Detailed Action
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 the Claims
Claims 1-10, 13, and 17-20 are pending. Claims 1-9 and 17 are withdrawn. Claims 10, 13, and 18-20 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) from 12/22/2025 was considered by the Examiner.
Election/Restriction
The elected species:
PNG
media_image1.png
193
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, is allowable. As per MPEP 803.02, “Following election, the Markush claim will be examined fully with respect to the elected species and further to the extent necessary to determine patentability.” Incidental to the search of the elected species, prior art over non-elected species was discovered and, in the interest of compact prosecution, is presented below.
Claims 1-9 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to the objection(s) of the specification, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are mostly persuasive. The objections of claim 13 has been withdrawn. Some of the objections to claim 10 have been maintained below.
Applicant’s arguments and arguments, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC 112(b), 102, and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Additionally, Applicant provided superior results of the instantly claimed compound over the prior art used in the rejection mailed by the Office on 8/21/2025. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn and applicant’s 12/22/2025 arguments will not be further addressed. However, upon further consideration and as necessitated by amendments, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
P. 11, line 20: replace “benzyl; benzhydryl;” with “benzyl, benzhydryl,”;
P. 11, line 8, insert a comma after “group R”.
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CAS Registry No. 2175-83-9 (which entered the STN database on 11/16/1984).
Regarding instant claim 10, CAS Registry No. 2175-83-9 is drawn to the following structure:
PNG
media_image2.png
125
362
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, which is embraced by a compound of instant formula (II):
PNG
media_image3.png
55
189
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, wherein A =
PNG
media_image4.png
84
82
media_image4.png
Greyscale
; X = -O-; n = 2; B =
PNG
media_image5.png
79
83
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
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.
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) 10, 13, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renou et al. (Chemico-Biological Interactions 203, 2013, 81-84), in view of Reed et al. (Journal of Biochemical and Molecular Toxicology, Vol. 31:5, 2017, p. 1-7).
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. (See MPEP § 2141.01)
Renou teaches that organophosphorus nerve agents are highly toxic compounds that represent a threat to both military and civilian populations (see abstract). Renou discloses a compound that has been synthesized to treat organophosphorus poisoning, which is shown here:
PNG
media_image6.png
138
261
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(see Fig. 1, p. 82).
Renou fails to disclose a butyrylcholinesterase used in combination with the compound shown supra.
Reed discloses human butyrylcholinesterase as having the ability to sequester organophosphorus nerve agent in the bloodstream and preventing the nerve agent from reaching critical target organ systems (see abstract).
Ascertainment of the differences between the prior art and the claims. (See MPEP § 2141.02)
The prior art compound of Renou differs from an instantly claimed compound by the difference of one or two carbon(s) (n = 3) at the “n” location. Additional dependent limitations will be addressed below.
Finding of prima facie obviousness --- rationale and motivation (See MPEP § 2142-2143)
Regarding instant claims 10 and 18, the prior art compound is similar to a compound of both formula (II):
PNG
media_image3.png
55
189
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and formula (Ic):
PNG
media_image7.png
64
196
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, wherein A =
PNG
media_image8.png
104
93
media_image8.png
Greyscale
; R = -OH; X = single bond, n = 3 (**difference), B =
PNG
media_image9.png
77
114
media_image9.png
Greyscale
. “Structural relationships may provide the requisite motivation or suggestion to modify known compounds to obtain new compounds. For example, a prior art compound may suggest its
PNG
media_image10.png
1
1
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
1
1
media_image10.png
Greyscale
homologs because
PNG
media_image10.png
1
1
media_image10.png
Greyscale
homologs
PNG
media_image10.png
1
1
media_image10.png
Greyscale
often have similar properties and therefore chemists of ordinary skill would ordinarily contemplate making them to try to obtain compounds with improved properties.” In re Deuel 34 USPQ2d 1210 at 1214. Furthermore MPEP 2144.09 (II) states: “Compounds which are […] homologs (…) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977).” It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to arrive at a homolog of the prior art compound, which differs by one carbon in a straight chain, to also treat organophosphorus nerve poisoning, with a reasonable expectation of success. The properties of the homologs would have been similar as a result of their similar chemical structure. Regarding instant claims 19 and 20, which both include this claimed compound:
PNG
media_image11.png
81
208
media_image11.png
Greyscale
, the prior art compound shown supra is also a homolog (difference of two carbons in the straight central chain) and renders claims 19 and 20 prima facie obvious for analogous reasons to previously described.
Regarding instant claim 13, both butyrylcholinesterase and an obvious compound were used in the treatment of organophosphorus poisoning. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072. See MPEP 2144.06(I). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to arrive at the instantly claimed kit, with both butyrylcholinesterase and an obvious compound, in the effort to successfully treat organophosphorus poisoning, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 MEGHAN C HEASLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0785. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30-4:30 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, Amy Clark can be reached on 571-272-1310. 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.
/MEGHAN C HEASLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 1626
/KAMAL A SAEED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1626