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 63-83 are currently pending.
Application Status
Applicant states that this application is a continuation or divisional application of the prior-filed application. A continuation or divisional application cannot include new matter. Applicant is required to delete the benefit claim or change the relationship (continuation or divisional application) to continuation-in-part because this application contains the following matter not disclosed in the prior-filed application: a method of treating “a neurological disease or condition” is not disclosed prior to the instant filing date of the application.
Priority
The independent Claim 63 is drawn to methods of treating a “neurological disease or condition” broadly. However, such a genus is not contemplated in the instant specification, provisional applications, or PCT application, nor is the more narrow embodiment of neurological conditions which are oxidative stress related as recited in Claim 80. While applicant does have specific support for neurodegenerative amyloid diseases and neuropathy in all the disclosures of the abovementioned applications (Instant Specification: Page 1), neurological conditions encompassing non-amyloid neurodegenerative diseases or neuropathy, which comprise a significant portion of the scope of the term, are not adequately supported. For example, brain injury or congenital diseases with neurological pathologies are not contemplated, nor is the scope of the genus “neurological disease or condition” as claimed. Therefore, the effective filing date of the examined independent claim and all those dependent therefrom is that of the instant filing date: 1/10/2025.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Several groups are incorrectly spelled throughout the specification. For example, “pyrroyl” on Page 6, Line 8 should instead be spelled “pyrrolyl” (pyrrole + yl). Appropriate correction is required for all such misspellings throughout the specification.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). No “neurological disease or condition” is described nor is a method of treatment. The claims as filed in the original specification on 1/10/2025 are part of the disclosure and therefore, if an application as originally filed contains a claim disclosing material not disclosed in the remainder of the specification, the applicant may amend the specification to include the claimed subject matter. In re Benno, 768 F.2d 1340, 226 USPQ 683 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2163.06.
Claim Objections
Claims 63, 66, and 77 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 63: in the definition of RZ, “heterocycle” should instead read “heterocyclyl” to comport with the language of other acceptable functional groups and reflect its radical nature.
Claim 63: in the definition of RN’, the term “C1-C6)alkyl” should be corrected to close the parenthetical.
Claim 63: “G2” should be superscripted, not subscripted, in the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
153
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Claim 66: all groups erroneously ending in “oyl” instead of “olyl” must be corrected.
Claim 77: an additional blank table row is included between the second and third compounds.
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.
Claims 63-76 and 80-83 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 regards as the invention.
The Claim 63 (A) (iii) proviso recites “and G1=N,”. It is unclear what this phrase means in context. Currently the proviso is read as follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
23
163
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
25
241
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, which does not have a clear meaning as written. Examiner interprets the above limitation to instead read as follows: “provided that when X=CR1, and G1=N, then G2 is not O”. Claims 64-76 and 80-83 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim 75 recites “two RA1 together with N-atom”; however, no nitrogen or “N-atom” is present on the RA groups to which RA1 is attached. The RA group of Claim 75 is limited to non-nitrogen embodiments. Further, RA1 is only attached at an oxygen atom such that “two RA1” cannot exist within the confines of Claim 75 without charged or unstable configurations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS—Subject to subsection (e), 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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], 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.
Claim 70 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 70 recites a lengthy definition of RN’. However, the same variable is limited to either hydrogen or C1-C6alkyl in Claim 63 upon which Claim 70 ultimately depends. For example, haloalkyl or aryl is not hydrogen or alkyl. The scope of Claim 70 improperly broadens the scope of all the claims upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 63-80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Praetego (WO2021022215, published 2021) as evidenced by Gella (Cell Adhesion & Migration 3:1, 88-93; January/February/March 2009).
Praetego teaches several compounds which are encompassed by instant Claim 63 as well as several embodiments thereof; e.g.,
PNG
media_image4.png
148
199
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image5.png
136
199
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Pages 11-14). Methods for treating AGE related complications are taught, specific complications include neuropathy and neurodegenerative diseases, which are neurological as claimed (Page 15). Alzheimer’s disease is named specifically on Page 1.
