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
1. This This application is a 371 of PCT/US2021/025614 04/02/2021; PCT/US2021/025614 has PRO 63/004,717 04/03/2020.
Claims 1-6, 9, 11, 14-17, 19-23, 25-40, 46, 51-54 are pending.
Response to Amendments
2. The rejection of claim 46 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn based upon the amendments.
The rejection of claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 9, 11, 30-40, 51 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bartolini WO 2007022501 A2 is withdrawn, applicant points out that on page 7 of claim 1, the variable k cannot be 0, and as such the unsubstituted benzyl compounds cited in the rejection are excluded.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11, 14-17, 19, 20, 25-40, 46, 51 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-34 of copending Application No. 17/916,388 is maintained. Applicants’ representative’s arguments presented on October 30, 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
New grounds of rejection appear below.
Information Disclosure Statements
3. The information disclosure statements fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2). The IDS statements list several US patent application numbers under the Non-Patent Literature heading. As explained in MPEP 609.04(a) II (C) “For each cited pending unpublished U.S. application, the application specification including the claims, and any drawings of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion, unless the cited pending U.S. application is stored in the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system. The requirement in 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2)(iii) for a legible copy of the specification, including the claims, and drawings of each cited pending U.S. patent application (or portion of the application which caused it to be listed) is sua sponte waived where the cited pending application is stored in the USPTO’s IFW system. See Waiver of the Copy Requirement in 37 CFR 1.98 for Cited Pending U.S. Patent Applications, 1287 OG 163 (October 19, 2004);”. However as discussed further, “This waiver is limited to the specification, including the claims, and drawings in the U.S. application (or portion of the application). If material other than the specification, including the claims, and drawings in the file of a U.S. patent application is being cited in an IDS, the IDS must contain a legible copy of such material. See 37 CFR 1.98(a)(l)(rv).” No explanation is provided as to which portion of the application is cited and essentially the whole case file has been cited, which is improper. If the intention is to only cite the specification, claims and drawings, they need not be provided but the citation should indicate that this is the case.
Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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.
4. Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 9, 11, 30-40, 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart WO 2016100166 A1. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art:
Hart on page 3 teaches:
PNG
media_image1.png
370
633
media_image1.png
Greyscale
R1 corresponds to A, and the R4 group corresponds to Y-Z where Y is a bond and Z is the first selection:
PNG
media_image2.png
76
599
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
53
553
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The U is accounted for by the tautomer language in the instant claims and the tautomer language above in the prior art. R3 corresponds to R2. V1 is CR2, V2 is N.
The L-R2 group corresponds to the instant B-(R1)k where L-R2 is as defined below:
PNG
media_image4.png
31
196
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, where r is 1 and R2 is phenyl (B is benzyl), or r is 0 and R2 is
PNG
media_image5.png
31
566
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(B is cycloalkyl).
There are a number of species on pages 52ff.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
The prior art only differs semantically from the instant claims with different generic variables being used in the instant claims. The claims attempt to proviso out all the species of Hart.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art: The level of ordinary skill is high. Someone preparing these compounds would be trained in organic chemistry and would recognize the very close structural similarity and would expect them to have similar properties. The generic claims and compounds of the instant claims are encompassed by the prior art genus. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to make the compounds of the invention because he would expect the compounds to have similar properties.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
6. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11, 14-17, 19, 20, 25-40, 46, 51 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-34 of copending Application No. 17/916,388. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘388 application are drawn to the position isomers of the claimed compounds where the -OH group (U) is on the 5-position, while the instant claims are drawn to the 4- hydroxy indoles (U group). This can be seen by comparing the compound of copending claim 5:
PNG
media_image6.png
207
288
media_image6.png
Greyscale
To the compound of Formula VIa of instant claims 5:
PNG
media_image7.png
262
257
media_image7.png
Greyscale
OR Formula VIIIe in claim 22:
PNG
media_image8.png
320
382
media_image8.png
Greyscale
To the Formula in IXa in claim 28 is the same except for this change in position now:
PNG
media_image9.png
289
242
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The species in copending claim 30 are nearly identical to the elected species and others where the position of the -OH has simply migrated one position.
