Detailed Description
This action is in response to papers filed on 09/05/2025. Claims 61-67, 69-71, 73-82 of M. Henary et al., US 17/295162 (05/19/2021) are pending: claims 61, 70, and 75 are currently amended, and claims 63-64, 69, and 74-80 remain withdrawn. Claims 61-62, 65-67, 70-71, and 73 are under consideration in the instant office action. Claims 61-62, 65-67, 70-71, and 73 are rejected. Claims 81-82 are objected to.
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 .
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/US2019/062210, filed on 11/19/2019, which claims benefit of 62/769,301 filed on 11/19/2018.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/05/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
In a response filed on 08/28/2024 and in accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant elected without traverse, Group I, claims 61-68 and 70-79, drawn to a genus of compounds, to which the claims must be restricted. Group II, claim 69 and 80, drawn to a method of treatment is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant further elected, without traverse, a compound of 17-B, having the formula presented in the Specification on pp. 26-27 and identified the species to read on at least claims 61, 65-67, 70-73, and 81-82. The elected species is determined to read to claims 61-62, 65-67, 70-73, and 81-82.
The generic claim encompassing the elected species was not found patentable. Therefore, the provisional election of species is given effect, the examination is restricted to the elected species only, and claims not reading on the elected species are held withdrawn. MPEP 803.02; Ex parte Ohsaka, 2 USPQ2d 1460, 1461 (Bd. Pat. App. lnt. 1987). Accordingly, claims 63-64, 68, and 74-79 are hereby withdrawn.
Withdrawn Rejections/Objections
The following rejections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to claims 61, 70, and 75 (Applicant’s Remarks at page 13):
The objection of claim 61 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claim.
Maintained 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 61 and 66-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soc. Kodak Pathe (Published: September 18, 1939) (“Kodak-Pathe”), FR 846415 (RN: 855766-12-0), and as evidenced by Schimmer et al., (2009), WO 2009/109029 A1, (“Schimmer”), PubChem CID 5484462, and PubChem CID 5463350 (“Pub Chem”).
Regarding claim 61, the claim recites:
PNG
media_image1.png
213
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kodak Pathe teaches the following colorants of the cyanine class including the following compound for use in as part of a photographic emulsion:
PNG
media_image2.png
674
770
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kodak-Pathe teaches compound 855766-12-0 wherein: X is Br-, Rc1 and Rc5 are hydrogen, A1 and A2 are:
PNG
media_image3.png
456
753
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ra4, Ra5, Ra6, Ra7, Ra8, and Ra9 are hydrogen; and Rb4, Rb5, Rb6, Rb7, Rb8, and Rb9 are hydrogen; and,
PNG
media_image4.png
208
520
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(i.e., Ra1 and Rb1) have the above structure; and where Raa1-Raa5 are hydrogen.
The difference between the claimed invention and Kodak-Pathe is, the Rc2 and Rc3 repeating ethylene moiety. Kodak-Pathe does not teach Rc2 and Rc3, an additional ethylene moiety (i.e., an added alkenyl group/repeating unit) present in the chain between the A1 and A2 moieties. However, it is considered routine in the art to modify a repeating unit of a compound (i.e., the ethylene moiety), with the desired number of units, and arrive at multiple versions of the same compound (i.e., homologs), which only differ by the number of said repeating units. One of skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to identify homologs with improved properties.
This is supported by the prior art. As evidenced by Schimmer who teaches a similar set of claimed compounds, Schimmer, teaches in Fig. 1, Compound Q2 and Compound 5:
PNG
media_image5.png
860
655
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein: X is I-, Rc1 and Rc5 are hydrogen, A1 and A2 are:
PNG
media_image3.png
456
753
media_image3.png
Greyscale
And Ra1 and Rb1 are alkyl groups, and Ra4-Ra9 and Rb4-Rb9 are hydrogen.
PubChem also teaches PubChem CID 5484462, Created: 2005-07-19, and PubChem CID 5463350, Created: 2005-03-27, respectively:
PNG
media_image6.png
640
891
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Where, Pinacyanol iodide is the elongated version of 1,1-Diethyl-2,2-cyanine iodide by 1 alkenyl moiety. Similarly, Compound 5 of Schimmer is the elongated form of Pinacyanol iodide by 2 alkenyl groups (Fig.1):
PNG
media_image7.png
188
354
media_image7.png
Greyscale
To one of ordinary skill in the art, compound Q2, represents an optimized yet simplified version of Compound 5, which displayed improved properties regarding percent cell viability.