Praetego does not teach Alzheimer’s disease as an oxidative-stress related condition.
However, Gella teaches plainly “There is overwhelming evidence that brain tissue in AD patients is exposed to oxidative stress during the course of the disease” (Page 88). Thus, Alzheimer’s is by its nature a neurological disease which is also “an oxidative stress related condition” as claimed in Claim 80.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 63-70, 73-77, and 79-83 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khalifah (WO2008013660) as evidenced by Gella (Cell Adhesion & Migration 3:1, 88-93; January/February/March 2009).
Khalifah teaches exemplary AGE inhibitors like
PNG
media_image6.png
212
225
media_image6.png
Greyscale
for treating associated diseases, including neurological diseases and conditions as claimed like neurodegenerative diseases, namely Alzheimer’s (Abstract; Fig. 1; Page 22, Line 10; Claim 35). BST-605 differs from the closest embodiment of the instant claims,
PNG
media_image7.png
117
148
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, in that N-CH3 is instead O. Claim 10 specifically suggests that in a 6-membered A of ring C (
PNG
media_image8.png
119
493
media_image8.png
Greyscale
) with two heteroatoms, the NRN1 may instead be an O, resulting in the compound above.
Alternatively, compounds which are 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, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.09. Khalifah teaches the ring may contain 5 members instead of 6 (Claim 1). In view of the above teachings, one might modify the Khalifah compound to remove a methylene in the piperazinyl ring such that m of the instant formula is 1 and that the proviso of instant claim 1 (
PNG
media_image9.png
79
378
media_image9.png
Greyscale
) is satisfied.
Khalifah further teaches similar compounds are used to inhibit AGE formation and complications associated therewith which includes oxidative stress-related conditions (Page 22). Oxidative stress conditions are taught to encompass “cancer, exposure to ionizing radiation and/or chemotherapeutic agents” (Page 26). Regarding Alzheimer’s disease, “oxidative modification of proteins” is taught to be treatable by the Khalifah inhibitors and Khalifah refers to Alzheimer’s as a specifically “neurodegenerative amyloid disease” (Page 26).
Therefore, one of skill in the art seeking to treat an AGE associated neurological disease would find it obvious to perform the modifications of BST-605 which is the only identified compound in the Claims (Claim 35) because Khalifah provides narrow guidance for modifying such a compound with the alternative embodiment described above and routine homolog modification is expected to yield a compound of similar properties. The same artisan would expect an AGE formation inhibitor to result from either modification because Khalifah teaches a broad formula in Claim 1 encompassing the modified compounds for the same use as described above along with specific guidance for modification before the effective filing date of the instant claims. Further, one of skill in the art would find it obvious to use said compounds to treat concomitant diseases related to oxidative stress or conditions associated with cancer, chemotherapeutics, or radiation as taught by Khalifah because such conditions and Alzheimer’s or other diseases described by Khalifah are not mutually exclusive and are understood to be linked via a common mechanism in oxidative stress or at least AGE formation.
Praetego does not explicitly teach Alzheimer’s disease as an oxidative-stress related condition.
However, Gella teaches plainly “There is overwhelming evidence that brain tissue in AD patients is exposed to oxidative stress during the course of the disease” (Page 88). Thus, Alzheimer’s is by its nature a neurological disease which is also “an oxidative stress related condition” as claimed in Claim 80.
Regarding unrejected Claims 71-72 and 78, Khalifah does not permit A groups of ring C wherein the ring comprises fewer than 5 or more than 6 members or embody compounds which are obvious variants of the compounds encompassed by the above claims.
Claims 63-83 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Praetego (WO2021022215, published 2021) as evidenced by Gella (Cell Adhesion & Migration 3:1, 88-93; January/February/March 2009).
