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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/26/23 and 5/11/26 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-21 are pending and are examined.
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 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.
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) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (“Radiosynthesis of the HIV integrase inhibitor [18F]MK-0518 (Isentress).” J. Labelled Compound and Radiopharmaceuticals. 53, 517-520.
Regarding Claim 1, Li teaches a method of analysing radiochemical purity and chemical impurities in a radiopharmaceutical composition (see abstract, 2nd sentence regarding [18F[4-fluorobenzlamine),
using reversed phase HPLC, wherein the radiopharmaceutical composition comprises a compound or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, labelled with [18F] (p. 519, 2nd column 2nd paragraph. The [18F]MK-0518 was purified on a semi-preparative reverse-phase HPLC system), and
wherein said method comprises:(a) providing a sample of the radiopharmaceutical composition to an HPLC column while a mobile phase is water, or water and organic solvent, or a neutral pH buffer, or a neutral pH buffer and organic solvent subsequently (b) providing a different mobile phase comprising an acid modifier, water and organic solvent to the HPLC column. (p. 519, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph, the mobile phase was acetonitrile (CH3CN) containing 0.1% TFA (A) and phosphate buffer).
Regarding Claim 2, Li teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the mobile phase in step (a) is water and organic solvent (p. 519, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph, the mobile phase was acetonitrile (CH3CN) containing 0.1% TFA (A) and phosphate buffer).
Regarding Claim 3, Li teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the organic solvent is selected from acetonitrile or methanol (p. 519, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph, the mobile phase was acetonitrile (CH3CN) containing 0.1% TFA (A) and phosphate buffer).
Regarding Claim 4, Li teaches the method to claim 1, according to any one of wherein the mobile phase in step (a) and/or step (b) comprises one or more organic solvents (p. 519, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph, the mobile phase was acetonitrile (CH3CN) containing 0.1% TFA (A) and phosphate buffer).
Regarding Claim 5, Li teaches the method to claim 1, wherein the one or more organic solvents are the same in step (a) and step (b) (p. 519, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph, the mobile phase was acetonitrile (CH3CN) containing 0.1% TFA (A) and phosphate buffer).
Regarding Claim 6, Li teaches the method the method according to any one of wherein a[[the]] proportion of organic solvent in step (a) is between 10% and 60% (p. 519, 10% to 30%, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph).
Regarding Claim 7, Li teaches the method according to claim 1 wherein a proportion of organic solvent in step (b) is between 1% and 100% (p. 519, 10% to 30%, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph).
Regarding Claim 8, Li teaches the method according to claim 1 wherein a proportion of organic solvent is increased on a gradient in step (b) (p. 519, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph, a gradient method was used).
Regarding Claim 9, Li teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein the increase in a[[the]] proportion of organic solvent in step (b) is carried out in steps or as a continuous increase (p. 519, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph, a gradient method was used).
Regarding Claim 10, Li teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the proportion of acid modifier in step (b) is at least 0.1% (p. 519, 0.1% TFA, p.529, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph).
Regarding Claim 11, Li teaches the method according claim 1 the method according to any one of wherein the acid modifier in step (b) is selected from trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), formic acid, acetic acid, phosphoric acid, citric acid, and one or more acidic phosphate buffers, or a combination thereof (p. 519, 0.1% TFA, p.529, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph).
Regarding Claim 12, Li teaches the method according to claim 1 the method according to any one of wherein the radiopharmaceutical composition further comprises ethanol and cyclodextrin (ethanol, p. 519, 2nd column, 1st paragraph).
Regarding Claim 14, Li teaches the method according to claim 1 the time period between step (a) and step (b) is at least 1 second (minutes, steps for the radiochemistry see p. 519).
Regarding Claim 15, Li teaches the method according to claim 1 wherein a time period between step (a) and step (b) is between 1 second and 5 minutes (minutes, steps for the radiochemistry see p. 519).
Regarding Claim 16, Li teaches the method according to claim 1 wherein a[[the]] time period between step (a) and step (b) is between 5 seconds and 60 seconds (1 min, p. 519).
Regarding Claim 18, Li teaches the method according to claim 1 wherein the concentration of buffer in mobile phase A is between 0.1 and 100 mM concentrations p. 519, millimolar (mM).
Regarding Claim 19, Li teaches the method according to claim 1 wherein the radiopharmaceutical composition is for use in Positron Emission Tomography (PET) (positron emission tomography. See Abstract.).
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 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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (“Radiosynthesis of the HIV integrase inhibitor [18F]MK-0518 (Isentress).” J. Labelled Compound and Radiopharmaceuticals. 53, 517-520).
Regarding Claim 17, Li teaches the method according to claim 1.
Li is silent to the time period between step (a) and step (b) is 0 seconds.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improved the method of Li by setting the time period between step (a) and step (b) to be 0 seconds since it is a standard laboratory technique to perform the steps in the shortest amount of time with a reasonable expectation of success (See KSR in MPEP 2143(I)(C), (E)).
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (“Radiosynthesis of the HIV integrase inhibitor [18F]MK-0518 (Isentress).” J. Labelled Compound and Radiopharmaceuticals. 53, 517-520), in view of Cesati (WO 2013/173004).
Regarding Claims 13 and 20, Li teaches the method according to claim 1.
Li is silent to wherein the radiopharmaceutical composition further comprises ascorbic acid and wherein the radiopharmaceutical is selected from flurpiridaz.
Cesati teaches in the related art of radiopharmaceutical synthesis method. In one embodiment, a composition is provided comprising ascorbic acid and an imaging agen. 3. The method of claim 1 or 2, wherein the composition comprises ascorbic acid. See Claim 3. FIG. 9 demonstrates the retention profile of the PVDF, PTFE and RC filter membranes for the .sup.18F-bearing radiopharmaceutical, flurpiridaz F 18. These experiments demonstrate the superiority of the PTFE and RC filters for F-bearing radiopharmaceuticals such as flurpiridaz F 18.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have addedascorbic acid to the radiopharmaceutical and the radiopharmaceutical is flurpiridaz, as taught by Cesati, in the methoid of Li for superiority and increased yields, as taught by Cesati, in the Abstract.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACQUELINE BRAZIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1457. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/JB/
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights