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 Application
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s arguments filed on 12/1/25. Claims 1-215, 218-222, 225-229, 232-236 have been cancelled. Claims 237-250 been added. Claims 216-217, 223-224, 230-231, 237-250 are pending. Claims 216 and 223 have been amended. Claims 216-217, 223-224, 230-231, 237-250 are examined herein.
The amendments to the claims have rendered the 102 rejection of the last Office Action moot, therefore hereby withdrawn.
The Examiner will now select another species election within the genus of formula I for further examination. Claims 230-231, 242-249 have been withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a non-elected species. Claims 216-217, 223-224, 237-241, 250 are examined herein insofar as they read on the elected invention and species.
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. See 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) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 216-217, 223-224, 237-241, 250 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-147 of copending Application No. 18/717,167. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims recite a compound of formula I with substantial overlap of scope.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s request that the double patenting rejection(s) be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is identified.
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.
Claims 216-217, 223-224, 237-241, 250 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nicki et al. (US Patent 3,843,638, of record).
Nicki et al. teach that compounds of formula I are useful as inhibitors of thrombocyte aggregation and adhesiveness (abstract). A preferred compound is 2-(diethanol-amino)-4-morpholino-pyrido [3,2-d] pyrimidine in Example 17 (below). Various excipients, such as lactose, polyvinylpyrrolidone, and magnesium stearate, are also taught (Example 48).
PNG
media_image1.png
226
308
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong S. Chong whose telephone number is (571)-272-8513. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday: 9 AM to 5 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Milligan, can be reached at (571)-270-7674. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866)-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Yong S. Chong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1623
Prosecution Insights