Praetego teaches several compounds which are encompassed by instant Claim 63 as well as several embodiments thereof; e.g.,
PNG
media_image4.png
148
199
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image5.png
136
199
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Pages 11-14). Methods for treating AGE related complications are taught, specific complications include neuropathy and neurodegenerative diseases, which are neurological as claimed (Page 15). Alzheimer’s disease is named specifically on Page 1.
Praetego further teaches the compounds are used to inhibit AGE formation and complications associated therewith which includes oxidative stress-related conditions (Page 22). Oxidative stress conditions are taught to encompass “cancer, exposure to ionizing radiation and/or chemotherapeutic agents” (Page 26). Regarding Alzheimer’s disease, “oxidative modification of proteins” is taught to be treatable by the Khalifah inhibitors and Khalifah refers to Alzheimer’s as a specifically “neurodegenerative amyloid disease” (Page 26).
Therefore one of skill in the art would find it obvious to use said compounds to treat concomitant diseases related to oxidative stress or conditions associated with cancer, chemotherapeutics, or radiation as taught by Khalifah because such conditions and Alzheimer’s or other diseases described by Khalifah are not mutually exclusive and are understood to be linked via a common mechanism in oxidative stress or at least AGE formation.
Praetego does not explicitly teach Alzheimer’s disease as an oxidative-stress related condition.
However, Gella teaches plainly “There is overwhelming evidence that brain tissue in AD patients is exposed to oxidative stress during the course of the disease” (Page 88). Thus, Alzheimer’s is by its nature a neurological disease which is also “an oxidative stress related condition” as claimed in Claim 80.
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 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
PROVISIONAL:
1. Claims 63-83 are provisionally rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 3-5, 9-11, 45-51, and 73-78 of copending Application No. 18818005 (hereinafter referred to as Praetego) in view of Khalifah (WO2008013660) as evidenced by Jenner (Annals of Neurology. 2003. Volume 53, Issue S3 pp. S26-S38).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications are directed to a method of treating neurological diseases with methods of administering AGE inhibitors of a similar genus including the same embodiments:
PNG
media_image10.png
100
145
media_image10.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image11.png
104
149
media_image11.png
Greyscale
. Praetego teaches a list of embodiments of neurological diseases like Parkinson’s disease.
Khalifah teaches similar inhibitors of AGE like
PNG
media_image6.png
212
225
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, sharing a core with both the instant claims and those of Praetego, for treating associated diseases like neurodegenerative diseases (Abstract; Fig. 1; Page 22, Line 10; Claim 35). Khalifah further teaches the compounds are used to inhibit AGE formation and complications associated therewith which includes oxidative stress-related conditions (Page 22). Oxidative stress conditions are taught to encompass “cancer, exposure to ionizing radiation and/or chemotherapeutic agents” (Page 26).
Therefore, one of skill in the art seeking to treat an AGE associated neurological disease would find it obvious to use the methods of Praetego in view of Khalifah for the application of neurological disease treatment, especially when said diseases are mediated or associated with oxidative stress. Further, one of skill in the art would find it obvious to use said compounds to treat concomitant diseases related to oxidative stress or conditions associated with cancer, chemotherapeutics, or radiation as taught by Khalifah because such conditions and the diseases described by Praetego are not mutually exclusive and are understood to be linked via a common mechanism in AGE formation.
Further, Jenner explicitly teaches that oxidative stress is intimately involved with the pathology of Parkinson’s disease; “Oxidative damage to lipids, proteins, and DNA occurs in PD, and toxic products of oxidative damage, such as 4-hydroxynonenal (HNE), can react with proteins to impair cell viability” (See Entire Abstract). Thus, Parkinson’s is by its nature a neurological disease which is also “an oxidative stress related condition” as claimed in Claim 80.
Since both applications teach methods of using AGE inhibitors for treating related diseases, the examiner maintains that the aforementioned claims of the instant application are substantially overlapping in scope as discussed hereinabove and are prima facie obvious over the cited claims of Praetego. Claims 63-79 are anticipated over the same.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
2. Claims 63-83 are provisionally rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 63-82 of copending Application No. 18903228 (hereinafter referred to as Praetego) in view of Khalifah (WO2008013660).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications are directed to methods of administering AGE inhibitors of a similar genus including the same embodiments:
PNG
media_image10.png
100
145
media_image10.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image11.png
104
149
media_image11.png
Greyscale
. Praetego teaches inhibiting AGE broadly.
