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 .
Status of Claims and Response to Amendments
The amendments filed October 27, 2025 have been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-6, 10-14 and 21-27 are pending.
Election/Restriction
The present examination is based on Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (presently claims 1-6 and 10-14) and the species corresponding to 2-((4-(6-(4-chlorophenyl)-2-(pyridin-3-yl)pyrimidin-4-yl)piperazin-l-yl)sulfonyl)ethan-l-ol (Example 239, pictured below for convenience) in the reply filed on July 8, 2025
The previous search was limited to Formula I wherein X1 and X2 are each N; X3 is CR2; Ar1 is substituted or unsubstituted heteroaryl; and Ar2 is phenyl, pyridin-2-one, pyridinyl, indazolyl, indolin-2-one.
Applicant amendments filed October 27, 2025 overcame the art rejection set forth in the previous office action. The search has therefore been expanded in view of the amended claims to Formula I wherein Ar1 is substituted or unsubstituted pyridinyl, pyridinone, pyrazolyl, thiazolyl, isothiazolyl, isoxazolyl, pyridazinyl, pyrimidinyl, or tetrazolyl. And art was found. Claims 1-6 and 10-14 read on the expanded subgenus.
Claim 21-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 8, 2025. Applicant’s remark regarding claim 27 is acknowledge. Claim 27 is drawn to a method of inhibiting proliferation, tissue invasion…of cancer cells in a subject having cancer. Claim 27 therefore is drawn to a non-elected invention and is presently withdrawn.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Withdrawn Rejections
Applicant is notified that any outstanding rejection or objection that is not expressly maintained in this Office Action has been withdrawn or rendered moot in view of Applicant’s amendments and/or
remarks.
Maintained Rejections
Claims 13 is rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
The reasons for this rejection were set forth in the previous Office Action mailed July 28, 2025 and are incorporated herein by reference.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed October 27, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended claim 1 so that X1 and X2 are N, X3 is CR2, and D
and E combine form a heterocycloalkyl ring. Applicant states with these amendments, the core heteroaryl skeleton is fixed and the point-to-point connectivity is no longer variable (see pages 31-32).
This argument is not found persuasive for the reason that claim 13 no longer requires Formula I and therefore Applicant’s remarks do not apply to claim 13 which is still drawn to an improper Markush grouping of compounds as set forth in the previous rejection.
Claim 13 should be amended to depend from and include the scope of claim 1.
The rejection is still deemed proper and thus maintained.
Rejections/Objections Necessitated by Applicant Amendment
Claims 1-6 and 10-14 objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims are objected to for lacking unity of invention. Applicant has amended the claims so that claim 13 no longer requires Formula (I). Claim 13 is therefore drawn to a different scope of compounds than claims 1-6, 10-12 and 14. Claim 13, for instance, includes compounds (example pictured below) wherein E and D do not form a C3-10 heterocycloalkyl ring.
PNG
media_image2.png
168
196
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compounds, corresponding compositions, a method of use and a process of making that are of the same scope are considered to form a single inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1, 37 CFR 1.475(d). The claims are drawn to a of different scope and therefore unity of invention is lacking. Claim 13 should be amended to depend from and include the scope of claim 1.
Claim 13 is objected to for failing to comply with rule 1.141(a) (pasted below for convenience). Claim 13 has 376 structurally distinct species which require no common structural features (e.g. Formula I). This number of compounds cannot be considered a reasonable number according to rule 1.141(a). In re Fressola, 22 USPQ 2nd 1828, indicates that the Examiner may reject for Applicants’ failure to follow a Rule. Claim 13 should be amended to depend from and include the scope of claim 1. Failure to amend the claims consistent with the rules may result in a restriction requirement.
§ 1.141 Different inventions in one national application.
(a) Two or more independent and distinct inventions may not be claimed in one
national application, ex-cept that more than one species of an invention, not to
exceed a reasonable number, may be specifically claimed in different claims in
one national application, provided the application also includes an allowable claim
gen-eric to all the claimed species and all the claims to species in excess of one are
written in dependent form (§ 1.75) or otherwise include all the limitations of the
generic claim.
Claim 13 is further objected to for having multiple periods. See claim 13, each of the recited compound numbers has a period after the number (e.g.
PNG
media_image3.png
123
835
media_image3.png
Greyscale
…). MPEP 608.01(m) states each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i). The claims should be amended to remove the extra periods. Compounds may be separated, for instance, by a semi colon.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Norcross et al. (J. Med. Chem. 2016, 59, 6101-6120)(hereinafter “Norcross”).
Norcross teaches compound 22 and a composition thereof (page 6104, Table 4; compound is in solution, EC50=3.3 uM; pictured below for convenience) which corresponds to instant Formula (I) wherein X1 and X2 are N; X3 is CR2 wherein R2 is H; Ar1 is unsubstituted pyridinyl; and Ar2 is phenyl substituted with halo (F) ; E and D form a monocyclic C5 heterocycloalkyl ring comprising 1 N atom (piperidinyl); G is mono C4 heterocycloalkyl ring comprising N and O; and R1 is absent.
PNG
media_image4.png
248
530
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 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.
December 31, 2025
/K.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1624
/BRUCK KIFLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1624