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 .
DETAIL ACTION
This office action is a response to a 371 application filed -----12/29/2023, which is a national stage application of PCT/IB2022/055995 filed 6/28/2022, which claims foreign priority to PT117313 filed 6/29/2021 and EP21182608.6 filed 6/29/2021.
As filed, claims 1-17 and 19-22 are pending, wherein claim 1 is an independent claim; and claim 18 is cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/21/2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The amendment filed 12/29/2023 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “each of which is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety”.
MPEP 211.02 and MPEP 201.06(c)(IV) state the following in regard to “Incorporation by Reference” and PCT Rule 20.6, Rule 20.7 and Rule 4.18 are directed specifically to International applications:
MPEP 211.02, in-part
For applications filed on or after September 21, 2004, a claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120 and 37 CFR 1.78 for benefit of a prior-filed provisional application, nonprovisional application, international application designating the United States, or international design application designating the United States that was present on the filing date of the continuation or divisional application, or the nonprovisional application claiming benefit of a prior-filed provisional application, is considered an incorporation by reference of the prior-filed application as to inadvertently omitted material, subject to the conditions and requirements of 37 CFR 1.57(b). The purpose of 37 CFR 1.57(b) is to provide a safeguard for applicants when all or a portion of the specification and/or drawing(s) is (are) inadvertently omitted from an application. See MPEP § 201.06 and 217. However, applicants are encouraged to provide in the specification an explicit incorporation by reference statement to the prior-filed application(s) for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120 if applicants do not wish the incorporation by reference to be limited to inadvertently omitted material pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(b). See 37 CFR 1.57(c). See also MPEP §§ 217 and MPEP § 608.01(p).
MPEP 201.06(c)(IV), in-part
201.06(c) 37 CFR 1.53(b) and 37 CFR 1.63(d) Divisional-Continuation Procedure [R-07.2015]
IV. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
An applicant may incorporate by reference the prior application by including, in the continuing application-as-filed, an explicit statement that such specifically enumerated prior application or applications are “hereby incorporated by reference.” The statement must appear in the specification. See 37 CFR 1.57(c) and MPEP § 608.01(p). The inclusion of this incorporation by reference statement will permit an applicant to amend the continuing application to include subject matter from the prior application(s), without the need for a petition provided the continuing application is entitled to a filing date notwithstanding the incorporation by reference. For applications filed prior to September 21, 2004, the incorporation by reference statement may appear in the transmittal letter or in the specification. Note that for applications filed prior to September 21, 2004, if applicants used a former version of the transmittal letter form provided by the USPTO, the incorporation by reference statement could only be relied upon to add inadvertently omitted material to the continuation or divisional application.
An incorporation by reference statement added after an application’s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date (see 35 U.S.C. 132(a) ). If an incorporation by reference statement is included in an amendment to the specification to add a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 120 after the filing date of the application, the amendment would not be proper. When a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 120 is submitted after the filing of an application, the reference to the prior application cannot include an incorporation by reference statement of the prior application. See Dart Indus. v. Banner, 636 F.2d 684, 207 USPQ 273 (C.A.D.C. 1980).
20.6 Confirmation of Incorporation by Reference of Elements and Parts
(a) The applicant may submit to the receiving Office, within the applicable time limit under Rule 20.7, a written notice confirming that an element or part is incorporated by reference in the international application under Rule 4.18, accompanied by:
(i) a sheet or sheets embodying the entire element as contained in the earlier application or embodying the part concerned;
(ii) where the applicant has not already complied with Rule 17.1(a), (b) or (b-bis) in relation to the priority document, a copy of the earlier application as filed;
(iii) where the earlier application is not in the language in which the international application is filed, a translation of the earlier application into that language or, where a translation of the international application is required under Rule 12.3(a) or 12.4(a), a translation of the earlier application into both the language in which the international application is filed and the language of that translation; and
(iv) in the case of a part of the description, claims or drawings, an indication as to where that part is contained in the earlier application and, where applicable, in any translation referred to in item (iii).
(b) Where the receiving Office finds that the requirements of Rule 4.18 and paragraph (a) have been complied with and that the element or part referred to in paragraph (a) is completely contained in the earlier application concerned, that element or part shall be considered to have been contained in the purported international application on the date on which one or more elements referred to in Article 11(1)(iii) were first received by the receiving Office.