Khalifah teaches similar inhibitors of AGE like
PNG
media_image6.png
212
225
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, sharing a core with both the instant claims and those of Praetego, for treating associated diseases like neurodegenerative diseases (Abstract; Fig. 1; Page 22, Line 10; Claim 35). Khalifah further teaches the compounds are used to inhibit AGE formation and complications associated therewith which includes oxidative stress-related conditions (Page 22). Oxidative stress conditions are taught to be associated with or encompass “cancer, exposure to ionizing radiation and/or chemotherapeutic agents” (Page 26).
Therefore, one of skill in the art seeking to apply the method of Praetego for therapeutic purposes in treating an AGE associated neurological disease would find it obvious to use the methods of Praetego in view of Khalifah for the application of neurological disease treatment, especially when said diseases are mediated or associated with oxidative stress. Further, one of skill in the art would find it obvious to use said compounds to treat concomitant diseases related to oxidative stress or conditions associated with cancer, chemotherapeutics, or radiation as taught by Khalifah because such conditions and the diseases described are understood to be linked via a common mechanism in oxidative stress or at least AGE formation. Further, Praetego does not limit its methods to particular diseases so as to preclude those conditions of Khalifah or the instant claims.
Since both applications teach methods of using AGE inhibitors for inhibiting AGE formation, the examiner maintains that the aforementioned claims of the instant application are substantially overlapping in scope as discussed hereinabove and are prima facie obvious over the cited claims of Praetego.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
NONPROVISIONAL:
1. Claims 63-70, 73-77, and 79-83 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9428533 (hereinafter referred to as Praetego) in view of Khalifah (WO2008013660) as evidenced by Gella (Cell Adhesion & Migration 3:1, 88-93; January/February/March 2009).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications are directed to AGE inhibitors of a similar genus and of the same core
PNG
media_image12.png
117
185
media_image12.png
Greyscale
.
Praetego teaches
PNG
media_image13.png
38
405
media_image13.png
Greyscale
, which is
PNG
media_image14.png
150
245
media_image14.png
Greyscale
. The Praetego compound, however, is excepted from the instant claims via proviso. However, multiple modifications are obvious so as to overcome the proviso regarding Z and m of the claimed A group:
Claim 8 of Praetego specifically suggests that in a 6-membered A of ring C with two heteroatoms, the NRN1 may instead be an O, resulting in the compound of instant Claim 79
PNG
media_image7.png
117
148
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
Compounds which are 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, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.09. Khalifah teaches the ring may contain 5 members instead of 6 (Claim 1). In view of the above, one might modify the Praetego compound to remove a methylene in the piperazinyl ring such that m of the instant formula is 1 and that the proviso of instant claim 1 (
PNG
media_image15.png
75
358
media_image15.png
Greyscale
) is overcome.
Regarding the claims directed to compositions of matter, 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 Sun Pharm. Indus., Ltd. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 611 F.3d 1381, 95 USPQ2d 1797 (Fed. Cir. 2010). See MPEP 804 (II) (B) (1). Praetego teaches the AGE inhibitors for treating associated diseases in a subject in need thereof (Abstract; Col. 15-16). The associated diseases include neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s and AGE-related disease generally associated with oxidative modification of proteins and oxidative stress (Col. 15-16).
Khalifah teaches similar inhibitors of AGE like
PNG
media_image6.png
212
225
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, sharing a core with both the instant claims and those of Praetego, for treating associated diseases like neurodegenerative diseases (Abstract; Fig. 1; Page 22, Line 10; Claim 35). Khalifah further teaches the compounds are used to inhibit AGE formation and complications associated therewith which includes oxidative stress-related conditions (Page 22). Oxidative stress conditions are taught to be associated with or encompass “cancer, exposure to ionizing radiation and/or chemotherapeutic agents” (Page 26).
