DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to applicant’s filing dated January 27, 2026. 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 Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, 13-14, 16-17, 19, 21-22, 24-26, 28, 30-31, 33, 35-36, 38, 40 a nd 42 are pending in the instant application. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III, claims 24-26, 28, 30-31 and 42, drawn to a method of treating a fungal infection in a subject, comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of a compound of formula (la) or ( lb ) , in the reply filed on January 27, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, 13-14, 16-17, 19 , 21 , 22 , 33 , 35-36, 38, and 40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 January 27, 2026 . Applicant’s election without traverse of compound B2: 2- ( (4-isopropylbenzyl)amino)-5-(morpholinomethyl)-[ 1 ,2 , 4]triazolo[1,5- a ] pyri m idin-7(4H)-o n e , as a single species of a compound of formula (Ia) in the reply filed on January 27, 2026 is acknowledged. Upon performing the search of prior art Examiner detected compounds related to non-elected species. Hence, the election of species has been withdrawn and examination will proceed to the full scope of a compound of formula (Ia) or I(b) . Claims 24-26, 28, 30-31 and 42 are under examination in the present office action, as they relate to the elected Group III invention. Priority The present application is a 371 of PCT/US2021/038583, filed June 23, 2021, which claims the benefits of priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/043,534, filed June 24, 2020. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/17/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner . Drawings The drawings are objected to because in Figure 9 the image is blurry , which makes it unreadable . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 31 is 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. The claim recites the term:”[…] “preferably”, (line 2 ) which is equivalent to phrase “such as”, renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim s 24, 26, 28 , 30 31 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph , because the specification, while being enabling for the method of treat ing or ameliorating fungal infection caused by Aspergillus, Histoplasma and yeast-like fungi, such as Candida , with compounds recited in Tables 1 and 2 , does not reasonably provide enablement for treating , ameliorating or preventing fungal infection caused by any pathogenic fungi with the full scope of compound of formula (Ia) or ( Ib ). The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. This is a scope of enablement rejection. To be enabling, the specification of the patent application must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wright , 999 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fd. Cir. 1993). Explaining what is meant by "undue experimentation," the Federal Circuit has stated that: The test is not merely quantitative, since a considerable amount of experimentation is permissible, if it is merely routine, or if the specification in question provides a reasonable amount of guidance with respect to the direction in which experimentation should proceed to enable the determination of how to practice a desired embodiment of the claimed invention. PPG v. Guardian, 75 F.3d 1558, 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1996). As pointed out by the court in /n re Angstadt , 537 F.2d 498 at 504 (CCPA 1976), the key word is "undue", not "experimentation". The factors that may be considered in determining whether a disclosure would require undue experimentation are set forth In re Wands , 8 USPQ2d 1400 (CAFC 1988) at 1404 wherein, citing Ex parte Forman , 230 USPQ 546 (Bd. Apls. 1986) at 547 the court recited eight factors: 1- the quantity of experimentation necessary, 2- the amount of direction or guidance provided, 3- the presence or absence of working examples, 4- the nature of the invention, 5- the state of the prior art, 6- the relative skill of those in the art, 7- the predictability of the art, and 8- the breadth of the claims These factors are always applied against the background understanding that scope of enablement varies inversely with the degree of unpredictability involved. In re Fisher, 57 CCPA 1099, 1108, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (1970). Keeping that in mind, the Wands factors are relevant to the instant fact situation for the following reasons: 1. Nature of the invention and the Breadth of the claims. The invention is drawn to a method of treating, ameliorating or preventing fungal infection caused by any pathogenic fungi with the full scope of compound of formula : or . The breadth of the claims is extensive. Scope of the compound covered: The number of compounds encompassed by the formula above is vast since the formula encompasses a large number of possible structural components for each variable of the compound of f ormula (I a) or ( Ib ) and as such combinations of the various variables recited in the claims would yield millions of compounds. There are 3 variables combinations , w here the variables are defined to be any one of many different moieties, e.g. : The variables are further expanded by use of term “optionally substituted” without defining what the substituents are and as such could encompass any of the millions of moieties known in the art. These compounds encompass molecules that widely vary in the physical and chemical properties such as size, molecular weight, acidity, basicity, and properties that are known in the art to greatly influence pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics parameters, not to mention the ability to productively bind to claimed biological target molecules. The claims cover compounds easily in the millions given the number of possible undefined substituents covered by the claims' scope along with varying choices for remaining variables. Each of these compounds is claimed to be useful in the method of treating , ameliorating or even preventing any fungal infection encompassed by instant claims. Scope of the diseases covered: There is a wide variety of human and animal fungal infections ( mycoses ) , which might be caused by: Candida (e.g., C. albicans , C. auris ): Causes candidiasis, ranging from vaginal yeast infections to invasive, life-threatening bloodstream infections (candidemia). Aspergillus : Causes aspergillosis, including pulmonary infections (aspergilloma) and allergic reactions, often in immunocompromised people. Cryptococcus (e.g., C. neoformans , C. gattii ): Leads to lung infections and serious meningitis. Mucorales ( Mucormycetes ): Causes severe infections (mucormycosis) of sinuses, brain, lungs, or skin, often affecting diabetics. Pneumocystis ( P. jirovecii ): Causes Pneumocystis pneumonia (PJP), a serious infection of the lungs. Histoplasma : Known for causing histoplasmosis, a respiratory disease. Coccidioides : Causes Valley fever (coccidioidomycosis), a pneumonia-like illness. Fusarium : Causes fusariosis , particularly in immunocompromised patients. Trichosporon : Known to cause trichosporonosis . Malassezia : Associated with skin infections and some systemic infections , etc. Fungal infections caused by different fungi require different approach in treatment , depending on the type of fungus, the severity of the infection, and whether it is superficial (skin) or systemic (internal) . Moreover, the effectiveness of the specific drug against the specific mycosis highly depends on chemical structure of the molecule of antifungal agent. Applicant proposes to treat, ameliorate or even prevent any of named above and other fungal infection with any compound encompassed by formula (Ia) or ( Ib ). 2. Relative skill of those in the art. The level of ordinary skill in the art may be found by inquiring into: (1) the type of problems encountered in the art; (2) prior art solutions to those problems; (3) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (4) the sophistication of the technology; and (5) the education level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. , 807 F.2d at 962. All of those factors may not be present in every case, and one or more of them may predominate. Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. , 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed.Cir.1983). Based on the typical education level of active workers in the fields of Medicinal chemistry, biology, biochemistry, and pharmacology, as well as the high degree of sophistication required to solve problems encountered in the art, the Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a college degree in one of the fields identified above and at least four years of work experience; i.e. a masters or doctorate level scientist. 