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
Response to Amendment
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/19/2026 has been entered.
Newly amended Claims 1-2, 6-7, 16-17, and 19-31 are pending in the application. All withdrawn claims are rejoined for examination on the merits. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome every objection and rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 1/16/2026.
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied and constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 28, and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
All instances wherein “one or more” is followed by an inhibitor in the singular form must be pluralized; e.g., “Cyt-bc1:aa3 inhibitor” should instead read “Cyt-bc1:aa3 inhibitors”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 § 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 1-2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudson (WO9609294, previously cited) in view of Brown (Bioisosteres in Medicinal Chemistry – Chapter 2, Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, 2012, pg. 15-29, previously cited).
Hudson teaches
PNG
media_image1.png
155
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
4-[4-(4-Chlorophenoxy)anilino]quinazoline HCl on Page 14, in which the following definitions apply: X1 is N; R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5 are H; Q is as defined wherein one R8 is Cl rather than CF3 or OCF3 as claimed. The compound is a protein tyrosine kinase inhibitor included in pharmaceutical compositions (Abstract). Compositions include carriers (Page 19).
Hudson does not teach CF3 as an alternative embodiment to Cl.
Brown teaches CF3 is a halogen isostere:
PNG
media_image2.png
119
546
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Page 23). The substitution is described as a classical bioisostere, achieved by “replacing a functional group with groups sharing similar physical or chemical properties and maintaining similar activity” (Page 15). One of skill in the art seeking to form a kinase inhibitor would find it obvious to substitute the Cl substituent with CF3 to arrive at the compound of Claim 16 and expect success in doing so because Brown teaches that the substitution is a known isosteric replacement and that “similar physical or chemical properties and…activity” are expected to result. Hudson teaches an inhibitor; therefore, the inhibitory activity and properties are expected to be retained.
Conclusion
Claims 1-2 and 16 are rejected. Claims 7, 28, and 31 are objected to. Claims 17, 22-27, and 29-30 are allowable.
Claims 6 and 19-21 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.
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 7:30am - 4:30pm.
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
/Kortney L. Klinkel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1627
Prosecution Insights