Therefore, one of skill in the art seeking to apply the compounds of Praetego for the uses taught by Praetego and Khalifah, including therapeutic purposes in treating an AGE associated neurological disease would find it obvious to use the methods of Praetego in view of Khalifah for the application of neurological disease treatment, especially when said diseases are mediated or associated with oxidative stress. Further, one of skill in the art would find it obvious to use said compounds to treat concomitant diseases related to oxidative stress or conditions associated with cancer, chemotherapeutics, or radiation as taught by Khalifah because such conditions and the diseases described are not mutually exclusive and are understood to be linked via a common mechanism in oxidative stress or at least AGE formation. Further, Praetego does not limit its uses to particular treatment methods or diseases so as to preclude those of Khalifah or the instant.
Praetego does not explicitly teach Alzheimer’s disease as an oxidative-stress related condition.
However, Gella teaches plainly “There is overwhelming evidence that brain tissue in AD patients is exposed to oxidative stress during the course of the disease” (Page 88). Thus, Alzheimer’s is by its nature a neurological disease which is also “an oxidative stress related condition” as claimed in Claim 80.
Since both claim sets teach AGE inhibitors of the same core for the same uses, the examiner maintains that the aforementioned claims of the instant application are substantially overlapping in scope as discussed hereinabove and are prima facie obvious over the cited claims of Praetego.
2. Claims 63-83 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12139472 (hereinafter referred to as Praetego) in view of Khalifah in view of Khalifah (WO2008013660).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications are directed to a method of treating neurological diseases with methods of administering AGE inhibitors of a similar genus including the same embodiments:
PNG
media_image10.png
100
145
media_image10.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image11.png
104
149
media_image11.png
Greyscale
. Praetego teaches broadly the treatment of AGE-related diseases as well as more specific embodiments which are neurological like neuropathy and neurodegenerative amyloid diseases.
Regarding the claims directed to compositions of matter, 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 Sun Pharm. Indus., Ltd. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 611 F.3d 1381, 95 USPQ2d 1797 (Fed. Cir. 2010). See MPEP 804 (II) (B) (1). Claims 16-21 describe uses for the composition claims cited.
Khalifah also teaches similar inhibitors of AGE like
PNG
media_image6.png
212
225
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, sharing a core with both the instant claims and those of Praetego, for treating associated diseases like neurodegenerative diseases (Abstract; Fig. 1; Page 22, Line 10; Claim 35). Khalifah further teaches the compounds are used to inhibit AGE formation and complications associated therewith which includes oxidative stress-related conditions (Page 22). Oxidative stress conditions are taught to encompass “cancer, exposure to ionizing radiation and/or chemotherapeutic agents” (Page 26).
Therefore, one of skill in the art seeking to treat an AGE associated neurological disease associated with oxidative stress would find it obvious to use the methods of Praetego in view of Khalifah for the application of neurological disease treatment, especially when said diseases are mediated or associated with oxidative stress. Further, one of skill in the art would find it obvious to use said compounds to treat concomitant diseases related to oxidative stress or conditions associated with cancer, chemotherapeutics, or radiation as taught by Khalifah because such conditions and the diseases described by Praetego are not mutually exclusive and are understood to be linked via a common mechanism in oxidative stress or at least AGE formation.
Since both claim sets teach the same compounds and methods of using said compounds to treat the neurological diseases, the examiner maintains that the aforementioned claims of the instant application are substantially overlapping in scope as discussed hereinabove and are prima facie obvious over the cited claims of Praetego. Claims 63-79 are anticipated by Claims 16-21 of Praetego.
Conclusion
No claim is allowable.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard G. Peckham whose telephone number is (703)756-4621. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 4:30pm EST.
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, Kortney Klinkel can be reached on (571) 270-5239. 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.
/RICHARD GRANT PECKHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 1627
