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
This Office action is responsive to Applicant's Remarks and Amendment after Non-Final Rejection, filed Dec. 05, 2025. As filed, Claims 1-15 are pending are pending of which claims 1, 6 are amended; claim 15 is newly added. Claims 7- 14 and newly added 15 are withdrawn from consideration as pertaining to non-elected invention.
A complete response to this Office Action should include cancellation of non-elected subject matter or other appropriate action.
Claims 2-5, previously withdrawn from consideration as pertaining to non-elected species, are rejoined.
Claims 1-6 are examined herein.
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered and are entered. The status for each rejection and/or objection in the previous Office Action is set out below.
The rejection of claims 1 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over CN 107417715 by Xie et al. Dec. 2017 is withdrawn in view of amendments to claims.
2.The rejection to claims 1 and 6 as containing an improper Markush grouping is withdrawn in view of claim amendments.
3.The Non statutory Double Patenting rejections to claims 1 and 6 as set forth int eh previous office actions are withdrawn. The Applicants submitted a terminal disclaimer on 12/05/2025.
The following are modified or new grounds of rejections necessitated by Applicants’ amendment, filed on 12/05/2025, wherein the limitations in pending claims as amended now have been changed and the breadth and scope of those claims have been changed.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation in claim 1 “[Formula A-2]” should be written without the brackets to avoid potential indefiniteness issues.
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: the chemical drawing in claims 1 and 6 should be replaces with more clear to read chemical structures.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 is dependent upon Claim 1. The subject matter in Claim 1 is a compound of formula A-2
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
The subject matter in Claim 4 is compounds according to the compound represented by Formula A-1 is represented by one of Formulae A-3 to A-11. The scope of Claim 4 is broader than the scope of Claim 1 because claim 4 include compounds outside the scope of formula A-2, as it’s drawn to formula A-1 whereas those compounds of formula A-1 have been removed from the scope of Claim 1 by amendment.
Claim 5 is dependent upon Claim 1. The subject matter in Claim 5 is compounds according to claim 1, whereon the compound represented by Formula A-2 is represented by one of Formulae A-12 to A-17. The scope of Claim 5 is broader than the scope of Claim 1 because claim 5 include compounds of formula -12 to A-17 outside the scope of formula A-2.
Claim 6 is dependent upon Claim 1. The subject matter in Claim 1 is a compound of formula A-2 as discussed above.
The subject matter in Claim 6 is compounds according to formula A-1 and A-2 as defined in Claim 1, including the species listed.
The scope of Claim 6 is broader than the scope of Claim 1 because claim 6 include compounds outside the scope of formula A-2, as it’s drawn to both formula A1 and A-2 whereas those compounds of formula A-1 have been removed from the scope of Claim 1 by amendment. Furthermore, compound species recited in claim 6, such as compound 11
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
are not encompassed in the scope of formula A-2. Because the scope of Claim 6 is broader then Claim 1, the claims fail to further limit the subject matter thereof, and fail to comply with the formal requirements set forth in the fourth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 are prior art free.
Conclusion
Claims 1-3 are allowable. Claims 4-6 are rejected. Claims 7- 15 are withdrawn from consideration as pertaining to non-elected invention.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to:
Ana Muresan
(571) 270-7587 (phone)
(571)270-8587 (fax)
Ana.Muresan@uspto.gov
The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9:00AM - 5:30PM).
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ANA Z MURESAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692