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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 8-23 are pending
Claims 8-23 are under consideration in the instant office action.
Priority
This application claims benefit of European Application No. EP 15306618.8 filed on 10/13/2015, PCT Application No. PCT/EP2016/074468 filed on 10/12/2016 and U.S. Application No. 15/765,854 filed on 04/04/2018.
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 8-13, 15, 17-18, 20-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for inhibiting retinal capillary non-perfusion in a subject suffering from a disruption of an outer blood-retinal barrier comprising administering fasudil, does not reasonably provide enablement for inhibiting retinal capillary non-perfusion in a subject suffering from a disruption of an outer blood-retinal barrier comprising administering any ROCK inhibitor. 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.
The factors to be considered in determining whether a disclosure meets the enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, have been described in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir., 1988). The court in Wands states, "Enablement is not precluded by the necessity for some experimentation, such as routine screening. However, experimentation needed to practice the invention must not be undue experimentation. The key word is 'undue', not 'experimentation'" (Wands, 8 USPQ2sd 1404). Clearly, enablement of a claimed invention cannot be predicated on the basis of quantity of experimentation required to make or use the invention. "Whether undue experimentation is needed is not a single, simple factual determination, but rather is a conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations" (Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1404). Among these factors are: (i) the nature of the invention; (2) the breadth of the claims; (3) the state of the prior art; (4) the predictability or unpredictability of the art; (5) the relative skill of those in the art; (6) the amount of direction or guidance presented; (7) the presence or absence of working examples; and (8) the quantity of experimentation necessary.
While all of these factors are considered, a sufficient amount for a prima facie case is discussed below.
(1) The nature of the invention and (2) the breadth of the claims:
The claims are drawn to a method of treating a subject suffering from or suspected of having retinal capillary non-perfusion comprising administering a ROCK inhibitor. The breadth of the claims thus covers that any ROCK inhibitor is capable of inhibiting retinal capillary non-perfusion in a subject suffering from a disruption of an outer blood-retinal barrier.
(3) The state of the prior art and (4) the predictability or unpredictability of the art:
The state of the art as shown by Danziger et al that many aspects and modalities are involved in the pharmaceutical art, which as a result makes that art highly unpredictable. Pharmacological activity in general is a very unpredictable area. Note that in cases, involving physiological activity such as the instant case, "the scope of enablement obviously varies inversely with the degree of unpredictability of the factors involved". Se In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833,166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970).
The article while directed to automated drug design, specifically addresses the issue of steric hindrance which essentially means that the shape, design, including the kinds and amount of substituents greatly affect the ability and efficacy of a drug to bind to the desired receptor and function appropriately. Thus, the use of the three recited compounds, which contain different amino groups as substituents, would be unpredictable in treating any and every known condition or disease.
(5) The relative skill of those in the art:
Those of relative skill in the art are those with a level of skill of the authors of the references cites to support the examiner’s position (MD’s or those with advanced degrees and the requisite experience in medicine).
(6) The amount of direction or guidance presented and (7) the presence of absence of working examples:
The specification provides working examples only for the administration of fasudil for the reduction of vasoconstriction and improvement in retinal perfusion of the diabetic retina. Thus, the specification has only provided working examples with one active agent for the reduction of vasoconstriction and improvement in retinal perfusion of the diabetic retina, but not for the treatment using any ROCK inhibitor.
(8) The quantity of experimentation necessary:
Considering the state of the art as discussed by Danziger above, and the high unpredictability in the art as evidenced therein, and the lack of guidance provided by the specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would be burdened with undue experimentation to practice the invention commensurate in the scope of the claims.
Conclusion
Claims 8-13, 15, 17-18, 20-21, and 23 are rejected.
Claims 14, 16, 19, and 22 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW P LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1016. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Renee Claytor can be reached at (571)272-8394. 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.
/ANDREW P LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1691
/RENEE CLAYTOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1691
