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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s reply filed on March 16, 2026.
Restrictions/Elections.
Applicant’s election of Group I (Claims 1-7 and 10-13) in the reply filed on March 16, 2026, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a).
Applicant election of the following species:
PNG
media_image1.png
152
234
media_image1.png
Greyscale
as the compound of Formula (I) is also acknowledged.
However, in order to accelerate prosecution, the examination was expanded to the entire genus of Formula (I).
Status of Claims
Claims 1-21 are currently pending and are the subject of this office action.
Claims 8-9 and 14-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 16, 2026.
Claims 1-7 and 10-13 are presently under examination.
Priority
The present application is a 371 of PCT/CN2022/096734 filed on 06/02/2022 and claims priority to foreign application PCT/CN2021/098067 filed on 06/02/2022.
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 1-7 and 10-13 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. This is a written description rejection.
Claims 1-7 and 10-13 encompass compounds of general Formula (I):
PNG
media_image2.png
172
202
media_image2.png
Greyscale
M.P.E.P. #2163 states: “An applicant shows possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention….one must define a compound by ‘whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it’. A lack of adequate written description issue also arises if the knowledge and level of skill in the art would not permit one skilled in the art to immediately envisage the product claimed from the disclosed process”.
In Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc), the Federal Circuit stated that “the hallmark of written description is disclosure.” A specification 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).
The description requirement of the patent statute requires a description of an actual invention, not merely an indication of a result that one might achieve if one made that invention. See, e.g., In re Wilder, 22 USPQ 369, 372-3 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (holding that a claim was not adequately described because the specification did ‘little more than outline goals appellants hope the claimed invention achieves and the problems the invention will hopefully ameliorate’). This matter is of particular importance in the evaluation of claims drawn to a chemical genus which identifies a core compound bearing variable substituents. It has been held that “a generic claim may define the boundaries of a vast genus of chemical compounds, and yet the question may still remain whether the specification...demonstrates that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to a genus” with such breadth. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 94 USPQ2D 1161, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 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., quoting Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
However, 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. Ariad, 94 USPQ2D at 1171. 35 U.S. C. 112, first paragraph, requires a description of the invention that “clearly allow[s] persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the inventor invented what is claimed.” Ariad at 1172, quoting Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555 (1562-63) (Fed. Cir. 1991) (emphasis added). A sufficient disclosure is one which reasonably conveys to one having ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date of the application in question. Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563. The description must reasonably describe the invention, not simply indicate a result which one might achieve if one actually made the invention. Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568. To properly evaluate whether an applicant has complied with the written description requirement therefore requires an analysis of whether the skilled artisan would recognize, from the description provided, the applicants were in possession of sufficient compounds representing the full breadth of diversity of the genus claimed.
A description of a chemical genus will usually comprise a recitation of structural features common to the members of the genus, which features constitute a substantial portion of the members of the genus, which features constitute substantial portion of the genus. See Univ. of California vs. Eli Lilly, 43 USPQ 2d 1398, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997). This is analogous to enablement of a genus under section 112 first, by showing enablement of a representative number of species within the genus. A chemical genus can be adequately described if the disclosure presents a sufficient number of representative species that encompass the genus. If the genus has a substantial variance, the disclosure must describe a sufficient number of species to reflect the variation within that genus.
Here, applicants have claimed an extraordinarily large genus of chemical compounds encompassed by general Formula (I). The specification discloses a list of 25 compounds that are encompassed by the general Formula (I) of (see pages 69-84 of the specification).
R1a is always -C(=O)-NRxaRxb, wherein Rxa and Rxb are always C1-C4 alkyl,
Y1 is always O
U is always N
R2 is always H
n1 is always 2,
n2, n3 and n4 are always 1
R4 is always C1-5 alkyl, and
R3 is most of the time -CH2-CH2-CH2-NR-CH2-CH2-X-R’, wherein R is H or Me, X is O or S and R’ is Me, CF3, CF2, etc.
The size of the genus claimed is phenomenal, against which the applicants have offered evidence of being in possession of 25 compounds (see pages 69-84] of the specification). This small set of compounds cannot be viewed as being reasonably representative of the genus of compounds of Formula I in its claimed scope because no readily apparent combination of identifying characteristics is provided, other than the disclosure of those specific species as examples of the claimed genus, and in no way either represent the breadth of variable moieties which applicants have claimed, nor permit the skilled artisan to recognize that such claim breadth was actually in the applicants possession as of the time of filing the instant application.