3. The predictability or unpredictability of the art and the state of the prior art . The instantly claimed invention is highly unpredictable. As noted above, the invention proposes to treat or prevent fungal infection caused by variety of fungi, which diverse in structure , morphology and some metabolic pathways, with the variety of derivatives of 1,2,4-triazolo[1,5- a ]pyrimidine encompassed by formula (Ia) or ( Ib ). There is no common approach to treat all mycoses . T reatments for these diseases are normally tailored to the particular type of disease as there is no, and there can be no universal drug to treat all named above conditions in general. Accordingly, the unpredictability of treating or furthermore preventing all of mentioned above dis eases with the agents acting as PanK modulators is very high. It is well established that “the scope of enablement varies with the degree of unpredictability of the factors involved” and physiological activity is considered to be an unpredictable factor. See In re Fisher , 166 USPQ 18, at 24 (In cases involving unpredictable factors, such as most chemical reactions and physiological activity, the scope of enablement obviously varies inversely with the degree of unpredictability of the factors involved); Nationwide Chemical Corporation, et. al. v. Wright, et. al ., 192 USPQ 95 (one skilled in chemical and biological arts cannot always reasonably predict how different chemical compounds and elements might behave under varying circumstances); In re Wright 27 USPQ2d 1510 (the physiological activity of RNA viruses was sufficiently unpredictable that success in developing specific avian vaccine was uncertain). As illustrative of the state of the art, the examiner cites: Mostafa et al. (Arch. Pharm. Res. 31, 279–293 (2008)), Abdelghani et al . ( Arabian Journal of Chemistry (2017) 10, S2926–S2933 ) and Kazeminejad et al. ( Biomed Res Int. 2022 Mar 22;2022:4584846 ). With regards to unpredictability, Mostafa et al ., cited for evidentiary purposes teaches 1,2,4- t riazolo[1,5-a] p yrimidine d erivatives, which were synthesized and tested for their in vitro antifungal activities against several fungal species such as Candida albicans, Aspergillus niger , and Aspergillus flavus . The results revealed that all the tested compounds have moderate to potent antifungal activity against only yeast-like fungi strains; Candida albicans and Geotrichum candidum , while have no activity against the other strains (page 290, Table XI). Furthermore, with regards to unpredictability, Abdelghani et al ., cited for evidentiary purposes teaches triazolopyrimidine derivatives, which were synthesized and tested for their antifungal activity against Aspergillus flavus and Candida albicans . The results demonstrated that among 9 compounds being tested, antifungal activity was recorded only for compound 14 which showed pronounced activity against C. albicans (page S2931 , Table 1). Moreover, with regards to unpredictability Kazeminejad et al ., cited for e videntiary purposes in later dated reference teaches: The 1,2,4-triazole core is present as the nucleus in a variety of antifungal drug categories. The most potent and broad activity of triazoles have confirmed them as pharmacologically significant moieties (abstract). One of the most serious issues is the rise of synthetic drug resistance to various fungal pathogens; thus, the synthesis and development of new 1,2,4-triazoles with low toxicity are essential worldwide. (page 1, introduction) . In their review Kazeminejad et al. further discuss the relationship between structure and antifungal activity of 1,2,4-triazole antifungal candidates (page 2, § 1 and throughout the article ) , revealing high dependency of effectiveness of antifungal agent on the structure and position of substituents in the 1,2,4-triazole core. Kazeminejad et al. conclude that the 1,2,4-triazole nucleus and its derivatives are essential scaffolds in the discovery and development of drugs that have a multitude of biological activities, whereas the most challenging problem in fungal therapy is antifungal resistance, which may be progressed by drug target overexpression (page 34, “conclusion”). These articles plainly demonstrate that the art of developing and testing therapies to treat any and all types of diseases with all the compounds encompassed by instant claims is unpredictable. More generally, the invention is directed toward medicine and is therefore physiological in nature. It is well established that “the scope of enablement varies inversely with the degree of unpredictability of the factors involved,” and physiological activity is generally considered to be an unpredictable factor. See In re Fisher , 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970). 