indol-5-yl)pyrazol-4-carboxylic acid or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof; and a glidant.
Carter et al teaches colloidal silicon dioxide at 0.05-3% w/w is a known excipient for an oral formulations ( see abstract and claim1).
“Factors that may be considered in determining level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) the education level of active workers in the field.” Envtl. Designs, Ltd. V. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.3d 1376, 1381-82 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). The above factors are not exhaustive, but are a guide. Id.
In this case, the education level of the inventor and the education level of active workers in the field of organic chemistry, as well as the high degree of sophistication required to solve problems encountered in the art, a person of ordinary skill in the art would likely have at least a college degree in the field of organic chemistry, with industry experience, i.e., a masters or doctorate level of skill and knowledge in the laboratory. Thus, the level of skill in the art is relatively high.
“Structural similarity between claimed and prior art subject matter, proved by combining references or otherwise, where the prior art gives reason or motivation to make the claimed compositions, create a prima facie case of obviousness.” Takeda v. Alphapharm, 83 USPQ2d 1169 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “The ‘reason or motivation’ need not be an explicit teaching that the claimed compound will have a particular utility; it is sufficient to show that the claimed and prior art compounds possess a ‘sufficiently close relationship…to create an expectation,’ in light of the totality of the prior art, that the new compound will have ‘similar properties’ to the old.” Aventis v. Lupin, 84 USPQ2d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing Dillion, 919 F.2d 692). “Once such prima facie case is established, it falls to the applicant or patentee to rebut it, for example with a showing that the claimed compound has unexpected properties.” Id.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include silicon dioxide into the composition of the instant claimed products. Accordingly, U.S. Patent Application No. 18/255,241 in view of US Patent No. 5,879,706 to Cater et al render the instant claims obvious absent a showing of unpredictability or comparative evidence suggesting otherwise.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented,
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
Claims 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/255,212 in view of US Patent No. 5,879,706 to Cater et al.
An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but an examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined claims are either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to the same art specific subject matter.
The instant invention is drawn to a composite formulation for oral administration comprising 1-(3-cyano-1-isopropyl-indol-5-yl)pyrazol-4-carboxylic acid,
PNG
media_image1.png
196
317
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof. The claim also recites the particle size of the API. Dependent claims recite that formulation further comprises one or more excipients such as glidants and does not specifically list silicon compounds as the glidants.
U.S. Patent Application No. 18/255,212 claims are directed to a stable oral formulation comprising an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API), which is 1-(3-cyano-1-isopropyl-indol-5-yl)pyrazol-4-carboxylic acid or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof and one or more excipients.
Carter et al teaches colloidal silicon dioxide at 0.05-3% w/w is a known excipient for an oral formulations ( see abstract and claim1).
“Factors that may be considered in determining level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) the education level of active workers in the field.” Envtl. Designs, Ltd. V. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.3d 1376, 1381-82 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). The above factors are not exhaustive, but are a guide. Id.
In this case, the education level of the inventor and the education level of active workers in the field of organic chemistry, as well as the high degree of sophistication required to solve problems encountered in the art, a person of ordinary skill in the art would likely have at least a college degree in the field of organic chemistry, with industry experience, i.e., a masters or doctorate level of skill and knowledge in the laboratory. Thus, the level of skill in the art is relatively high.
“Structural similarity between claimed and prior art subject matter, proved by combining references or otherwise, where the prior art gives reason or motivation to make the claimed compositions, create a prima facie case of obviousness.” Takeda v. Alphapharm, 83 USPQ2d 1169 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “The ‘reason or motivation’ need not be an explicit teaching that the claimed compound will have a particular utility; it is sufficient to show that the claimed and prior art compounds possess a ‘sufficiently close relationship…to create an expectation,’ in light of the totality of the prior art, that the new compound will have ‘similar properties’ to the old.” Aventis v. Lupin, 84 USPQ2d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing Dillion, 919 F.2d 692). “Once such prima facie case is established, it falls to the applicant or patentee to rebut it, for example with a showing that the claimed compound has unexpected properties.” Id.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include silicon dioxide into the composition of the instant claimed products. Accordingly, U.S. Patent Application No. 18/255,212 in view of US Patent No. 5,879,706 to Cater et al render the instant claims obvious absent a showing of unpredictability or comparative evidence suggesting otherwise.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented,
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
Claims 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/570,552 in view of US Patent No. 5,879,706 to Cater et al.
An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but an examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined claims are either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to the same art specific subject matter.
The instant invention is drawn to a composite formulation for oral administration comprising 1-(3-cyano-1-isopropyl-indol-5-yl)pyrazol-4-carboxylic acid,
PNG
media_image1.png
196
317
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof. The claim also recites the particle size of the API. Dependent claims recite that formulation further comprises one or more excipients such as glidants and does not specifically list silicon compounds as the glidants.
U.S. Patent Application No. 18/570,552 claims are directed to a composite formulation for oral dosage comprising an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) selected from 1-(3-cyano-1-isopropyl-indol-5-yl)pyrazol-4-carboxylic acid or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, wherein the composite formulation for oral dosage does not comprise a pH modifier as an excipient.