As with the instant application, Kodak-Pathe compound 855766-12-0 differs by one adjacent ethylene moiety. Accordingly, the instantly claimed compound is a structural analog, i.e., an adjacent homolog of the reference Kodak-Pathe compound 855766-12-0 compound.
It would have therefore been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to modify the compound of Kodak-Pathe and prepare a structural analog thereof, for example, by adding an ethylene repeating moiety, because the skilled artisan would have had the reasonable expectation that such structurally analogous compounds would have the same activity and the same use, i.e., for photodynamic therapy. In re Finley, 81 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1949); In re Norris, 84 USPQ 458 (CCPA 1950); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d at 696, 16 USPQ2d at 1904 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Moreover, it is well established that if a prior art species or subgenus is structurally similar to that claimed, its disclosure may provide a reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to choose the claimed species or subgenus from the genus, based on the reasonable expectation that structurally similar species usually have similar properties. See, e.g., Dillon, 919 F.2d at 693, 696, 16 USPQ2d at 1901, 1904. See also In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552, 1558, 34 USPQ2d 1210, 1214 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ("Structural relationships may provide the requisite motivation or suggestion to modify known compounds to obtain new compounds. For example, a prior art compound may suggest its homologs because homologs often have similar properties and therefore chemists of ordinary skill would ordinarily contemplate making them to try to obtain compounds with improved properties."
Note also In re Jones, 21 USPQ2d 1942, which states at 1943 “Particular types or categories of structural similarity without more, have, in past cases, given rise to prima facie obviousness”; one of those listed is “adjacent homologues and structural isomers”. Similar is In re Schechter and LaForge, 98 USPQ 144, 150, which states “a novel useful chemical compound which is homologous or isomeric with compounds of the prior art is unpatentable unless it possesses some unobvious or unexpected beneficial property not possessed by the prior art compounds.” See also MPEP 2144.08. 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). Claim 61 is obvious.
Regarding claim 66-67, Kodak-Pathe teaches the compound according to claim 61, wherein Ra4-Ra9 and Rb4-Rb9 are each hydrogen as disclosed above. Claims 66-67, as is claim 61, is also obvious.
Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant argues that the present amendment of claim 61 reciting: “with the proviso that when Rc3 is Rc3’, then Rc3’ is not hydrogen…”, and is such that the exclusion of Rc3 being hydrogen renders the claim non-obvious over Kodak-Pathe as evidenced by Schimmer and PubChem. Applicant’s Remarks at page 13.
Examiner’s Response
Applicant’s arguments are acknowledged, but are not found to be persuasive in view of the cited prior art and rationale discussed above.
Furthermore, the rationale supporting the rejection of Claims 61, and 66-67 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soc. Kodak Pathe (Published: September 18, 1939) (“Kodak-Pathe”), FR 846415 (RN: 855766-12-0), and as evidenced by Schimmer et al., (2009), WO2009109029A1, (“Schimmer”), and PubChem CID 5484462, and PubChem CID 5463350 (“Pub Chem”) is based on structurally analogous compounds, and said compounds having the same or substantially similar activity and use, i.e., for photodynamic therapy.
As with the instant application, Kodak-Pathe compound 855766-12-0 differs by one adjacent ethylene moiety. Accordingly, the instantly claimed compound is a structural analog, i.e., an adjacent homolog of the reference Kodak-Pathe compound 855766-12-0 compound.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to modify the compound of Kodak-Pathe and prepare a structural analog thereof, for example, by adding an ethylene repeating moiety, because the skilled artisan would have had the reasonable expectation that such structurally analogous compounds would have the same activity and the same use, i.e., for photodynamic therapy. In re Finley, 81 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1949); In re Norris, 84 USPQ 458 (CCPA 1950); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d at 696, 16 USPQ2d at 1904 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
This is evidenced by Schimmer and PubChem references as discussed above in detail.
It is well established that if a prior art species or subgenus is structurally similar to that claimed, its disclosure may provide a reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to choose the claimed species or subgenus from the genus, based on the reasonable expectation that structurally similar species usually have similar properties. See, e.g., Dillon, 919 F.2d at 693, 696, 16 USPQ2d at 1901, 1904. See also In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552, 1558, 34 USPQ2d 1210, 1214 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ("Structural relationships may provide the requisite motivation or suggestion to modify known compounds to obtain new compounds. For example, a prior art compound may suggest its homologs because homologs often have similar properties and therefore chemists of ordinary skill would ordinarily contemplate making them to try to obtain compounds with improved properties."
Note also In re Jones, 21 USPQ2d 1942, which states at 1943 “Particular types or categories of structural similarity without more, have, in past cases, given rise to prima facie obviousness”; one of those listed is “adjacent homologues and structural isomers”. Similar is In re Schechter and LaForge, 98 USPQ 144, 150, which states “a novel useful chemical compound which is homologous or isomeric with compounds of the prior art is unpatentable unless it possesses some unobvious or unexpected beneficial property not possessed by the prior art compounds.” See also MPEP 2144.08. 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). The claims remain rejected as obvious over the prior art.
Claims 62, 65, and 70-73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soc. Kodak Pathe (Published: September 18, 1939) (“Kodak-Pathe), FR 846415 (RN: 855766-12-0), as evidenced by Schimmer et al., (2009), WO 2009/109029 A1, (“Schimmer”), and PubChem CID 5484462, and PubChem CID 5463350 (“Pub Chem”), and as applied above to claim 61, and in further view of Owens et al., (2013) Biomed. Mater. 8 014109 (“Owens”).
Regarding claims 62 and 65, the compound according to claim 61, wherein Rc1, Rc2, Rc4, and Rc5 are hydrogen is disclosed by Kodak-Pathe.
Kodak-Pathe however does not teach wherein Rc3 is selected from F, Cl, Br, I, aryl or C1-8 heteroaryl.
Owens teaches similarly charged cyanine fluorophores which includes a series of meso-brominated near-infrared (NIR) cyanine fluorophores for noninvasive monitoring of in vivo scaffold degradation (Abstract). See, example compounds from Fig. 2(A):
PNG
media_image8.png
605
1194
media_image8.png
Greyscale
An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that it would have similar (useful) properties to a prior art compound. MPEP § 2144.09 (discussing the close structural relationship between homologs and that between position isomers). Obviousness of a claimed compound can also be supported where there is motivation to substitute particular chemical moieties in a prior art compound for others so as to arrive at a claimed compound. MPEP § 2143(I)(B). For example, in the pharmaceutical arts, the rational is stated as motivation to select a known compound and also motivation to structurally modify the selected compound in a particular way to achieve a claimed compound. MPEP § 2143(I)(B) (see for example, MPEP § 2143(I)(B) Example 9, citing Eisai Co. Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Ltd., 533 F.3d 1353, 87 USPQ2d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 1
Kodak-Pathe in view of Owens motivates one of ordinary skill in the art to first select prior art compound as discussed above, and thereafter make the specific structural modifications, including substituting Rc3 as H with Br, in view of Owens teachings, so as to arrive at a to arrive at an instantly claimed compound, with a reasonable likelihood of success that the resulting compound would have useful properties. MPEP § 2143(E), Example 4; MPEP § 2143(B), Example 9; Otsuka Pharm. Co. v. Sandoz, Inc., 678 F.3d 1280, 1292; 102 U.S.P.Q.2D 1729 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
As disclosed above Kodak-Pathe teaches the obviously claimed compounds as next adjacent homologs for use in imaging. The hydrogen in the ethylene repeating units discussed above, can be substituted and this substitution with a halide is taught and supported by Owens. While Kodak-Pathe does not teach a meso-brominated cyanine scaffold, Owens teaches this scaffold and discloses that “In addition, a bromine atom was introduced to the central carbon on the polymethine chain for conjugation with the biodegradable scaffolds using the available primary amine of gelatin for substitution.” This is particularly useful according to Owens because, “Directly conjugating a … fluorescent label to a tissue scaffold could serve as a viable noninvasive method for directly analyzing the rate of degradation and the fate of surgically implanted scaffolds.” (p. 2).
