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 .
Current Status
This action is responsive to the amended claims of 04/29/2024. In a phone call with Applicant’s Representative on 05/06/2026, Applicant’s Representative confirmed the currently pending claims are those of 04/29/2024.
Claims 1-66 are pending. Claims 48 and 53-66 have been withdrawn as being drawn to an unelected species. Claims 1-47 and 49-52 have been examined on the merits.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of a species of Formula (I) (5-[(4-cyanophenyl)methyl]-7-hexyl-5H,6H,7H,8H,9H,10H-cyclohepta[b]indole-4-carboxylic acid) and COVID-19 in the reply filed on 03/30/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the compounds of Formula (I) are a special technical feature since they make a contribution over the prior art – various formulas are also subgenera of Formula (I). This is not found persuasive because the requirement was not made based on whether or not the Formulas (I)-(IV) make a contribution over the prior art. The requirement was made because the various Formulas (I) – (XII) do share not a common feature, i.e., having different structural elements (see Pg. 6 ¶5 of Restriction). Examiner maintains that within and across Formulas (I) and (V)-(XII) the species do not all share a common structure and do not belong to a recognized class of chemical compounds. While Formulas (II)-(IV) are subgenera of Formula (I), the species within still vary in structure and class. Further, Applicant only addresses the requirement concerning Formulas (I)-(IV) and does not address the merits of the election requirement concerning Formulas (V)-(XII). The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
A search for the elected species of Formula (I) did not retrieve any prior art for the claimed method. Thus, the search was extended to the full extent of Formula (I) and subgenera Formulas (II)-(IV) and the species of claim 47. The search for Formulas (II)-(IV) returned art which taught compounds thereof; however, these references did not teach the instant method of use. The search for the broad Formula (I) returned prior art for the following extended species:
PNG
media_image1.png
217
248
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
204
198
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. Thus, the search will not be unnecessarily extended in this action, per Markush search practice.
The search covered claims 1-47 and 49-52. The two extended species (above) read on claims 1, 7-9, 12-14, and 16-20.
Claims 48 and 53-66 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/30/2026.
Priority
The effective filing date for claims 1-47 and 49-52 is 07/06/2020. Note, the EFD of withdrawn claims 48 and 53-66 appears to be 07/06/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/09/2023, 10/13/2023 (3), 11/10/2023, 11/14/2023, 07/22/2024, 08/30/2024, 10/03/2024, 01/17/2025, 02/20/2025, 03/27/2025, 04/17/2025, 06/06/2025, 07/18/2025, 08/22/2025, 10/17/2025, and 11/28/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20, 29, 33, 37, 39, 40-46, and 51 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites
PNG
media_image3.png
220
639
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. Please move the first annotated “and” to the spot before the final moiety from which R1 is chosen. Please strike the second annotated “and” (solid arrow). Dependent claims 2-20 are similarly objected since they do not fix the issue.
Claims 19, 29, 37, 45, and 51: please replace “are selected” with “is selected” to improve grammar.
Claim 33: please add a space between “is” and “1” in “when n is1”.
Claim 39: please strike the second “of” in the phrase “one or more of the of compounds described in Formula (IV):”. Dependent claims 40-46 are similarly objected since they do not fix the issue.
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 1-46 and 50-51 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.
Claim 1 Formula (I) contains dashed bonds in rings Z and W:
PNG
media_image4.png
129
178
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image5.png
150
165
media_image5.png
Greyscale
. These dashed bonds are not defined in the claim text. It is unclear what the dashed bonds represent: can the bonds be either single or double bonds, OR are the dashed bonds only representative of aromaticity in the rings. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are undefined rendering the claim indefinite. Dependent claims 2-20 are similarly rejected since they do not rectify the issue.
Claim 1 recites X and Y are chosen from CH2, CHR4, and CHR5. These violate the valency of carbon as shown in Formula (I). CH2 disregards the R4/R5 already shown in Formula (I) and CHR4/CHR5 make it unclear whether a second R4/R5 is being introduced onto the X/Y positions. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are undefined rendering the claim indefinite. Dependent claims 2-20 are similarly rejected since they do not rectify the issue.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "one or more R1’s" and “one or more R2’s”. However, the drawn structure of Formula (I) only shows one R1 and one R2. Since the structure of Formula (I) does not clearly show one or more R1 and R2 (e.g., by inclusion of (R1)m and (R2)p in the structure, wherein m is 1-5 and p is 1-4), the text and structure of Formula (I) are inconsistent. Did Applicant intend for there to be only one of each of R1 and R2 (as drawn) OR for there to be multiple of each of R1 and R2 (as recited in the text). Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are undefined rendering the claim indefinite. Dependent claims 2-20 are similarly rejected since they do not rectify the issue.
Claim 3 similarly recites “more than one R1 and more than one R2”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The structure of Formula (I) only shows one R1 and one R2. Thus, the drawn structure lacks antecedent basis for the inclusion of more than one of each of R1 and R2. The metes and bounds of the claim are undefined rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims 1, 21, and 31 recite “an acid isostere” under R1, R2, and R7. This moiety has no defined structure and is not a generic, art-recognized term. Further, “Where possible, claims are to be complete in themselves” (see MPEP 2173.05) and should not rely on reference to structures recited in the specification. As drafted, the “acid isostere” is unclear and the structure of Formula (I) is incomplete. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claims are undefined rendering the claim indefinite. Dependent claims 2-20, 22-30, and 32-38 are similarly rejected since they do not rectify the issue.
