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 .
Priority
This application was filed 01/18/2024 which is a 371 of PCT/CN2022/089139 (04/26/2022) which claims foreign priority to China 202110459864.X (04/27/2021). Claims 1-19 are before the Examiner.
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 15-16 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 claim(s) contains 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 make and/or use the invention. The specification does not reasonably provide enablement for preventing diseases. 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. Applicants are not enabled for preventing any of these diseases. The only established prophylactics are vaccines not the compounds such as presently claimed. In addition, it is presumed that “prevention” of the claimed diseases would require a method of identifying those individuals who will develop the claimed diseases before they exhibit the symptoms. There is no evidence of record that would guide the skilled clinician to identify those who have the potential of becoming afflicted. “The factors to be considered [in making an enablement rejection] have been summarized as a) the quantity of experimentation necessary, b) the amount of direction or guidance presented, c) the presence or absence of working examples, d) the nature of the invention, e) the state of the prior art, f) the relative skill of those in that art, g) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, h) and the breadth of the claims”, In re Rainer, 146 USPQ 218 (1965); In re Colianni, 195 USPQ 150, Ex parte Formal, 230 USPQ 546. a) As discussed above, preventing diseases required identifying those patients who will acquire the disease before the disease occurs. This would require extensive and potentially open-ended clinical research on healthy subjects. B) The passage spanning lines of the instant specification, lists the diseases applicant intends to prevent. C) There are no working examples of such preventive procedure in a man or animal in the specification. D) The claims rejected are drawn to the medical prevention and are therefore physiological in nature. E) The state of the art is that no general procedure is art-recognized for determining which patients generally will become afflicted with disease before the fact. F) The artisan using Applicant’s invention would be a board certified physician who specializes in treating diseases. Despite intensive efforts, pharmaceutical science has been unable to find a way of getting a compound to be effective for the prevention of diseases generally. 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 the practitioners in that art, Genetech vs. Novo Nordisk, 42 USPQ2nd 1001, 1006. This establishes that it is not reasonable to any agent to be able to prevent diseases generally. That is, the skill is so low that no compound effective generally against diseases has ever been found let alone one that can prevent such conditions. G) 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, 214 (CCPA 1970). H) The claims broadly read on all patients, not just those undergoing therapy for the claimed diseases and on the multitude of compounds embraced by formula (I).
The Examiner suggests deletion of the word “prevention”.
Claims 15-16 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 claim(s) contains 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 make and/or use the invention.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue”. These factors include 1) the breadth of the claims, 2) the nature of the invention, 3) the state of the prior art, 4) the level of one of ordinary skill, 5) the level of predictability in the art, 6) the amount of direction provided by the inventor, 7) the existence of working examples, and 8) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The nature of the invention: The nature of the invention is the method of treating a disease associated with retinoic acid receptor (claim 15) or treating psoriasis, ichthyosis, keratosis, hyperpigmentation and dry eye syndrome (claim 16).
The state of the prior art: The state of the prior art is that it involves screening in vitro and in vivo to determine which compounds exhibit the desired pharmacological activities (i.e. what compounds can treat which specific disease). There is no absolute predictability even in view of the seemingly high level of skill in the art. The existence of these obstacles establishes that the contemporary knowledge in the art would prevent one of ordinary skill in the art from accepting any therapeutic regimen on its face. There is support for the use of the compounds of the claims for the treatment of acne and pimples. However, there is no support for the treatment of ichthyosis, keratosis, hyperpigmentation and dry eye syndrome or any other disease linked to retinoic acid receptor activity.
The predictability in the art: It is noted that the pharmaceutical art is unpredictable, requiring each embodiment to be individually assessed for physiological activity. In re Fisher, 427 F. 2d 833, 166 USPQ 18 (CCPA 1970) indicates that the more unpredictable an area is, the more specific enablement is necessary in order to satisfy the statute. In the instant case, the instantly claimed invention is highly unpredictable since one skilled in the art would recognize that in regards to the therapeutic effects of all diseases, whether or not the modulation of bradykinin receptors would make a difference in the disease. Hence, in the absence of a showing of a nexus between any and all known diseases and the modulation of retinoic acid receptors, one of ordinary skill in the art is unable to fully predict possible results from the administration of the compound of claim 1 due to the unpredictability of the role of modulation of retinoic acid receptors.
The presence or absence of working examples: The compounds of the claims are known to treat acne and pimples. There are no working examples of the instant compounds treating psoriasis, dry eye syndrome or the other conditions listed in claim 16.
The amount of direction or guidance present: The guidance present in the specification is that of the compounds have retinoic acid receptor activity. The art is known for using the instantly claimed compounds to treat acne (trifarotene). The specification does not provide a nexus between retinoic acid receptor activity and the treatment of psoriasis, dry eye syndrome or other conditions listed in claim 16 or “diseases” linked to retinoic acid receptor activity. The specification does not seem to enable a correlation between the mediation of retinoic acid receptors and the treatment of any and all diseases or the diseases listed in claim 16.
The breadth of the claims: The claims are drawn to the treatment of any and all diseases mediated by the retinoic acid receptor with the compound of claim 1.
The quantity of experimentation needed: The quantity of experimentation needed is undue. One skilled in the art would need to determine what diseases out of all known diseases would be benefited by the mediation of bradykinin receptors and then would further need to determine which of the claimed compounds would provide treatment of the disease.
The level of the skill in the art: The level of skill in the art is high. However, due to the unpredictability in the pharmaceutical art, it is noted that each embodiment of the invention is required to be individually assessed for physiological activity by in vitro and in vivo screening to determine which compounds exhibit the desired pharmacological activity and which diseases would benefit from this activity.
Thus, the specification fails to provide sufficient support of the broad use of the compounds of claim 1 for the treatment of any disease. As a result necessitating one of ordinary skill to perform an exhaustive search for which diseases can be treated by which compound of claim 1 in order to practice the claimed invention.
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 “[p]atent 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”.
Therefore, in view of the Wands factors and In re Fisher (CCPA 1970) discussed above, to practice the claimed invention herein, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to engage in undue experimentation to test which diseases can be treated by the compounds of the instant claims, with no assurance of success.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buttner. Buttner teaches compounds such as formula 5 page 4835 that anticipates a compound of claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-8, 12-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 822757(Biadatti) and Thoreau in view of Narang. Biadatti teaches compounds that fit the claims without the silicon atom(s) in claim 1 in the abstract and in the claims for the treatment of acne. Thoreau teaches trifarotene (CD5789) for the treatment of acne also without the silicone. Both Biadatti and Thoreau teach the instantly claimed compounds without the silicone. Narang (chapter 14) teach the use of polydimethylsiloxane versions of compounds to aid in topically applied skin cremes/ointments. Specifically adding a Si atom/complex to the active compound (trifarotene) aids in the compound in topical drug delivery efficiency. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a PDMS version of a known compound (Trifarotene) to provide more efficient drug delivery as a topically applied composition.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 are free of prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to D MARGARET M SEAMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm Eastern.
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, Andrew Kosar can be reached at 571-272-0913. 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.
/D MARGARET M SEAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1625
Prosecution Insights