Under these facts, it would have therefore been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify the obviously claimed compounds as taught by Kodak-Pathe, to include bromine on the cyanine scaffold, as taught by Owens, and arrive at the claimed invention successfully. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, with reasonable expectation of success, because such motivation exists to modify Kodak-Pathe compounds at least because Owens teaches that adding bromine to said cyanine scaffold supports the conjugation of “fluorescent label to a tissue scaffold that could serve as a viable noninvasive method for directly analyzing the rate of degradation and the fate of surgically implanted scaffolds” (p. 2). This is in-line with Applicant’s claimed use of the instant invention as a photodynamic therapy as it relates to cancer treatment (instant Specification, p. 1). As disclosed above, the cyanine scaffold taught by Owens comprises the same repeating scaffold of the claimed invention, and in both instances the compounds of the prior art and the claimed invention are used in the same capacity of photodynamic therapy and related uses. Claim 62, is therefore obvious.
Regarding claim 70, the claim recites in part:
PNG
media_image9.png
406
802
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The same rationale as disclosed and applied above to claims 61 and 62, is applied here.
Moreover, regarding Rc3, as disclosed above, Kodak-Pathe in view of Owens does motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to first select prior art compound and thereafter make the specific structural modification of replacing the Rc3 Hydrogen with Br so as to arrive at an instantly claimed compound, with a reasonable likelihood of success that the resulting compound would have useful properties. MPEP § 2143(E), Example 4; MPEP § 2143(B), Example 9; Otsuka Pharm. Co. v. Sandoz, Inc., 678 F.3d 1280, 1292; 102 U.S.P.Q.2D 1729 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
While Kodak-Pathe does not teach a meso-brominated cyanine scaffold, Owens teaches this scaffold and discloses that “a bromine atom was introduced to the central carbon on the polymethine chain for conjugation with the biodegradable scaffolds using the available primary amine of gelatin for substitution.” This is particularly useful according to Owens because, “Directly conjugating a … fluorescent label to a tissue scaffold could serve as a viable noninvasive method for directly analyzing the rate of degradation and the fate of surgically implanted scaffolds.” (p. 2).
Under these facts, it would have therefore been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify the obviously claimed compounds as taught by Kodak-Pathe, to include bromine on the cyanine scaffold, as taught by Owens, and arrive at the claimed invention successfully. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, with reasonable expectation of success, because such motivation exists to modify Kodak-Pathe compound at least because Owens teaches that adding bromine to said cyanine scaffold supports the conjugation of “fluorescent label to a tissue scaffold that could serve as a viable noninvasive method for directly analyzing the rate of degradation and the fate of surgically implanted scaffolds” (p. 2). This is in-line with Applicant’s claimed use of the instant invention as a photodynamic therapy as it relates to cancer treatment (instant Specification, p. 1). As disclosed above, the cyanine scaffold taught by Owens comprises the same repeating scaffold of the claimed invention, and in both instances the compounds of the prior art and the claimed invention are used in the same capacity of photodynamic therapy and related uses. Claim 70, is therefore obvious.
Regarding claim 71, “The compound according to claim 70, wherein Ra7 and Rb7 are each hydrogen or F”, Kodak-Pathe teaches Ra7 and Rb7 as hydrogens as disclosed above. Claim 71, as is claim 70, is also obvious.
Regarding claim 73, “The compound according to claim 70, wherein Rc3 is Cl or Br.”, Kodak-Pathe in view of Owens teachings is discussed above. The same rationale is applied here. Claim 73, as is claim 70, is therefore also obvious.
Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant argues that Owen is not analogous in art with Kodak-Pathe, and as such the Office not provided sufficient rationale for combining Kodak-Pathe and Owens. Applicant’s Remarks at page 14. Applicant also discusses the amendment to claim 61 discussed above.
Examiner’s Response
Applicant’s arguments are acknowledged, but are not found to be persuasive in view of the rejections above. Applicant’s arguments against the art is unsupported for the following reasons:
A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). MPEP 2141.01(a).
Kodak Pathe teaches colorants of the cyanine class of compounds as discussed above for use in as part of a photographic emulsion or imaging. Owens teaches about improving “Highly charged cyanine fluorophores for trafficking scaffold degradation” (Title) for in-vivo monitoring especially needed in regenerative medicine (Owen’s Abstract). In both instances, cyanine fluorophores are explored for their electronic properties and for support in medicine. This is also echoed in Applicant’s Specification where Applicant describes “There remains a need for improved compounds for use in photodynamic therapy…” (Specification, page 2). The references are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); and/or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. It would have been obvious to combine the prior art teachings as discussed above, to arrive at the claimed invention. The rejection is maintained.
