DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
PNG
media_image1.png
125
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Status of Claims
3. Claims 35-64 are pending and under consideration in the instant application.
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.
4. Claims 35-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, while being enabling for the treatment of Friedreich’s ataxia or the signs or symptoms of reduced frataxin levels or activity, the specification does not reasonably provide enablement for preventing the aforementioned conditions. 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.
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, but are not limited to: (a) breadth of the claims; (b) nature of the invention; (c) state of the prior art; (d) level of one of ordinary skill in the art; (e) level of predictability in the art; (f) amount of direction provided by the inventor; (g) existence of working examples; and (h) quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. (See Ex parte Forman 230 USPQ 546 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986) and In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The above factors, regarding the present invention, are summarized as follows:
(a) Breadth of the claims - The breadth of the claims is drawn to methods for the treatment and prevention of Friedreich’s ataxia or the signs or symptoms of reduced frataxin levels or activity.
(b) Nature of the invention - The nature of the invention is therefore drawn to the pharmaceutical art. These claims cover diseases that are known to exist and those that may be discovered in the future, for which there is no enablement provided.
(c,e) State of the prior art and predictability in the art - The state of the prior art is that the pharmacological art 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 by what mechanism). 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 or preventative regimen on its face.
While a full discussion of each disease which is encompasses by Applicant’s claim language will not be given, the following examples teach that the state of the prior art with respect to the claimed diseases has not advanced to the point of being predictive of the prevention of the breadth of diseases instantly claimed.
The prophylaxis or “prevention” means to anticipate or counter in advanced, to keep from happening, etc. and there is no disclosure as to how one skilled in the art can reasonably establish the basis and the type of subject to which the instant compounds and compositions can be administered in order to have the "preventive" effect, and if the instantly claimed compounds are administered to the subject, how can one of skill in the art reasonably prove that the administration caused the subject not to contract the disorder, or if they would not have contracted it without administration? How the initial onset of claimed conditions prevented?
With regard to Friedreich’s ataxia, for example, it is the state of the art that there is no known prevention for the aforementioned as it is an inherited genetic disorder. Friedreich's ataxia (FA) is caused by mutations in the frataxin (FXN) gene on chromosome 9, most commonly an expansion of the GAA trinucleotide repeat in both copies of the gene. Genetic testing, carrier screening, and informed family planning can help reduce the risk of passing it to children.
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.
(d) Level of one of ordinary skill in the art - The artisans using applicant’s method would be a collaborative team of synthetic chemists and/or health practitioners, possessing commensurate degree level and/or skill in the art, as well as several years of professional experience.
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 or in vivo screening to determine which compounds exhibit the desired pharmacological activity and which diseases would benefit from this activity.
(f-g) Amount of direction provided by the inventor and existence of working examples - The only direction or guidance present in the instant specification is the listing of diseases applicant considers as treatable and preventable by the claims.
There are absolutely no working examples present for the prevention of any condition encompassed by the claims.
Test assays and procedures are not provided in the specification and the disclosure does not provide how the in vitro data correlates to the prevention of the assorted disorders of the instant claims.
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.” See In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970).
Furthermore, there is no evidence of record, which would enable the skilled artisan in the identification of the people who have the potential of becoming afflicted with the numerous diseases/disorders or conditions claimed herein. That a single compound can be used to treat all diseases/disorders and conditions embraced by the claim is an incredible finding for which Applicant has not provided supporting evidence. Applicant has not provided any competent evidence or disclosed tests that are highly predictive for the pharmaceutical use for treating any or all of the diseases/disorders or conditions by administering the instant claimed compound.
(h) Quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure - The quantity of experimentation needed is undue experimentation. One of skill in the art would need to determine what diseases, disorders, or conditions out of all diseases, disorders, or conditions would be benefited by claimed activity and would furthermore then have to determine which of the claimed compounds in the instant invention would provide treatment and prevention of the diseases.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would be faced with an undue amount of experimentation to use the pharmaceutical compositions for the full scope of the claimed intended uses.
A conclusion of lack of enablement means that, based on the evidence regarding each of the above factors, the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. {In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993)}.
The specification fails to provide sufficient support of the broad use of the methods of administering compounds of the claims in the prevention of disorders of the claims as a result necessitating one of skill to perform an exhaustive search for which diseases can be treated or prevented by what compounds of the invention 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 “patent 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, a person of skill in the art would have to engage in undue experimentation to test which diseases can be treated by the compounds encompassed in the instant claims, with no assurance of success.