Given the broad scope of the claimed subject matter, Applicant has not provided sufficient written description that would allow the skilled in the art to recognize that Applicant was in possession of most the compounds of the above general Formula I claimed.
In order to overcome this rejection, it is suggested that applicant amends the claims by narrowing Formula (I) closer to the 25 compounds made in the specification, wherein:
R1a is -C(=O)-NRxaRxb, wherein Rxa and Rxb are C1-C4 alkyl,
Y1 is O
U is N
R2 is H
n1 is 2,
n2, n3 and n4 are 1
R4 is C1-5 alkyl, and
R3 is most of the time -CH2-CH2-CH2-NR-CH2-CH2-X-R’, wherein R is H or Me, X is O or S and R’ is Me, CF3, CF2, etc.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1) Claim(s) 1-7 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cai et. al. (US 12,473,295).
The applied reference has a common applicant/inventors with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
For claims 1-7 Cai teaches the compounds of Formula (I):
PNG
media_image3.png
170
160
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(see bottom of column 3)
And more specifically, compounds from columns 205 through 428 which anticipate the structural limitations of claims 1-7, like for example:
PNG
media_image4.png
224
234
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(see claim 1).
For claims 10-13, Cai teaches that the compounds can be used for the treatment of leukemia (see abstract for example).
Further, the statement “for use as a medicament” is considered an intended use and does not add any new limitation to the claim. Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. V. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808, 62 USPQ2d 1781, 1785 (fed. Cir. 2002). “The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.” In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
2) Claim(s) 1-7 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Daskalakis et. al. (US 2024/0261292)
The applied reference has a common applicant/inventors with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
For claims 1-7 Daskalakis teaches the compounds of Formula (I):
PNG
media_image5.png
170
238
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(see abstract)
And more specifically, the following compound:
PNG
media_image6.png
226
232
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(see claim 15).
For claims 10-13, Daskalakis teaches that the compounds can be used for the treatment of leukemia (see [0001]).
Further, the statement “for use as a medicament” is considered an intended use and does not add any new limitation to the claim. Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. V. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808, 62 USPQ2d 1781, 1785 (fed. Cir. 2002). “The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.” In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
3) Claim(s) 1-7 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cai et. al. (WO 2022/262796, December 22, 2022)
The applied reference has a common applicant/inventors with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
For claims 1-7 Cai teaches the following compound:
PNG
media_image7.png
150
240
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(see claim 1)
For claims 10-13, Daskalakis teaches that the compounds can be used for the treatment of leukemia (see claim 10).
Further, the statement “for use as a medicament” is considered an intended use and does not add any new limitation to the claim. Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. V. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808, 62 USPQ2d 1781, 1785 (fed. Cir. 2002). “The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.” In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
4) Claim(s) 1-7 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Daskalakis et. al. (US 2025/0302840
The applied reference has a common applicant/inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
For claims 1-7 Daskalakis teaches the compounds of Formula (I):
PNG
media_image5.png
170
238
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(see abstract)
And more specifically, the following compound:
PNG
media_image6.png
226
232
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(see claim 17).
For claims 10-13, Daskalakis teaches that the compounds can be used for the treatment of leukemia (see [0003]).
Further, the statement “for use as a medicament” is considered an intended use and does not add any new limitation to the claim. Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. V. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808, 62 USPQ2d 1781, 1785 (fed. Cir. 2002). “The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.” In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
1) Claims 1-7 and 10-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,473,295. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the compound of claims 1-8 of the ‘295 patent anticipates all the structural limitations of instant claims 1-7 and 10-13.
2) Claims 1-7 and 10-13 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of copending Application No. 18/560,233 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the compound of claims 1-3 of the ‘233 application anticipates all the structural limitations of instant claims 1-7 and 10-13.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
3) Claims 1-7 and 10-13 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of copending Application No. 18/560,242 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the compound of claims 1-3 of the ‘242 application anticipates all the structural limitations of instant claims 1-7 and 10-13.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS L SZNAIDMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3498. The examiner can normally be reached Flexing M-F 7 AM-7 PM.
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, Amy L. Clark can be reached on 571 272-1310. 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.
/MARCOS L SZNAIDMAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1628
March 18, 2026.
Prosecution Insights