(c) Where the receiving Office finds that a requirement under Rule 4.18 or paragraph (a) has not been complied with or that the element or part referred to in paragraph (a) is not completely contained in the earlier application concerned, the receiving Office shall proceed as provided for in Rule 20.3(b)(i), 20.5(b) or 20.5(c), as the case may be.
20.7 Time Limit
(a) The applicable time limit referred to in Rules 20.3(a) and (b), 20.4, 20.5(a), (b) and (c), and 20.6(a) shall be:
(i) where an invitation under Rule 20.3(a) or 20.5(a), as applicable, was sent to the applicant, two months from the date of the invitation;
(ii) where no such invitation was sent to the applicant, two months from the date on which one or more elements referred to in Article 11(1)(iii) were first received by the receiving Office.
(b) Where neither a correction under Article 11(2) nor a notice under Rule 20.6(a) confirming the incorporation by reference of an element referred to in Article 11(1)(iii)(d) or (e) is received by the receiving Office prior to the expiration of the applicable time limit under paragraph (a), any such correction or notice received by that Office after the expiration of that time limit but before it sends a notification to the applicant under Rule 20.4(i) shall be considered to have been received within that time limit.
4.18 Statement of Incorporation by Reference
Where the international application, on the date on which one or more elements referred to in Article 11(1)(iii) were first received by the receiving Office, claims the priority of an earlier application, the request may contain a statement that, where an element of the international application referred to in Article 11(1)(iii)(d) or (e) or a part of the description, claims or drawings referred to in Rule 20.5(a) is not otherwise contained in the international application but is completely contained in the earlier application, that element or part is, subject to confirmation under Rule 20.6, incorporated by reference in the international application for the purposes of Rule 20.6. Such a statement, if not contained in the request on that date, may be added to the request if, and only if, it was otherwise contained in, or submitted with, the international application on that date.
The instant application is a 371 application which has an International filing date of 6/28/2022. See a partial capture of the BIB sheet of the instant application below.
PNG
media_image1.png
422
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The incorporation by reference statement is being added by way of a Preliminary Amendment filed 12/29/2023, which is after the instant application's International filing date of 6/28/2022. Therefore, the “incorporation by reference” statement being added to the instant specification by way of the Preliminary Amendment is deemed new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claim 21 is 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites the limitation, “rifamycin and derivatives”, in reference to the instantly claimed tuberculosis drug. Applicant has not described the claimed genus of " rifamycin and derivatives" in a manner that would indicate they were in possession of the full scope of this genus, or even to describe what this genus is comprised of.
Regarding the requirement for adequate written description of chemical entities, Applicant's attention is directed to the MPEP §2163. In particular, Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1089, 118 S. Ct. 1548 (1998), holds that an adequate written description requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties, "not a mere wish or plain for obtaining the claimed chemical invention." Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1566. The Federal Circuit has adopted the standard set forth in the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications under the 35 U.S.C. 112.1 "Written Description" Requirement ("Guidelines"), 66 Fed. Reg. 1099 (Jan. 5, 2001), which state that the written description requirement can be met by "showing that an invention is complete by disclosure of sufficiently detailed, relevant identifying characteristics," including, inter aria, "functional characteristics when coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure..." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 296 F.3d 316, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Guidelines, 66 Fed. Reg. at 1106 (emphasis added)). Moreover, although Eli Lilly and Enzo were decided within the factual context of DNA sequences, this does not preclude extending the reasoning of those cases to chemical structures in general. Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 249 Supp. 2d 216, 225 (W.D.N.Y. 2003).
In the instant case, the claimed "rifamycin and derivatives" encompass rifamycin, with a differing, limitless, and undefined variation quoted for the identical purpose. Applicants failed to describe any example of "rifamycin and derivatives", in respect to the instantly claimed tuberculosis drug, which are not described adequately enough to allow one skilled in the art to ascertain that Applicant is in possession of the entire scope of that genus. Applicants have not described this genus in a manner that would allow one skilled in the art to immediately envisage the derivative of rifamycin contemplated for use. As such, the claims lack adequate written description for the claimed "rifamycin and derivatives", in respect to the instantly claimed tuberculosis drug.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 21 is 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.
Regarding claim 21, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 fourth paragraph
The following is a quotation of the fourth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112:
Subject to the following paragraph [concerning multiple dependent claims], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers (emphasis added).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under the fourth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 and under 37 CFR § 1.75(c), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of a previous claim. Applicant is required to cancel the claim(s), or amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, or rewrite the claim(s) in independent form.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is dependent upon claim 1. The subject matter in claim 1 is drawn to a compound of instant formula (I). The subject matter in claim 4 is drawn to a limited embodiment of instant formula (I).