Carter et al teaches colloidal silicon dioxide at 0.05-3% w/w is a known excipient for an oral formulations ( see abstract and claim1).
“Factors that may be considered in determining level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) the education level of active workers in the field.” Envtl. Designs, Ltd. V. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.3d 1376, 1381-82 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). The above factors are not exhaustive, but are a guide. Id.
In this case, the education level of the inventor and the education level of active workers in the field of organic chemistry, as well as the high degree of sophistication required to solve problems encountered in the art, a person of ordinary skill in the art would likely have at least a college degree in the field of organic chemistry, with industry experience, i.e., a masters or doctorate level of skill and knowledge in the laboratory. Thus, the level of skill in the art is relatively high.
“Structural similarity between claimed and prior art subject matter, proved by combining references or otherwise, where the prior art gives reason or motivation to make the claimed compositions, create a prima facie case of obviousness.” Takeda v. Alphapharm, 83 USPQ2d 1169 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “The ‘reason or motivation’ need not be an explicit teaching that the claimed compound will have a particular utility; it is sufficient to show that the claimed and prior art compounds possess a ‘sufficiently close relationship…to create an expectation,’ in light of the totality of the prior art, that the new compound will have ‘similar properties’ to the old.” Aventis v. Lupin, 84 USPQ2d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing Dillion, 919 F.2d 692). “Once such prima facie case is established, it falls to the applicant or patentee to rebut it, for example with a showing that the claimed compound has unexpected properties.” Id.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include silicon dioxide into the composition of the instant claimed products. Accordingly, U.S. Patent Application No. 18/255,212 in view of US Patent No. 5,879,706 to Cater et al render the instant claims obvious absent a showing of unpredictability or comparative evidence suggesting otherwise.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented,
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
Claims 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-6, 8 and 12-15 of U.S. Patent No. 8,729,273 B2 view of US Patent No. 5,879,706 to Cater et al.
An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but an examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined claims are either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to the same art specific subject matter.
The instant invention is drawn to a composite formulation for oral administration comprising 1-(3-cyano-1-isopropyl-indol-5-yl)pyrazol-4-carboxylic acid,
PNG
media_image1.png
196
317
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof. The claim also recites the particle size of the API. Dependent claims recite that formulation further comprises one or more excipients such as glidants and does not specifically list silicon compounds as the glidants.
U.S. Patent No. 8,729,273 B2 claims a genus of compounds that encompasses Tigulixostat, 1-(3-cyano-1-isopropyl-indol-5-yl)pyrazol-4-carboxylic acid. U.S. Patent No. 8,729,273 B2 also claim a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, diluent, an excipient, or a combination thereof.
Carter et al teaches colloidal silicon dioxide at 0.05-3% w/w is a known excipient for an oral formulations ( see abstract and claim1).
“Factors that may be considered in determining level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) the education level of active workers in the field.” Envtl. Designs, Ltd. V. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.3d 1376, 1381-82 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). The above factors are not exhaustive, but are a guide. Id.
In this case, the education level of the inventor and the education level of active workers in the field of organic chemistry, as well as the high degree of sophistication required to solve problems encountered in the art, a person of ordinary skill in the art would likely have at least a college degree in the field of organic chemistry, with industry experience, i.e., a masters or doctorate level of skill and knowledge in the laboratory. Thus, the level of skill in the art is relatively high.
“Structural similarity between claimed and prior art subject matter, proved by combining references or otherwise, where the prior art gives reason or motivation to make the claimed compositions, create a prima facie case of obviousness.” Takeda v. Alphapharm, 83 USPQ2d 1169 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “The ‘reason or motivation’ need not be an explicit teaching that the claimed compound will have a particular utility; it is sufficient to show that the claimed and prior art compounds possess a ‘sufficiently close relationship…to create an expectation,’ in light of the totality of the prior art, that the new compound will have ‘similar properties’ to the old.” Aventis v. Lupin, 84 USPQ2d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing Dillion, 919 F.2d 692). “Once such prima facie case is established, it falls to the applicant or patentee to rebut it, for example with a showing that the claimed compound has unexpected properties.” Id.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include silicon dioxide into the composition of the instant claimed products. Accordingly, U.S. Patent U.S. Patent No. 8,729,273 B2 view of US Patent No. 5,879,706 to Cater et al.render the instant claims obvious absent a showing of unpredictability or comparative evidence suggesting otherwise.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented,
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL A SAEED whose telephone number is (571) 272-0705.
Communication via Internet e-mail regarding this application, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise requires a signature, may be used by applicant and should be addressed to [Symbol font/0x5B]joseph.mckane@uspto.gov[Symbol font/0x5D]. All Internet e-mail communications will be made of record in the application file. PTO employees will not communicate with applicant via Internet e-mail where sensitive data will be exchanged or where there exists a possibility that sensitive data could be identified unless there is of record an express waiver of the confidentiality requirements under 35 U.S.C. 122 by the applicant. See the Interim Internet Usage Policy published by the Patent and Trademark Office Official Gazette on February 25, 1997 at 1195 OG 89.
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 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.
/Kamal A Saeed/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1626