Double Patenting
5. 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
6. Claims 35-64 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-11, 13-19, 25, and 35-39 of copending Application No. 18/761,782 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-2, 4-11, 13-19, 25, and 35-39 of copending Application No. 18/761,782 anticipate the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
With respect to the conflicting claims being directed to a different statutory class of invention (compounds rather than instantly claimed methods of use), the Federal Circuit, in Sun v. Lilly, recounts its own decisions in Geneva and Pfizer,
In both cases, we found claims of a later patent invalid for obviousness-type double patenting where an earlier patent claimed a compound, disclosing its utility in the specification, and a later patent claimed a method of using the compound for a use described in the specification of the earlier patent. `
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 95 USPQ2d 1797 at 1800 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
In reaffirming its holding in Geneva and Pfizer, the Court finds that a "claim to a method of using a composition is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim to the identical composition in a patent disclosing the identical use.” (Id. at 1801, quoting Pfizer, 518 F.3d at 1363; Geneva, 349 F.3d at 1385-86. The Court reasserts this notion by stating,
[i]t would shock one's sense of justice if an inventor could receive a patent upon a composition of matter, setting out at length in the specification the useful purposes of such composition, . . .and then prevent the public from making any beneficial use of such product by securing patents upon each of the uses to which it may be adapted. Pfizer, 518 F.3d at 1363 n.8 (emphases added); Geneva, 349 F.3d at 1386 (quoting In re Byck, 48 F.2d 665, 666 [9 USPQ 205] (CCPA 1931)).
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 95 USPQ2d 1797 at 1802 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Section 804 IIb of the M.P.E.P. states
...those portions of the specification which provide support for the reference claims may also be examined and considered when addressing the issue of whether a claim in the application defines an obvious variation of an invention claimed in the reference patent or application (as distinguished from an obvious variation of the subject matter disclosed in the reference patent or application). In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441-42, 164 USPQ 619, 622 (CCPA 1970). The court in Vogel recognized "that it is most difficult, if not meaningless, to try to say what is or is not an obvious variation of a claim," but that one can judge whether or not the invention claimed in an application is an obvious variation of an embodiment disclosed in the patent or application which provides support for the claim. According to the court, one must first "determine how much of the patent disclosure pertains to the invention claimed in the patent" because only "[t]his portion of the specification supports the patent claims and may be considered." The court pointed out that "this use of the disclosure is not in contravention of the cases forbidding its use as prior art, nor is it applying the patent as a reference under 35 U.S.C. 103, since only the disclosure of the invention claimed in the patent may be examined." In AbbVie Inc. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust, 764 F.3d 1366, 112 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the court explained that it is also proper to look at the disclosed utility in the reference disclosure to determine the overall question of obviousness in a nonstatutory double patenting context. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 518 F.3d 1353, 86 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Geneva Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 349 F3d 1373, 1385-86, 68 USPQ2d 1865, 1875 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
In the instant case, the specification of the ‘782 patent identifies the utility for the methods of treating conditions of the independent and dependent claims. Since the conflicting claims discloses a utility for the compounds claimed therein which is identical to the method recited in the instant claims, the copending claims anticipate the instantly claimed invention.
It is noted that instant application and U.S. Patent Application no. 18/761,782 are filed on the same day, and therefore, a terminal disclaimer is required in both applications in order to overcome the obviousness double patenting rejection presented herein.
The following citation comes from MPEP 804 in the 2006 revision of MPEP.
MPEP 804 "If both applications are filed on the same day, the examiner should determine which application claims the base invention and which application claims the improvement (added limitations). The ODP rejection in the base application can be withdrawn without a terminal disclaimer, while the ODP rejection in the improvement application cannot be withdrawn without a terminal disclaimer.”
The following citation is found in MPEP 1490, in the 2008 revision of MPEP.
If both applications are filed on the same day, the provisional ODP rejection made in each of the applications should be maintained until applicant overcomes the rejections by either filing a reply showing that the claims subject to the provisional ODP rejections are patentably distinct or filing a terminal disclaimer in each of the pending applications.
Therefore, the more recent guidance from MPEP states that provisional ODP rejections should be maintained until a terminal disclaimer is filed in both of the pending applications.
Conclusion
7. No claims allowed.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Samantha Shterengarts whose telephone number is (571)270-5316. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday 9-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. Adam Milligan can be reached on 571-270-7674. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAMANTHA L SHTERENGARTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1623
Prosecution Insights