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 Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending in the instant application.
Claim 11 has been canceled.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on the CN202210216572.8 application filed in the People’s Republic of China on March 7th, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements received September 17th, 2024, August 5th, 2025, and February 26th, 2026 have been fully considered by the examiner, except where marked with a strikethrough.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any of the errors of which Applicant may become aware of in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites a compound of formula (I), wherein formula (I) is:
PNG
media_image1.png
107
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In this structure, “R1” is presented both as “R1” and “R1”. Further in the claim, the variable “R1” is defined. The “R1” variable as shown in formula (I), above, should be amended to read as “R1”, such that it matches the format by which it is defined in the body of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 and 7-10 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 a compound of formula (I) in which R1 is C1-3 alkyl, R2 is hydrogen or C1-3 alkyl, R3 is hydrogen or C1-3 alkyl, m is 0-2, and n is 1-2, does not reasonably provide enablement for a compound of formula (I) in which these variables are otherwise defined. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Pursuant to In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988), one considers the following factors to determine whether undue experimentation is required: (1) The breadth of the claims, (2) The nature of the invention, (3) The state of the prior art, (4) The level of one of ordinary skill, (5) The level of predictability in the art, (6) The amount of direction provided by the inventor, (7) The existence of working examples and (8) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
Nature of the invention:
The invention is drawn to compounds, stereoisomers, or pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof of the formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
87
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Breadth of the invention:
The scope of the claimed invention is broad, as it is drawn to any compound of the formula noted above, allowing for myriad combinations of the variables recited thereof. The result is a number of distinct compounds with varying degrees of substitution and distinct ring systems.
State of the prior art and predictability in the art:
The invention is directed toward medicine and is therefore physiological in nature. It is well established that “the scope of enablement varies inversely with the degree of unpredictability of the factors involved,” and physiological activity is generally considered to be an unpredictable factor. See In re Fisher, 427 F. 2d 833, 839, 166, USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970).
In terms of the law, MPEP 2107.03 states “evidence of pharmacological or other biological activity of a compound will be relevant to an asserted therapeutic use if there is reasonable correlation between the activity in question and the asserted utility. Cross v. Iizuka, 753 F. 2d 1040, 224 USPQ 739 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Jolles, 628 F. 2d 1322, 206 USPQ 885 (CCPA 1980); Nelson v. Bowler, 626 F. 2d 853, 206 USPQ 881 (CCPA 1980).” If correlation is lacking, it cannot be relied upon, Ex parte Powers, 220 USPQ 924; Rey-Bellet and Spiegelberg v. Engelhardt v. Schindler, 181 USPQ 453; Knapp v. Anderson, 177 USPQ 688. Indeed, the correlation must have been established “at the time the tests were performed”, Hoffman v. Klaus, 9 USPQ2d 1657.
Level of ordinary skill in the art:
An ordinary artisan in the area of drug development would have experience in synthesizing chemical compounds for particular activities. The synthesis of new drug candidates, while complex, is routine in the art. The process of finding new drugs that have in vitro activity against a particular biological target (i.e., receptor, enzyme, etc.) is well known. Additionally, while high throughput screening assays can be employed, developing a therapeutic method, as claimed, prior to synthesizing and testing compounds is generally not well-known or routine, given the complexity of certain biological systems.
The amount of direction provided and working examples:
The compound core depicted with specific substituents represents a narrow subgenus for which applicant has provided sufficient guidance to make and use; however, the disclosure is not sufficient to allow extrapolation of the limited examples to enable the scope of the compounds instantly claimed.
Applicant has provided no working examples of a compound in which R1 is defined as any substituent other than methyl, R2 and R3 are defined as any substituent other than hydrogen or methyl, m is defined other than 0-2, and n is defined other than 1-2. These limited examples are insufficient to provide enablement for the myriad of compounds that read on a compound of formula (I) as recited at instant Claim 1.
Within the specification, “specific operative embodiments or examples of the invention must be set forth. Examples and description should be of sufficient scope as to justify the scope of the claims.” Markush claims must be provided with support in the disclosure for each member of the Markush group. Where the constitution and formula of a chemical compound is stated only as a probability or speculation, the disclosure is not sufficient to support claims identifying the compound by such composition or formula. See MPEP 608.01(p).
MPEP § 2164.01 (a) states, “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).” That conclusion is clearly justified here that Applicant is not enabled for making these compounds.
Claims 8-10 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 treating colon cancer, does not reasonably provide enablement for treating any PD-1/PD-L1 signal pathway-mediated disease. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Pursuant to In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988), one considers the following factors to determine whether undue experimentation is required: (1) The breadth of the claims, (2) The nature of the invention, (3) The state of the prior art, (4) The level of one of ordinary skill, (5) The level of predictability in the art, (6) The amount of direction provided by the inventor, (7) The existence of working examples and (8) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
Nature of the invention:
The invention is drawn to a method of treating any PD-1/PD-L1 signal pathway-mediated disease comprising administration of a compound of formula (I) as recited at instant Claim 1.