4. Amount of guidance/existence of working examples. The instant claims, directed to a method of treating or preventing any fungal infection with all the compounds encompassed by formula (Ia) or ( Ib ) are extremely broad in contrast with the specification that only provides data, showing therapeutic activity of 27 compounds, encompassed by f ormula (I a ) or ( Ib ) (Table s 1 and 2 ) on Candida albicans, Candida auris, Aspergillus fumigatu and Histoplasma capsulatum species . The specification fails to provide adequate support for effectively treating or preventing fungal infection caused by all fungi . Applicant fails to provide any information sufficient to practice the claimed invention, absent undue experimentation. Although specification provides general direction or guidance of: - formulations : “ the compound of the disclosure is the only antifungal agent administered to the subject in a sufficient amount to treat or prevent the fungal infection. […]T he compound of the disclosure and amphotericin B are co-formulated (page 34 lines 1 – 5) ; - dosages: “ the pharmaceutical compositions useful for practicing the method of the disclosure may be administered to deliver a dose of between 1 ng/kg/day and 100 mg/kg/day (page 35, lines 17 – 19); - route of administration: “ The route(s) of administration will be readily apparent to the skilled artisan and will depend upon any number of factors including the type and severity of the disease being treated, the type and age of the veterinary or human patient being treated, and the like (page 36, lines 11 – 13). Routes of administration of any of the compositions of the disclosure include inhalational, oral, nasal, rectal, parenteral, sublingual, transdermal, transmucosal etc.” (page 43, lines 19 – 24), necessary to treat all of the various diseases encompassed by the claims, the directions are very broad and include vast variety of known formulations. While experimentation is presented for treatment of fungal infection caused by Aspergillus, Histoplasma and Candida , with compounds recited in Tables 1 and 2, there is no experimentation or mechanism of action presented or discussed in the specification regarding treatment of the conditions that caused by fungal pathogens other than Aspergillus, Histoplasma or Candida . Absence of working examples is a critical factor to be considered, especially in a case involving an unpredictable and undeveloped art. See MPEP 2164. 5. The quantity of experimentation necessary . Because of the known unpredictability of the art (as discussed supra ) and in the absence of experimental evidence commensurate in scope with the claims, the skilled artisan would not accept that all the compounds of general f ormula (I a ) or ( Ib ) , which are useful in the treatment of fungal infection caused by Aspergillus, Histoplasma or Candida , could be predictably used as treatment for all mycoses . Genentech Inc. vs. Nova Nordisk states, "[A] patent is not a hunting license. It is not a reward for a search but a compensation for its successful conclusion and ‘patent protection’ is granted in return for an enabling disclosure of an invention, not for vague intimations of general ideas that may or may not be workable" (42 USPQ 2d 1001, Fed. Circuit 1997). As noted above, none of the experimentation provided is drawn to the treatment of all mycoses , except for the infection caused by Aspergillus, Histoplasma or Candida . A review of the state of the art fails to reveal that all the compounds encompassed by f ormula (I a ) or ( Ib ) in combination with additional antifungal agent are useful as a therapeutic for the treatment of all mycoses , except for the treatment of mycoses caused by Aspergillus, Histoplasma or Candida . Determining if any particular claimed compound would treat any particular disease state, would require synthesis of the compound, formulation into a suitable dosage form, and subjecting it to clinical trials or to testing in an assay known to correlate to clinical efficacy of such treatment. This is undue experimentation given the limited guidance and direction provided by Applicants. As noted supra, even in vitro and in vivo assays do not always correlate to efficacy in humans and are not generally predictive of clinical efficacy. Accordingly, the instant claims do not comply with the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), since to practice the claimed invention a person of ordinary skill in the art would have to engage in undue experimentation, with no assurance of success. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 24 – 26 , 30, 31 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mostafa et al. (Arch. Pharm. Res. 31, 279–293 (2008 , hereinafter Mostafa )). Regarding claims 24 – 26 and 42 , drawn to a method of treating or ameliorating a fungal infection in a mammalian subject (e.g. human), comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of a compound of formula or , where R 1 is H, NH 2 or NHPh ; R 2 is phenyl or NH-(CH 2 ) 1-3 -Ph; and R 3 is halogen, NR 4d R 4c , -C(=O)OR 4d , OR 4d where R 4 c and R 4d is H or C 1 -C 6 alkyl , optionally substituted with least one of C 1 -C 6 alkyl, C 3 -C 8 cycloalkyl, halogen, -CN, optionally substituted phenyl, optionally substituted heteroaryl or optionally substituted heterocyclyl. The