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
Priority
PNG
media_image1.png
16
360
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Receipt is acknowledged of amendment / response filed on September 26, 2025 and that has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), filed on 09/30/2025, which has been entered in the file.
Response to Election/Restriction
In response to the restriction requirement Applicants have elected Group I, which now includes claims 1-5 (after rejoining Group II, claim 5), drawn to a compound of formula I and the elected species as set forth and recited in claim 5, such as,
PNG
media_image2.png
122
184
media_image2.png
Greyscale
with traverse, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the remaining invention Groups should be rejoined and examined with the elected Group I, because “
PNG
media_image3.png
80
636
media_image3.png
Greyscale
” (Remarks, page 13) and therefore, the search and examination of the entire Application can be made without undue burden to the Examiner. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and found unpersuasive at this time because the Invention Groups I-IV differ materially in structure and in element from each other and therefore, are capable of supporting their own patents.
The invention Groups I-IV each relates to a set of structurally diverse compounds [having different variable groups, which are attached directly and indirectly to the core formula I], compositions comprising compounds, and their method of uses, which do not possess a substantial common core, wherein a reference anticipating one would not necessarily render the other obvious. The core does not define a contribution over the art. The ring structure of formula I is further substituted by different variables R1, R2, X, Y and Z etc., which are broadly defined and when the compound of formula is taken as a whole, a plethora of vastly different compounds are possible. Thus these features are not considered ‘special technical features’ under PCT rules 13.1 and 13.2. Hence, the unity of invention is considered to be lacking and restriction of the invention in accordance with the rules of unity of invention is considered to be proper.
In addition, 35 U.S.C. 372 (b)(2) clearly states that unity of invention may be reexamined under 35 U.S.C. 121. Restriction was based on PCT Rule 13.1, 13.2 and Annex B part 1(b) together with 37 CFR 1.475 and 1.499 for lacking unity of invention, because of lacking a significant structural element qualifying as the special technical features.
PCT Rule 13.2 states that the international application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (requirement of unity of invention).
PCT Rule 13.2 states that unity of invention referred to in Rule 13.1 shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features.
Annex B (2)(V) when dealing with alternatives, if it can be shown that at least one Markush alternative is not novel over the prior art, the question of unity of invention shall be reconsidered by the Examiner. Reconsideration does not necessarily imply that an objection of lack of unity shall be raised. If the Examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) of the other invention. Nevertheless, the Examiner may reconsider to rejoin method of use claims commensurate in scope with the product claims when the case would be found in condition for allowance [provided those method claims are free from 35 U.S.C. §112 first (including written description, reach-through claim language and/or scope-enablement issues) and second paragraphs]. For these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive and, since 35 U.S.C. 101 allows one patent per invention, the requirement for restriction (election of species) is still deemed proper.
Claims 6-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 1.142 (b) as being drawn to a non-elected subject matter.
Applicants preserve their right to file a divisional on the non-elected subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shoba et al (2017). Applicant claims a compound of formula I and the derivatives, pharmaceutical compositions and their method of uses thereof. Shoba et al also discloses several identical compounds and compositions, which anticipate the instantly claimed inventions [
PNG
media_image4.png
434
644
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, STN International, CAPLUS database, Accession Number 2022 : 955717, a copy is provided with this Office action].
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Golam Shameem, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571) 272-0706. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30 AM - 6:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Clinton Brooks, Ph.D. can be reached at (571) 270-7682.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the Group receptionist, whose telephone number is (571) 272-1600.
/GOLAM M SHAMEEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1621