The scope of claim 4 is broader than scope of claim 1 because claim 4 includes species that are outside of instant variable ring A (e.g. pyridazine for instant variable ring A when instant variables W and X are N, while instant variables Y and Z are C, etc.). Because the scope of claim 4 is broader than claim 1, the claim failed to further limit the subject matter thereof, and fail to comply with the formal requirements set forth in the fourth paragraph of 35 U.S.C § 112.
The Examiner suggests that the claims be amended in a manner such that the scope of claim 4 is commensurate with the scope of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the claim is dependent upon claim 1. The subject matter in claim 1 is drawn to a compound of instant formula (I). The subject matter in claim 6 is drawn to a limited embodiment of instant formula (I).
The scope of claim 6 is broader than scope of claim 1 because claim 6 includes species that are outside of instant variable ring A (e.g. oxazole when X is N and K is O, etc.). Because the scope of claim 6 is broader than claim 1, the claim failed to further limit the subject matter thereof, and fail to comply with the formal requirements set forth in the fourth paragraph of 35 U.S.C § 112.
The Examiner suggests that the claims be amended in a manner such that the scope of claim 6 is commensurate with the scope of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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(a) 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 12-15, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Structural modifications of N-arylamide oxadiazoles: Identification of N-arylpiperidine oxadiazoles as potent and selective agonists of CB2”, hereinafter DiMauro.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 12-15, and 22:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art:
DiMauro, for instance, teaches the following compounds as CB2 agonists or pharmaceutical composition thereof.
PNG
media_image2.png
152
870
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
90
866
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
320
866
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(pg. 4270, Table 3, compounds 12c and 12g-12i)
Wherein: instant variable R3 is H or CF3; instant variable R2 is H; instant variable R1 is Cl or OCF3; and instant variable ring A is 2-chloro, 4-fluoro substituted phenyl.
PNG
media_image5.png
506
874
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(pg. 4271, Table 4, compounds 13a-13e)
Wherein: instant variables R1-R3 are H; and instant variable ring A is unsubstituted pyridine, chloro-substituted pyridine, mono-chloro substituted phenyl, di-chloro substituted phenyl, and mono-fluoro substituted phenyl.
PNG
media_image6.png
118
864
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(abstract)
The abovementioned pharmaceutical composition with the abovementioned compounds would inherently be made with a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient when the compounds were tested for CB2 activity in the assays described in DiMauro.
Ascertaining of the difference between the prior art and the claim at issue:
In the abovementioned compounds, DiMauro, did not explicitly teach the connectivity of the piperidine ring to the following position of the quinoline ring, as shown by arrow below.
PNG
media_image2.png
152
870
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
90
866
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
329
866
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
118
360
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Finding of prima facie obviousness --- rationale and motivation:
MPEP 2144.09.II. states, “Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977).
The motivation to make the instantly claimed compounds derives from the expectation that structurally similar compounds (i.e. positional isomer) would possess similar reactivity (i.e. they would be used as CB2 agonist).
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would be motivated, from the disclosure in the prior art, to make the modifications required to arrive at the instant invention with reasonable expectation of success for obtaining a compound with the same utility. The motivation to make the change would be to make additional compound for the quoted purpose.
Thus, the instant claims are prima facie obvious.
In addition, the Examiner finds that DiMauro explored different positional isomers (e.g. compound 12c vs. compounds 12g-12i) in a structural activity study, wherein positional isomers have shown selective CB2 agonistic activity. Such exploration would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art (i.e. medicinal chemist) to identify additional positional isomers for further structural activity studies (SAR), which will lead to synthesis of additional compounds that would exhibited similar selective CB2 agonistic activity. Accordingly, the instant claims are prima facie obvious.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites the phrase, “therapeutically effective amount of the compound of claim 1 of a pharmaceutically acceptable salt or solvate thereof”, which contains typographical error.
Such typographical error can be corrected by reciting -- therapeutically effective amount of the compound of claim 1 or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt or solvate thereof --
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 7-11, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 12-15, 21, and 22 are rejected.
Claim 3, 5, 7-11, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 22 are objected.
Claim 18 is cancelled.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PO-CHIH CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am to 6:00 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, Clinton Brooks can be reached at (571)270-7682. 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.
/PO-CHIH CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1621