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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 19, 2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group (II) in the reply filed on December 17, 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 (II), drawn to a method for preventing or treating certain diseases or conditions, comprising administering a compound of formula (I), embraced by claims 1-5 and 7-11 was elected by Applicant. Applicant has not pointed to any errors in the Examiner’s analysis of the different inventions. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant elected the following species: (R)-3-mercapto-N-((R)-3-mercapto-1-(methylamino)-1-oxoprop-2-yl)-2- (methylamino)propionamide and stroke for initial examination. Applicant indicated claims 1-5 and 7-9 read on said species.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The search for the elected species has been expanded to radiation.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-11 and 14 are currently pending and claims 1, 4, 5 and 7-9 are under examination. Claims 10, 11 and 14 are withdrawn based on the species election.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 8 and 9 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 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.
Claim 1 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation secondary injury induced during the treatment of ischemic stroke, and the claim also recites namely cerebral ischemia reperfusion injury which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation sequelae of cerebrovascular sclerosis, and the claim also recites (cerebral hemorrhage, cerebral thrombosis) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tian et al. (WO 2018041245).
The reference teaches the treatment of radiation injury with the elected species, see page 3 for the species and the abstract for the treatment. The reference teaches The TFA salt is found on page 10 and the HCl salt is found on page 7.
Thus, said claims are anticipated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tian et al. (CA 3035989) in view of Plummer et al. (Stroke, 2011, 42, 2410-2418), is withdrawn based on the amendments.
Double Patenting
The rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11008286, is withdrawn based on the terminal disclaimer submitted.
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
Prosecution Insights