DETAILED 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/16/2026 has been entered.
AIA Status of the Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s elected species
PNG
media_image1.png
244
386
media_image1.png
Greyscale
reads on currently pending claims 1-6, 11-12, 15-17, 19-21, 50-52 and 55-57.
As discussed in the previous Action mailed on 8/27/2025, the elected species has been searched and is deemed to be free of the prior art and non-obvious. The closest prior art compound is considered to be CAS 339174-55-9 (entered into STN on 6/01/2001; of record) as follows
PNG
media_image2.png
176
298
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, a tautomer of
PNG
media_image3.png
206
324
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, which differs from Applicant’s elected compound species in that V is =O (or -OH) as opposed to -NH2, L is -CH2- as opposed to -CH(CH2CH3)-, and R4 is not substituted with -OC1 alkyl and -Cl.
Considering that CAS 339174-55-9 merely discloses the compound and the compound is not further identified as having any associated activity, there would have been no obvious reason to consider modifying CAS 339174-55-9 to arrive at the Applicant’s instantly elected compound species.
Accordingly, in the Action mailed on 8/27/2025, the search was expanded as called for under current Office Markush practice – a compound-by-compound search – to include a single additional species (M.P.E.P. § 803.02). That species was
PNG
media_image3.png
206
324
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and claims 1-3, 6, 8-11, 16-17 and 19, based thereon, were rejected.
Additionally, claims 1-12, 15-17, 19-20 and 52 were rejected on the grounds of containing an “improper Markush grouping” in that Action.
In Applicant’s response filed 11/21/2025, Applicant amended the claims to exclude the above prior art compound and overcome the rejection of claims based thereon and to overcome the rejection of claims on the grounds of containing an “improper Markush grouping”
Accordingly, in the Action mailed on 12/17/2025, the search was again expanded as called for under current Office Markush practice – a compound-by-compound search – to include a single additional species (M.P.E.P. § 803.02). That species was
PNG
media_image4.png
232
348
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and claims 1-3, 11-12, 16-17 and 19-20 were rejected.
In Applicant’s response filed 3/16/2026, Applicant has amended the claims to exclude the above prior art compound and overcome the rejection of claims based thereon.
Accordingly, in the instant Action, the search has again been expanded as called for under current Office Markush practice – a compound-by-compound search – to include a single additional species (M.P.E.P. § 803.02). That species is
PNG
media_image5.png
216
422
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein, in Formula (X), L is
PNG
media_image6.png
86
100
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein n is 1, R5 is H and m is 0; U is NH; V is NR2R3 wherein R2 and R3 are H; W is N; X is NR6 wherein R6 is H; Y1 is N; Y2 is N; R1 is H; and R4 is
PNG
media_image7.png
70
114
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein p is 1 and R8 is -CO2C1alkyl – which reads on claims 1-3, 11-12, 16-17, 19-20 and 52. A rejection to those claims follows.
Since the search has not been expanded beyond the single additional species identified above, claims 4-6, 15, 21, 50-51 and 55-57, which are directed to the elected species but which do not include the single additional species, are objected to as indicated below, and have not been further examined.
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.
Claims 1-3, 11-12, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krasnov et al (Russian J Org Chem 6:755-761, published 9/07/2019).
Claim 1 is drawn to a compound of Formula (X) which embraces the following compound species:
PNG
media_image5.png
216
422
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein, in Formula (X), L is
PNG
media_image6.png
86
100
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein n is 1, R5 is H and m is 0; U is NH; V is NR2R3 wherein R2 and R3 are H; W is N; X is NR6 wherein R6 is H; Y1 is N; Y2 is N; R1 is H; and R4 is
PNG
media_image7.png
70
114
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein p is 1 and R8 is -CO2C1alkyl – which reads on claims 1-3, 11-12, 16-17 and 19-20. A rejection to those claims follows.
Krasnov et al teach the instantly claimed compound (Page 757, Compound 10).
Accordingly, claims 1-3, 11-12, 16-17 and 19-20 are anticipated.
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krasnov et al (Russian J Org Chem 6:755-761, published 9/07/2019) as applied to claims 1-3, 11-12, 16-17 and 19-20 above, as evidenced by Krasnov et al 2017 (Pharm Chem J 51:769-772, 2017).
Claim 52 is drawn to a pharmaceutical composition comprising an effective amount of a compound of claim 1 and one or more pharmaceutically acceptable excipients.
Krasnov et al further teach that “[t]he MIC value for compound 10 was 1.5 µg/mL, which indicated a moderate tuberculostatic activity” as determined “by the vertical diffusion method... according to the procedure described in” Krasnov et al 2017 (Pharm Chem J 51:769-772, 2017) (Page 757, Column 1), which teach that the procedure involved “[w]ater... added to... study compounds” (Page 770, Column 2).
The solution comprising compound 10 and water as an excipient entails a pharmaceutical composition as claimed.
Accordingly, claim 52 is also anticipated.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-6, 15, 21, 50-51 and 55-57, are objected to as depending from a rejected base claim. Since the search has not been expanded beyond the single additional species identified above, claims 4-6, 15, 21, 50-51 and 55-57, which are directed to the elected species but which do not include the single additional species have not been further examined.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRAIG D RICCI whose telephone number is (571) 270-5864. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday, and every other Friday, 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bethany Barham can be reached on (571) 272-6175. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CRAIG D RICCI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611
Prosecution Insights