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
Claims 21-37 are currently pending in the instant application. Applicants have canceled claims 1-20 and added new claims 21-37 in an amendment filed on April 9, 2025. Claims 21-37 are rejected in this Office Action.
I. Priority
The instant application is a CON of 18/392,106, filed on December 21, 2023 ABN; which is a CON of 18/134,151, filed on April 13, 2023 ABN which is a CON of 17/896,419, filed on August 26, 2022 ABN which is a CON 17/586,156, filed on January 27, 2022 ABN which is a CON of 17/348,987, filed on June 16, 2021 ABN which is a CON of 17/086,112, filed on October 30, 2020 ABN which is a CON of 16/707,604, filed on December 9, 2019 PAT 10,870,616 which is a CON of 16/301,711, filed on November 14, 2018 PAT 10,544,075 which is a 371 of PCT/US2017/033388, filed May 18, 2017 which claims benefit of US Provisional Application 62/338,178, filed on May 18, 2016.
II. Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 18, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
III. Rejections
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 36-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 10,544,075. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 10,544,075 anticipate the instant claims. Further, patented claims 1-11 explicitly recite compositions corresponding to those of the instant claims.
With respect to the conflicting claims being directed to a different statutory class of invention (compositions 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 ‘075 patent identifies the utility for activating a thyroid hormone-responsive gene. Since the conflicting patent discloses a utility for the compositions claimed therein which is identical to the method recited in the instant claims, the patented claims anticipate the instantly claimed invention.
Claims 36-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 10,870,616. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 10,870,616 anticipate the instant claims. Further, patented claims 4-21 explicitly recite compositions corresponding to those of the instant claims.
With respect to the conflicting claims being directed to a different statutory class of invention (compositions 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 ‘616 patent identifies the utility for activating a thyroid hormone-responsive gene. Since the conflicting patent discloses a utility for the compositions claimed therein which is identical to the method recited in the instant claims, the patented claims anticipate the instantly claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, first paragraph
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 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 21-35 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. Applicants have added new claims where the genus formula I has the structure
PNG
media_image1.png
114
342
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in claim 21. However, this structure is not the structure of formula I found in the specification which is
PNG
media_image2.png
163
366
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. The structure
PNG
media_image1.png
114
342
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is not disclosed in the original specification as Formula I and is considered new matter because the amendment introduces subject matter that is not supported by the original disclosure. The original specification does not disclose this specific structure as Formula I but is actually a subgenus of formula I. Applicants are suggested to amend the structure in claim 21 so that it has the correct structure designated for Formula I
PNG
media_image2.png
163
366
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and then just define R3 as -OH so that it is fully supported by the specification.
VI. Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shawquia Jackson whose telephone number is 571-272-9043. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00 AM-3:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, 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).
/SHAWQUIA JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1626
Prosecution Insights