Breadth of the invention:
The scope of the claimed invention is very broad. In addition to being drawn to administration of any of the plethora of compounds that read on a compound of formula (I) as instantly claimed, PD-1/PD-L1 signal pathway-mediated diseases encompasses a number of diseases with mutually exclusive etiologies. As recited, this limitation includes a number of diseases, both known presently, and those that have yet to be discovered that are PD-1/PD-L1 signal pathway-mediated diseases. Can Applicant simply “reach through” and obtain patent protection for diseases that have yet to be discovered, or those presently known, but are later discovered to be mediated via the PD-1/PD-L1 signal pathway?
State of the prior art and predictability in the art:
No compound has ever been found to treat cancers of all types generally. Since this assertion is contrary to what is known in medicine, proof must be provided that this revolutionary assertion has merits. The existence of such a “silver bullet” is contrary to our present understanding of oncology. The state of the art is not indicative of any pharmaceutical agents that are useful in the treatment of cancer generally. At Page 1004, Cecil Textbook of Medicine states that “each specific type has unique biologic and clinical features that must be appreciated for proper diagnosis, treatment and study”. Different types of cancers affect different organs and have different methods of growth and harm to the body. Also see In re Buting, 163 USPQ 689 (CCPA 1969), wherein ‘evidence involving a single compound and two types of cancer, was held insufficient to establish the utility of the claims directed to disparate types of cancers’. Thus, it is beyond the skill of oncologists today to get an agent to be effective against cancers generally.
A similar statement appears at In re Application of Hozumi et. al., 226 USPQ 353: “In spite of the vast expenditure of human and capital resources in recent years, no one drug has been found which is effective in treating all types of cancer. Cancer is not a simple disease, nor is it even a single disease, but a complex of a multitude of different entities, each behaving in a different way”. There are compounds that treat a modest range of cancers, but no one has ever been able to figure out how to get a compound to be effective against cancer generally, or even a majority of cancers.
The attempts to find compounds to treat the various cancers arguably constitute the single most massive enterprise in all of pharmacology. This has not resulted in finding any treatment for tumors generally. This is because it is now understood that there is no “master switch” for cancers generally; cancers arise from a bewildering variety of differing mechanisms. Even the most broadly effective antitumor agents are only effective against a small fraction of the vast number of different cancers known. This is true in part because cancers arise from a wide variety of sources, primarily a wide variety of failures of the body’s cell growth regulatory mechanisms, but also such external factors such as viruses (an estimated at least 20% are of viral origin e.g. Human papillomavirus, EBV, Hepatitis B and C, HHV-8, HTLV-1 and other retroviruses, and quite possibly Merkel cell polyomavirus, and there is some evidence that CMV is a causative agent in glioblastoma), exposure to chemicals such as tobacco tars, excess alcohol consumption (which causes hepatic cirrhosis, an important cause of HCC), ionizing radiation, and unknown environmental factors.
Similarly, In re Novak, 134 USPQ 335, 337-338 says “unless one with ordinary skill in the art would accept those allegations as obviously valid and correct, it is proper for the examiner to ask for evidence which substantiates them.” There is no such evidence in this case for a compound that treats all types of cancer. Likewise, In re Cartright, 49 USPQ2d 1464, states: “Moreover, we have not been shown that one of ordinary skill would necessarily conclude from the information expressly disclosed by the written description that the active ingredient” does what the specification surmises that it does. That is exactly the case here. Moreover, even if Applicant’s assertion that cancer in general could be treated with these compounds were plausible -- which it is not --, that “plausible” would not suffice, as was stated in Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 75 USPQ2d 1297, 1301: “If mere plausibility were the test for enablement under section 112, applicants could obtain patent rights to “inventions” consisting of little more than respectable guesses as to the likelihood of their success.