method of instant claims is effective against infection caused by Aspergillus, Histoplasma or Candida , wherein the compound is the only antifungal agent administered to the subject. Mostafa teaches compounds, 1,2,4-triazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidine derivatives, such as compound 5 (page 280, Scheme 1). The structure of compound 5, taught by Mostafa, satisf ies formula ( Ib ) of instant claims where R 1 is H; R 2 is phenyl; and R 3 is OR 4d , where R 4d is C 1 alkyl (-CH 2 -) substituted with substituted heteroaryl . The compounds of Mostafa were tested as the only antifungal agent against fungal species: Candida albicans, Aspergillus niger , and Aspergillus flavus . The test results revealed that compounds exhibit moderate to potent antifungal activity against Candida albicans (page 290, Table XI). Regarding claim 30 , drawn to a method where compounds inhibits fungal Pank selectively over human PanK enzyme, the prior art is silent regarding "inhibiting fungal Pank selectively over human PanK enzyme". However: " inhibiting fungal Pank selectively over human PanK enzyme" will naturally flow from the teachings of (or method made obvious by) the prior art (see above rejection), since the same compound (compound encompassed by formula (Ia) or ( Ib )) is being administered to the same subjects (mammalian subject suffering from fungal infection). In other words, products of identical or similar composition cannot exert mutually exclusive properties when administered under the same or similar circumstances. In other words, even though the prior art is silent regarding " inhibiting fungal Pank selectively over human PanK enzyme, by practicing the method made obvious by the prior art: "the administration of an effective amount of a compound of formula (Ia) or ( Ib ) to a patient suffering from fungal infection", one will also be “inhibiting fungal Pank selectively over human PanK enzyme ", even though the prior art was not aware of it. Apparently, Applicant has discovered a new property or advantage ( “inhibiting fungal Pank selectively over human PanK enzyme ") of the method made obvious by the prior art (" the administration of an effective amount of a compound of formula (Ia) or ( Ib ) to a patient suffering from fungal infection "). MPEP 2145 II states: "The fact that Applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art, cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious". Ex parte Obiaya , 227 USPQ 58, 60. (FP 7.37.07, MPEP 707.07(f)). Regarding claim 31 , drawn to a method where the subject is mammal such as human, Mostafa does not explicitly teach that the subject is human, however it is well understood form the text of the article that compounds taught by Mostafa are intended for application in medicine. For example, all the synthesized compounds were tested for their antifungal activity against pathogenic fungal species affecting animals and humans. Furthermore, antifungal activity of compounds of Mostafa were compared with known antifungal drug fluconazole , which is used to treat fungal infection in human patients. Thus, Mostafa teaches compounds of the same structure, possessing the same properties. MPEP 2112.02 states: “ … if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device ”. Ex parte Novitski, 26 USPQ2d 1389 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (The Board rejected a claim directed to a method for protecting a plant from plant pathogenic nematodes by inoculating the plant with a nematode inhibiting strain of P. cepacia . A U.S. patent to Dart disclosed inoculation using P. cepacia type Wisconsin 526 bacteria for protecting the plant from fungal disease. Dart was silent as to nematode inhibition but the Board concluded that nematode inhibition was an inherent property of the bacteria. The Board noted that applicant had stated in the specification that Wisconsin 526 possesses an 18% nematode inhibition rating.) Thus, teachings of Mostafa anticipate the method of claims 24 – 26, 30, 31 and 42. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim s 24, 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mostafa et al. (Arch. Pharm. Res. 31, 279–293 (2008 )) in view of Sugar ( 1991 . Antimicrob Agents Chemother 35 : 1669 – 1671 , hereinafter Sugar). Instant claims are drawn to a method of treating or ameliorating a fungal infection in a subject, comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of a compound of formula (Ia) or ( Ib ) where the subject is further administered amphotericin B , where administration of the compound and amphotericin B allows for administration of an amount of the amphotericin B that is lower than the corresponding amount of amphotericin B that has to be administered in the absence of the compound to achieve equivalent treatment or prevention of the fungal infection . Mostafa teaches compounds of the same structures as instantly claimed compounds of formula (Ia) or ( Ib ) and possessing antifungal activity against Candida albicans (see 102 rejection section). Mostafa does not teach where the amphotericin B is further administered. However, Sugar teaches a method where Amphotericin B and azole drug SCH 39304 were administered individually or in combination to IRC mice , infected with C. albicans , to evaluate potential additive, synergistic or antagonistic effect. Studies reveal that the combination therapy was superior to amphotericin B alone (P<0.01). I n animals with an acute infection significant protection was provided by amphotericin B, 0.1 mg/kg/day, and SCH 39304, 0.1 mg/kg/day (Fig. 1A; P < 0.01). However, when both SCH 39304 and amphotericin B were combined in these lower doses, 42% of the mice were alive at day 35, whereas 25% of the mice were alive when both drugs were used alone (P = 0.08 ) compared with SCH 39304 alone and P < 0.05 compared with amphotericin B alone) (page 1669, right column 5 th paragraph) . Thus, since Mostafa teaches compounds of the same structure and exhibiting the same pharmacological activities as instantly claimed compounds , applied in the claimed method of treating fungal infection, Sugar teaches the method of treatment of fungal infection using combination of azole drug with amphotericin B , where using drug combination yields more favorable outcomes compared to monotherapy, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the method of Sugar by substituting known azole drug with another known antifungal agent to treat fungal infection in a subject with the reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, taking all together, taught by prior art, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary. 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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claim s 24 – 26, 28, 30, 31 and 42 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 16, 18, 23 and 24 of copending Application No. 19/141,460 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims are drawn to a method of treating or ameliorating a fungal infection in a mammalian subject (e.g. human), comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of a compound of formula or , where R 1 is H, NH 2 or NHPh ; R 2 is phenyl or NH-(CH 2 ) 1-3 -Ph; and R 3 is halogen, NR 4d R 4c , -C(=O)OR 4d , OR 4d where R 4 c and R 4d is H or C 1 -C 6 alkyl, optionally substituted with least one of C 1 -C 6 alkyl, C 3 -C 8 cycloalkyl, halogen, -CN, optionally substituted phenyl, optionally substituted heteroaryl or optionally substituted heterocyclyl. The method of instant claims is effective against infection caused by Aspergillus, Histoplasma or Candida , where the compounds the compounds inhibits fungal Pank selectively over human PanK enzyme , and wherein the subject is further administered amphotericin B . Claims of copending application are directed to a method of sensitizing a fungus to an antifungal agent administered to a mammalian subject (e.g. human) to treat, ameliorate the fungal infection in the subject; the method comprising administering to a subject being administered the antifungal agent a therapeutically effective amount of a compound which is a pantothenate kinase ( PanK ) inhibitor and/or modulator , where the compound comprises a compound of formula or , where R 1 is H, NH 2 or NHPh ; R 2 is phenyl or NH-(CH 2 ) 1-3 -Ph; and R 3 is halogen, NR 4d R 4c , -C(=O)OR 4d , OR 4d where R 4 c and R 4d is H or C 1 -C 6 alkyl, optionally substituted with least one of C 1 -C 6 alkyl, C 3 -C 8 cycloalkyl, halogen, -CN, optionally substituted phenyl, optionally substituted heteroaryl or optionally substituted heterocyclyl. The method is effective against infection caused by Aspergillus, Histoplasma or Candida , where compounds inhibits fungal Pank selectively over human PanK enzyme . Thus the method of copending claims would anticipate the instantly claimed method. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion Claims 24-26, 28, 30-31 and 42 are rejected. No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ELENA V VISHNYAKOVA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3781 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7:30am - 5pm ET . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT RENEE CLAYTOR can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8394 . 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. /E.V.V./ Examiner, Art Unit 1691 /SAVITHA M RAO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1691