PNG
media_image10.png
231
688
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Positional isomers, having the same radical on different positions of the molecule, are prima facie obvious, and require no secondary teaching. The experienced medicinal chemist, who would make the compounds, would be motivated to prepare these position isomers based on the expectation that such close analogues would have similar properties and upon the routine nature of such position isomer experimentation in the art of medicinal chemistry. It would be routine for the chemist to vary the point of attachment in order to increase potency and to establish better patent protection for her compounds. In re JONES 74 USPQ 152 (4-methyl naphthyl-1-acetic acid and 2-methyl naphthyl-1-acetic acid obvious over a reference teaching 1-methyl naphthyl-2-acetic acid), quoted with approval by Ex parte MOWRY AND SEYMOUR 91 USPQ 219, Ex parte Ullyot 103 USPQ 185 (4-hydroxy-1-oxo-1,2,3,4-tetrahydroisoquinoline obvious over a reference teaching 4-hydroxy-2-oxo-1,2,3,4-tetrahydroquinoline), "[p]osition isomers are recognized by chemists as similar materials", Ex parte BIEL 124 USPQ 109 (N-ethyl-3-piperidyl diphenylacetate obvious over a reference teaching N-alkyl-4-piperidyl diphenylacetate), "[appellant's arguments] do not, in any way, obviate the plain fact that appellant's DACTIL is an isomer of McElvain et al.'s compound. This close relationship places a burden on appellant to show some unobvious or unexpected beneficial properties in his compound in order to establish patentability", Ex parte Henkel 130 USPQ 474, (1-phenyl-3-methyl-4-hydroxypyrazole obvious over reference teaching 3-phenyl-5-methyl-4-hydroxypyrazole), "appellants have made no comparative showing here establishing the distinguishing characteristics they allege which we might consider as evidence that the claimed compounds are unobvious. It is clear from In re Henze, supra, and the authorities it cites, that at least this much is necessary to establish patentability in adjacent homologs and position isomers (emphasis added)".
In re Surrey 138 USPQ 67, (2,6-dimethylphenyl-N-(3-dimethylaminopropyl) carbamate obvious over a reference teaching 2,4-dimethylphenyl N-(3-dimethylaminopropyl) carbamate), In re MEHTA 146 USPQ 284, (2-(1-methyl)-pyrrolidylmethyl benzilate obvious over a reference teaching 3-(1-methyl)-pyrrolidylmethyl benzilate), "[t]he fact that a position isomer (emphasis added) of a compound is known is some evidence of the obviousness of that compound. Position isomerism (emphasis added) is a fact of close structural (emphasis in original) similarity …".Deutsche Gold-Und Silber-Scheideanstalt Vormals Roessler v. Commissioner of Patents, 148 USPQ 412, (1-azaphenothiazines obvious over references teaching 2-azaphenothiazines, 3-azaphenothiazines, and 4-azaphenothiazines), In re Crounse, 150 USPQ 554 (dye with para (CONH2) and ortho (OCH3) obvious over a dye with the same nucleus and meta (CONH2) and para (OCH3) group), Ex parte Allais, 152 USPQ 66, (3-b-aminopropyl-6-methoxyindole obvious over a reference teaching 3-b-aminopropyl-5-methoxyindole), In re Wiechert 152 USPQ 247, (1-methyl dihydrotestosterones obvious over a reference teaching 2-methyl dihydrotestosterones), Monsanto Company v. Rohm and Haas Company, 164 USPQ 556, at 559, (3',4'-dichloropropionanilide obvious over references teaching 2',4'-dichloropropionanilide and 2',5'-dichloropropionanilide), Ex parte Naito and Nakagawa, 168 USPQ 437, (3-phenyl-5-alkyl-isothiazole-4-carboxylic acid obvious over a reference teaching 5-phenyl-3-alkyl-isothiazole-4-carboxylic acid), "[t]his merely involves position isomers (emphasis added) and under the decisions cited, the examiner's holding of prima facie obviousness is warranted." In re Fouche, 169 USPQ 429, (10-aliphatic substituted derivatives of dibenzo[a,d]cycloheptadiene obvious over reference teaching 5-aliphatic substituted derivatives of dibenzo[a,d]cycloheptadiene). In re Hass 60 USPQ 552, which found a prima facia case of obviousness of 1-chloro-1-nitrobutane over 1-chloro-1-nitroisobutane taught in the prior art, Ex parte Ullyot, 103 USPQ 185, which found a prima facia case of of 2-oxo-quinolines obvious over prior art a 1-oxo-isoquinoline, In re FINLEY, 81 USPQ 383, 2-ethyl hexyl salicylate over octyl salicylate.
Ex parte Engelhardt, 208 USPQ 343 at 349, "[i]f functional groups capable of withdrawing or repelling electrons are located in the chain or ring (emphasis added) of a biologically active compound, transfer of such groups to other positions in which their electronic effects are lessened or enhanced may alter the biological activity of the modified compound. Hence, position isomerism (emphasis added) has been used as a tool to obtain new and useful drugs", In re Grabiak 226 USPQ 870, "[w]hen chemical compounds have "very close" structural similarities and similar utilities, without more a prima facie case may be made", In re Deuel 34 USPQ2d 1210, "a known compound may suggest its analogs or isomers, either geometric isomers (cis v. trans) or position isomers (emphasis added) (e.g. ortho v. para)".
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID K O'DELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9071. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:30 - 7:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Clinton Brooks can be reached on 571-270-7682. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/DAVID K O'DELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1621