Recently, Wu et. al. (“Small-molecule inhibitors, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and more: FDA- approved novel therapeutic drugs for solid tumors from 1991 to 2021; Journal of Hematology & Oncology, 15, 143, 2022; hereinafter referred to as Wu), at the Abstract, discloses that between 1991 and 2021 there have been 228 new cancer drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of which 120 of these are drawn to the treatment of solid tumors alone. At Page 5, Table 1 Wu teaches that there are 21 different approved drugs for treating lung cancers, some of which have cellular targets. At Page 10, Table 2, Wu teaches breast cancer has 22 different drugs that have varied cellular targets and are indicated for different types of breast cancer. At Page 17, Table 4, Wu teaches there are 17 different drugs available to treat different forms of gastrointestinal cancers. At Page 38, Figure 12, Wu summarizes the protein structure of some cellular targets and the binding site of their respective drugs. Taken together, Wu teaches that no single therapeutic has ever been identified as a treatment for all forms of cancer; and closer examination of Figure 12 provides a logical explanation. As highlighted in Figure 12, molecular protein targets implicated in different cancers (e.g. EGFR for lung cancer in Table 1, VEGFR2 for gastric cancer in Table 4) have different three-dimensional protein structures, different active sites, and therefore require different drugs with the right shape and chemical groups in order to bind the target active site and have an effect in treating cancer. In other words, there is no one size fits all approach to treating cancer simply for the reason that no single molecule will have the shape and chemical functional groups necessary to bind and modulate all modular targets of cancer, all of which have varied shapes. It is commonly known in the pharmaceutical arts that shape dictates function wherein drugs which have a shape complimentary to the protein target will bind and have an effect (this is often referred to simplistically as a “Lock and Key” model). Given the varied shape of protein targets in cancer (e.g. EGFR and VEGFR2), it is pure fantasy to speculate that a single drug with a single three dimensional shape will bind all protein targets implicated in cancer therapy and have an effect in treating all forms of the disease. As such, at present the “silver bullet” drug therapy to treat all forms of cancer is elusive and such a therapy is not recognized in the art where the reality is that different forms of cancer require different drug therapies.
The invention is directed toward medicine and is therefore physiological in nature. It is well established that “the scope of enablement varies inversely with the degree of unpredictability of the factors involved,” and physiological activity is generally considered to be an unpredictable factor. See In re Fisher, 427 F. 2d 833, 839, 166, USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970).
In terms of the law, MPEP 2107.03 states “evidence of pharmacological or other biological activity of a compound will be relevant to an asserted therapeutic use if there is reasonable correlation between the activity in question and the asserted utility. Cross v. Iizuka, 753 F. 2d 1040, 224 USPQ 739 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Jolles, 628 F. 2d 1322, 206 USPQ 885 (CCPA 1980); Nelson v. Bowler, 626 F. 2d 853, 206 USPQ 881 (CCPA 1980).” If correlation is lacking, it cannot be relied upon, Ex parte Powers, 220 USPQ 924; Rey-Bellet and Spiegelberg v. Engelhardt v. Schindler, 181 USPQ 453; Knapp v. Anderson, 177 USPQ 688. Indeed, the correlation must have been established “at the time the tests were performed”, Hoffman v. Klaus, 9 USPQ2d 1657.
Level of ordinary skill in the art:
An ordinary artisan in the area of drug development would have experience in synthesizing chemical compounds for particular activities. The synthesis of new drug candidates, while complex, is routine in the art. The process of finding new drugs that have in vitro activity against a particular biological target (i.e., receptor, enzyme, etc.) is well known. Additionally, while high throughput screening assays can be employed, developing a therapeutic method, as claimed, prior to synthesizing and testing compounds is generally not well-known or routine, given the complexity of certain biological systems.
The amount of direction provided and working examples:
Beginning at Page 24 of the instant specification, Applicant discloses several examples demonstrating biological activity of the instantly claimed compounds.
At Page 24, Example 1 is drawn to evaluation of the compounds’ inhibitory effect on the PD-1/PD-L1 interaction.
Beginning at Page 25, Example 2 is drawn to evaluating the effect of the instantly claimed compounds on the PD-1/PD-L1 interaction on cell surfaces.
Beginning at Page 26, in Example 3, Applicant discloses pharmacokinetic evaluation of the instantly claimed compounds in the Caco-2 colon cancer cell line.
Beginning at Page 28, in Example 4, Applicant discloses evaluation of pharmacokinetic parameters when the instantly claimed compounds are administered to mice and rats.
Quantity of experimentation needed to use the invention based on the content of the disclosure:
The quantity of experimentation needed is undue experimentation. Beyond colon cancer, a person having ordinary skill in the art would need not only to identify and/or develop metrics for evaluating the efficacy of the instantly claimed compounds in treating diseases mediated by the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway, but to also employ these methods, with no assurance of success in treating any of the array of diseases that read on the instantly recited limitations.
Genentech Inc. v Novo Nordisk A/S (CAFC) 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 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 having ordinary skill in the art would have to engage in undue experimentation to determine diseases suitable for treatment according to the instantly claimed method.
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.
Claims 2-4 are 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 claims 2-4, the phrases "preferably" and “more preferably” render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected.
Claim 6 is objected to.
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL JOHN BURKETT whose telephone number is (703)756-5390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Jeffrey Murray can be reached at (571) 272-9023. 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.
/D.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1624
/BRENDA L COLEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1624
Prosecution Insights