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
Claims 1, 3-10, 13-16 and 21 are pending in the instant application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I,
PNG
media_image1.png
270
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
and the species of Example 1, disclosed on page 21 of the instant specification (reproduced below),
PNG
media_image2.png
174
894
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
in the reply filed on September 18, 2025 was acknowledged in the previous Office Action. The requirement was deemed proper and therefore made FINAL in the previous Office Action.
The products of elected Group I have been examined according to MPEP §803.02. The claims within elected Group I have been examined to the extent that they are readable on the elected species of Example 1. Since no prior art was found on the elected species, the examination was expanded within the products of elected Group I until prior art was found, in which case, the examination stopped and prior art has been applied against the claims. Note, MPEP §803.02. The subject matter of the expanded search and examination thus far, inclusive of the elected species of Example 1, is as follows: a compound of instant formula (I),
PNG
media_image3.png
226
504
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the variables are as defined in independent claim 1.
The entire scope of the products of instant formula (I) in elected Group I has been search and examined.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on September 18, 2025. Claims 17-20 have been cancelled per the Amendment filed
January 21, 2026.
Rejections made in the previous Office Action that do not appear below have been overcome by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Therefore, arguments pertaining to these rejections will not be addressed.
As a result of the current amendments to the claims per the Amendment filed January 21, 2026, the following rejections apply.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 10 are rejected 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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are now unclear because there is a R6 variable and a definition for the R6 variable but a R6 variable is not used in instant formula (I) in currently amended claim 1 or in any other variable definition. The R2 variable in independent claim 1 has been amended to delete the substituent -C(O)NHR6. Therefore, claims 1 and 3-5 are each indefinite.
Claims dependent on independent claim 1 which do not resolve the problem in currently amended independent claim 1 are also found indefinite.
Claim 3 lacks antecedent basis from claim 1 because there is no earlier recitation in claim 1 that the R5 variable can represent 3-methylimidazo[1,2-a]pyridinyl as found in claim 3. The R5 variable can represent heteroaryl(C1-C4)alkyl- in claim 1 wherein the alkyl is attached to the fixed nitrogen in instant formula (I). However, the R5 substituent in claim 3, 3-methylimidazo[1,2-a]pyridinyl, is a heteroaryl ring that is substituted with a methyl. Therefore, claim 3 is indefinite.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 21, 2026 have been fully considered. Applicant argues that the R5 of claim 3 is consistent with R5 of claim 1 and directs one attention to Example 12 on page 23 of the instant specification,
PNG
media_image4.png
258
506
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
All of Applicant’s arguments have been considered but have not been found persuasive. It is disagreed that the R5 of claim 3 (when R5 represents 3-methylimidazo[1,2-a]pyridinyl in claim 3) is consistent with the R5 definition in claim 1. The “3-methyl” in the R5 substituent in claim 3, 3-methylimidazo[1,2-a]pyridinyl, does not indicate that the methyl is linked to the fixed nitrogen in formula (I) as shown by Applicant’s illustration but that the “3-methyl” is a substituent attached to the imidazo[1,2-a]pyridinyl ring at the 3-position of the ring. See Examples 22, 23 and 25 in the instant specification illustrate the nomenclature used when a substituent is substituted on a ring but is not used as a linker as is found for the R5 substituent, 3-methylimidazo[1,2-a]pyridinyl, in claim 3,
PNG
media_image5.png
150
752
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
146
750
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
174
754
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
Further, Applicant’s attention is directed to the nomenclature of Example 12 on page 23,
PNG
media_image8.png
210
752
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
which properly names the substituent at the R5 position as “imidazo[1,2-a]pyridinyl-3-ylmethyl” and that indicates that the methyl is linked to the fixed nitrogen in instant formula (I). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 fails to further limit claim 1 because claim 3 is broader in scope than claim 1 due to the R5 variable representing 3-methylimidazo[1,2-a]pyridinyl in claim 3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 21, 2026 have been considered. Applicant argues that the R5 of claim 3 is consistent with R5 of claim 1 and directs one attention to Example 12 on page 23 of the instant specification.
In response, the R5 variable in formula (I) in claim 1 can represent a heteroaryl(C1-C4)alkyl- substituent. The R5 substituent 3-methylimidazo[1,2-a]pyridinyl in claim 3 is not embraced by the substituent “heteroaryl(C1-C4)alkyl-” in claim 1 since the substituent “3-methylimidazo[1,2-a]pyridinyl” does not have a (C1-C4)alkyl linked to the fixed nitrogen in formula (I) nor can the “heteroaryl” in the substituent “heteroaryl(C1-C4)alkyl-” in claim 1 be substituted. The R5 substituent in claim 3, 3-methylimidazo[1,2-a]pyridinyl, is a heteroaryl ring that is substituted with a methyl. For the reasons given above, the rejection is deemed proper and therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
The elected species of Example 1, disclosed on page 21 of the instant specification, is allowable over the prior art of record.
Claims 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 9 and 21 are allowed over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
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.
This application contains claims 13-16 drawn to an invention nonelected with traverse in the reply filed on September 18, 2025. A complete reply to the final rejection must include cancellation of nonelected claims or other appropriate action (37 CFR 1.144) See MPEP §821.01.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to:
Laura L. Stockton
(571) 272-0710.
The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 am to 6 pm, Eastern Standard Time.
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 acting supervisor,
James Alstrum-Acevedo can be reached on 571/272-5548. 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.
/LAURA L STOCKTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1626 Work Group 1620
Technology Center 1600
March 10, 2026
Book XXVIII, page 249