Subject Matter Free of the Cited Prior Art
Claims 81 and 82 depend on rejected claims 61 and 70. Claims 81 and 82 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.
However, regarding claim 81, “The compound of claim 61, wherein one of Raa1, Raa2, Raa3, Raa4, Raa5 is COOH, and the remainder are hydrogen; and one of Rbb1, Rbb2, Rbb3, Rbb4, Rbb5 is COOH, and the remainder are hydrogen.”;
AND,
Regarding claim 82, “The compound of claim 70, wherein one of Raa1, Raa2, Raa3, Raa4, Raa5 is COOH, and the remainder are hydrogen; and one of Rbb1, Rbb2, Rbb3, Rbb4, Rbb5 is COOH, and the remainder are hydrogen.”
An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that it would have similar (useful) properties to a prior art compound. MPEP § 2144.09 (discussing the close structural relationship between homologs and that between position isomers). Obviousness of a claimed compound can also be supported where there is motivation to substitute particular chemical moieties in a prior art compound for others so as to arrive at a claimed compound. MPEP § 2143(I)(B). For example, in the pharmaceutical arts, the rational is stated as motivation to select a known compound and also motivation to structurally modify the selected compound in a particular way to achieve a claimed compound. MPEP § 2143(I)(B) (see for example, MPEP § 2143(I)(B) Example 9, citing Eisai Co. Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Ltd., 533 F.3d 1353, 87 USPQ2d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Neither Kodak-Pathe or Kodak Pathe in view of Owens, teach the modification wherein one of Raa1, Raa2, Raa3, Raa4, Raa5 is COOH, and the remainder are hydrogen; and one of Rbb1, Rbb2, Rbb3, Rbb4, Rbb5 is COOH, and the remainder are hydrogen.
Kodak-Pathe does not motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to first select prior art compound 855766-12-0 and thereafter make the specific structural modification of replacing one of the hydrogens in the Ra1 or Rb1 ring with COOH (i.e., wherein one of Raa1, Raa2, Raa3, Raa4, Raa5 is COOH, and the remainder are hydrogen; and one of Rbb1, Rbb2, Rbb3, Rbb4, Rbb5 is COOH, and the remainder are hydrogen), so as to arrive at a to arrive at an instantly claimed compound, with a reasonable likelihood of success that the resulting compound would have useful properties. MPEP § 2143(E), Example 4; MPEP § 2143(B), Example 9; Otsuka Pharm. Co. v. Sandoz, Inc., 678 F.3d 1280, 1292; 102 U.S.P.Q.2D 1729 (Fed. Cir. 2012). It is noted that the prior art and claimed compounds are related as next adjacent homologs. MPEP § 2144.09(II). However, the Examiner must still articulate motivation to select the prior art compound and motivation to modify. Otsuka Pharm. Co. v. Sandoz, Inc., 678 F.3d 1280, 1292; 102 U.S.P.Q.2D 1729 (Fed. Cir. 2012); MPEP § 2144.09(III). Under these facts, such motivation to so modify Kodak-Pathe compound 855766-12-0 is lacking at least because Kodak-Pathe teaches Raa1-Raa5 and Rbb1-Rbb5 as hydrogens. MPEP § 2144.09(VI).
Conclusion
Claims 63-64, 69, and 74-80 are withdrawn. Claims 81-82 are objected. Claims 61-62, 65-67, and 70-73 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTAL ADLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0923. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, JAMES HENRY ALSTRUM-ACEVEDO can be reached at (571) 272-5548. 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.
/C A/Examiner, Art Unit 1622 February 4, 2026
/JAMES H ALSTRUM-ACEVEDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1622
1 In the chemical arts, a "lead compound" obviousness analysis is often applied; the “lead compound” analysis requiring initial motivation to select a prior art compound and thereafter still further motivation to make the specific structural modifications thereto so as to arrive at a claimed compound. See MPEP § 2143(B) (discussing “lead compound cases” in Examples 9-11 with respect to pharmaceutical applications). However, the MPEP warns against applying the lead compound analysis rigidly in view of the flexible approach stated in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) see also, MPEP § 2143(B), Example 11 (citing Altana Pharma AG v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 999, 91 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 2009) a ‘restrictive view of the lead compound test would present a rigid test similar to the teaching-suggestion-motivation test that the Supreme Court explicitly rejected in KSR’).