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 .
Request for Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 6th 2026 has been entered.
Priority
The present application is the U.S. National Stage Application, pursuant to 35 U.S.C.371, of PCT International Application No.PCT/US2020/048726, filed August 31, 2020, which claims priority to Provisional U.S. App. Nos. 62/938,438, filed November 21, 2019 and 62/894,536, filed August 30, 2019.
Status of the Claims
Applicant has amended claims 1, 71, 103, and 111. New claims 124 and 125 are added. Claims 1-2, 11, 21, 24, 26-27, 42-43, 68, 71, 76, 84, 92, 103, 108, 111, 119-120, and 123-125 are pending and are examined on their merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/6/2026 (1 reference). The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1, 2, 11, 21, 76 and 84 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamal, et.al., Synthesis of a new class of 2-anilino substituted nicotinyl arylsulfonylhydrazides as potential anticancer and antibacterial agents, Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry 15 (2007) pages 1004–1013.
Claim 1 is directed towards a compound of Formula (I), or a pharmaceutically
acceptable salt thereof:
PNG
media_image1.png
139
320
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein:
X is O or NR4A.
Y is 0, NR4, CH2, or absent;
Z is N or CH;
n is 0, 1, 2, or 3;
R1and R2 are independently selected from hydrogen, OH, OR3, OR3, and SR3
R3 and R4A are independently selected from hydrogen, Cl-Cl0 alkyl optionally
substituted with 1-6 halogens, C6-Cl0 aryl, and 5 to 10 membered heteroaryl.
PNG
media_image2.png
198
730
media_image2.png
Greyscale
R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, and R10 are independently selected from hydrogen, halogen, pseudohalogen, C 1-C 10 alkyl, and C6-C 10 aryl, to; wherein R1 and R2 are not both OR3A and the compound of Formula (I) is not NCS 335504.
Kamal teaches a series of N ´-1-[2-anilino-3-pyridyl]carbonyl-1-benzenesulfonohydrazide derivatives (7a–i) was synthesized and five of them were selected by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and evaluated for their in vitro anticancer activity. Three of the investigated compounds 7d, 7f and 7g exhibited significant anticancer activity in the primary assay and further tested against a panel of 60 human tumor cell lines. He further teaches the formulation of these compounds in Scheme 1 as outlined below, specifically utilizing the compounds 4 (a-e) circled and having the following structure:
PNG
media_image3.png
961
1321
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The structure of compound 4 (a-e) and the compound of Formula (I) of the instant application are compared below with the variable conditions of each of the compounds identified below by each example:
Examples of Kamal’s Compound 4
Applicant’s Compound Formula (I)
Compound 4e
PNG
media_image4.png
132
381
media_image4.png
Greyscale
R1 and R2 are hydrogen
R1/R2 are hydrogen
R6-R7 is hydrogen
R5 is hydrogen
Y is O
X is O
Z is CH
n is 0
Compound 4c
PNG
media_image4.png
132
381
media_image4.png
Greyscale
R6 or R7 is hydrogen or halogen
R1/R2 are hydrogen
R6-R7 is hydrogen or halogen
R5 is hydrogen
Y is O
X is O
Z is CH
n is 0
The compound of the prior art meets the limitations of the variables R1-2 R6-7, R5, Y, X, Z and n as detailed above. Accordingly, claim 1 is anticipated by the compounds of the formulas 4 (a-e) of Kamal.
Claim 2 further limits the compound of claim 1 wherein X is O.
As detailed in the rejection above, X is O. Accordingly, claim 2 is anticipated by the compounds of the formulas 4 (a-e) of Kamal.
Claim 11 further limits the compound of claim 1 wherein Y is O.
As detailed in the rejection above, Y is O. Accordingly, claim 11 is anticipated by the compounds of the formulas 4 (a-e) of Kamal.
Claim 21 further limits the compound of claim 1 wherein Z is CH.
As detailed in the rejection above, Z is CH. Accordingly, claim 21 is anticipated by the compounds of the formulas 4 (a-e) of Kamal.
Claim 76 further limits the compound of claim 1 wherein R6 is halogen.
As detailed in the rejection above, R6 is halogen. Accordingly, claim 76 is anticipated by the compounds of the formulas 4 (a-e) of Kamal.
Claim 84 further limits the compound of claim 1 wherein R7 is halogen.
As detailed in the rejection above, R7 is halogen. Accordingly, claim 84 is anticipated by the compounds of the formulas 4 (a-e) of Kamal.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 24 is unpatentable over Kamal in view of Lima, et.al.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamal, et.al., Synthesis of a new class of 2-anilino substituted nicotinyl arylsulfonylhydrazides as potential anticancer and antibacterial agents, Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry 15 (2007) pages 1004–1013 and in further view of Lima, et. al., Homologation: A Versatile Molecular Modification Strategy to Drug Discovery, Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry, 2019, 19, 1734-1750.
Claim 24 further limits the compound of Formula (I) in claim 1 wherein n is 2. The increase in the variable n=0 in claim 1 to the instant claim is to n=2 is simply an increase in a straight chain alkyl group. Although Kamal anticipates the core compound of Formula (I) as detailed in the rejection above he does not teach the variable n that is greater than zero. Lima describes homologues as organic compounds belonging to the same chemical function, and their molecular formulas differ from each other by an integer number of methylene (CH2) groups. Further, that these compounds exhibit similar chemical properties and are employed in medicinal chemistry as a tool for molecular modification.
“Therefore, homologation can be defined as a molecular
modification strategy based on increasing (or decreasing) the
size of a substituent or a linker by the addition (or elimination)
of methylene or methyl groups. This strategy results in
the design of un-branched and/or branched homologous series
or even in the proposal of cyclopolymethylene homologues
with increased size of the ring (Fig. 1).”
Lima, paragraph 2, page 1734 (emphasis added).
The linear unbranched homologues from Fig. 1 are shown below.
PNG
media_image5.png
413
638
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that by increasing the methyl groups in the alkyl chain of the compound of Formula (I) in claim 1 from n=0 to n=2 in the instant claim as taught by Lima because homologation is defined as a molecular strategy that increases or decreases the size of a substituent or a linker using methyl groups.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 43 is free of the art.
Claims 26, 27, 68, 71, 92, 103, 108, 111, 119, 120, 123-125 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.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 2, 11, 21, 76 and 84 are rejected.
Claims 26, 27, 68, 71, 92, 103, 108, 111, 119, 120, 123-125 are objected to.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL RANDALL GAUGER whose telephone number is (571)272-1325. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Jeffery Lundgren can be reached at (571)272-5541. 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.
/P.R.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1629
/JEFFREY S LUNDGREN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1629
Prosecution Insights