DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This is a Non-Final Office Action.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 24, 2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group (I) in the reply filed on April 29, 2024 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Group (I), drawn to compounds of formulas (I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, VII*, VIII*, IX, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX and XX) or compounds C1-C212) fused bicyclic pyrimidines, and compositions thereof, embraced by claims 1-21 and 23 was elected by Applicant.
The species election was withdrawn.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9 and 16-22 are pending and Claims 1, 2, 4-9 and 16-21 are under examination. Claim 22 is withdrawn based on the restriction requirement.
Claim Objections
The objection to claims 1 and 6 because the phrase “A is none,” is withdrawn based on the amendments.
The objection to claim 1 because the phrase “bonded in a spiro-manner,” is withdrawn based on the amendments.
The objection to claim 1 because some of the bonds in the sub-formulas in the definition of R1 are not clear, is withdrawn based on the amendments.
The objection to claim 1 and 2 because the term “or” should be added between the last two groups in the definition of S, is withdrawn based on the amendments.
The objection to claims 1 and 2 because the term “or” should be added between the last two groups in the definition of Z, is withdrawn based on the amendments.
The objection to claim 20 because the phrase “C1C212,” is withdrawn based on the amendments.
Claims 7 and 16-19 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 1, 6, 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the term "comprising" or “comprises” is withdrawn based on the amendments.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-9, 16-19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the CO in the definition of A, is withdrawn based on the amendments.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-9, 16-19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the n and X variable are defined differently in the claims, is withdrawn based on the amendments.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-9, 16-19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the (CH)2 in the definition of R, is withdrawn based on the amendments.
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 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 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9 and 21 under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Besong et al. (WO 2010020675) in view of Brain et al. (WO 2007140222) is withdrawn.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8 and 9 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Besong et al. (WO 2010020675) in view of Brain et al. (WO 2007140222) and Venkatesan et al. (US 20160222014).
The present application claims compounds of formula (I), wherein A= H or methyl, R= cyclopentyl, cyclobutyl, cyclopropyl or cyclohexyl, S= C(O)N(CH3)2 and R1= phenyl-4-piperazinyl or 2-pyridyl-4-piperazinyl. The bond between positions 5-6 of the pyrrolo[2,3-d]pyrimidine is a single bond.
PNG
media_image1.png
103
178
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The reference teaches compounds of formula (I), wherein A= H or methyl, R= cyclpentyl, cyclobutyl, cyclopropyl or cyclohexyl, S= C(O)N(CH3)2 and R1= phenyl-4-piperazinyl or 2-pyridyl-4-piperazinyl. The bond between positions 5-6 of the pyrrolo[2,3-d]pyrimidine is a double bond bond, see pages 27-28, Table 3, compounds 200 and 202, see below. The reference further teaches the inhibition of CDK, which is the present utility.
PNG
media_image2.png
295
344
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
320
298
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The only difference between the claimed compounds the cited compounds is the bond between positions 5-6 of the pyrrolo[2,3-d]pyrimidine, a double bond versus Applicant’s single bond.
Brain et al. teach the bond between positions 5-6 of the pyrrolo[2,3-d]pyrimidine may be single or double, see the genus of formula (I) on page 4, which teaches the equivalency of the a single and double bond at this position. Moreover, there are guidepost with a single bond, see page 14, the third compound listed. The reference further teaches the inhibition of CDK, which is the present utility. Therefore, a single bond and double bond are considered equivalent at this position.
Venkatesan et al. teaches compounds with a pyrrolo[2,3-d]pyrimidine core as a treatment for cancer, see the abstract, with a single or double bond between positions 5-6, see page 116, compounds 922, 923 and 924.
Thus, said claims are rendered obvious by Besong et al. in view of Brain et al. and Venkatesan et al.
This is a new rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUSANNA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-9046. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 am to 7:00 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, Jeffrey Murray can be reached on 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.
/SUSANNA MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1624