Claims 1, 21, and 31 recite “when n is not zero, R3, R4, R5, or R8, or R6 is each independently selected from:”. The claim does not define these variables when n is 0. Further, the use of “or” (rather than “and”) implies each R variable is optionally chosen from the list provided – e.g., R3 or R8 is chosen from this list, if R8 is not selected then what moieties is R8 chosen from? Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are undefined rendering the claim indefinite. Dependent claims 2-20, 22-30, and 32-38 are similarly rejected since they do not rectify the issue.
Claims 13-14 recite R1 is CN and/or halogen. Since there is only one R1 in Formula (I), R1 cannot be both CN and halogen at the same time. The use of “and” is unclear (note, “or” is clear). Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are undefined rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 23 recites wherein Formula (II) includes more than one R1 and more than one R2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Parent claim 21 Formula (II) only shows one R1 and one R2 in the claimed structure, more than one of each is not allowed. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are undefined rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 39 recites Formula (IV)
PNG
media_image6.png
255
238
media_image6.png
Greyscale
. It is unclear how the annotated (CH2)n is related to the main structure. The (CH2)n is floating next to the ring, but is not fully incorporated into the ring structure. It is unclear if this is meant to be a point where the ring may be expanded or decreased by n carbons, or if this is an alkyl chain of n length substituted onto the ring. Further, the letters h, i, and j are undefined in the claim text. It is unclear if these are just labels to name the ring positions or if these are meant to be variables. Thus, the Formula (IV) is unclear and the metes and bounds of the claim are undefined rendering the claim indefinite. Dependent claims 40-46 are similarly rejected since they do not rectify the issue.
Claims 18, 28, 36, 44, and 50 recite “the fatty acid binding protein FABP4”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Parent claims 1, 21, 31, 39, and 47, respectively, do not recite a fatty acid binding protein FABP4; thus, it is unclear what “the” fatty acid binding protein in the rejected claims is referring back to. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claims are undefined rendering the claims indefinite. Dependent claims 19, 29, 37, 45, and 51 are similarly rejected since they do not fix the underlying issue.
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.
Claims 3, 7-8, 18-19, 23, 28-29, 36-37, 44-45, and 50-51 are 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. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 3 recites “more than one R1 and more than one R2”. Parent claim 1 Formula (I) only shows one R1 and one R2 in the claimed structure; more than one of each is not allowed by the structure. Thus, claim 3 is drawn to a broader scope than claim 1 and does not properly further limit claim 1.
Claims 7-8 recite Z contains Z1-Z4 and Z1-Z5, respectively. This does not properly further limit claim 1 since Formula (I) Z must contain each of these Z variables. There is no possible structure without these variables. Thus, claims 7-8 do not further limit claim 1.
Claim 23 recites wherein Formula (II) includes more than one R1 and more than one R2. The parent claim 21 Formula (II) only has one R1 and one R2 in the claimed structure. Thus, claim 23 is broader in scope than claim 21 and does not properly further limit claim 21.
Claims 18-19, 28-29, 36-37, 44-45, and 50-51 recite “the fatty acid binding protein FABP4”. Parent claims 1, 21, 31, 39, and 47, respectively, do not recite a fatty acid binding protein FABP4. Thus, claims 18-19, 28-29, 36-37, 44-45, and 50-51 are drawn to limitations outside of the scope of the parent claims and do not properly further limit their parent claims.
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.
Claims 1, 7-9, 12-14, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GILLARD (US 4,775,680 A; pub. 1988; cited IDS of 10/13/2023) in view of HOXHA (Hoxha, M., European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 25 June 2020, 76, 1501-1504).
The instant claims are drawn to treatment of coronavirus/COVID-19 with a compound of Formula (I). Such compounds are known in the art and their use for treatment/prophylaxis of such viral diseases is obvious based on the compounds’ mechanism of action.
Determining the Scope and Contents of the Prior Art:
GILLARD teaches 5-benzyl-5,6,7,8,9,10-hexahydrocyclohept[b]indolealkanoic acids of Formula I
PNG
media_image7.png
253
378
media_image7.png
Greyscale
with variables as defined (Pg. Col. 2, Ln. 9 – Pg. 3 Col. 3, Ln. 38), pure optical isomers thereof (Pg. 20 claim 5). GILLARD teaches the following exemplary compounds, Compound 1 and Compound 4 (Pg. 13 Col. 23, 1st and 4th compound) which fall within the scope of instant Formula (I):
PNG
media_image1.png
217
248
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
204
198
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein W1-W2 and W4 are each CH and W3 is C; Z1-Z2 and Z4-Z5 are each CH and Z3 is C; R1 is a halogen (Cl); R2 is a halogen (F); R7 and R8 are H; n=2; X and Y are each CH; R5 and R6 are H; R4 is substituted C2 alkyl and H respectively (Compound 1 and 4); R3 is H and substituted C2 alkyl respectively (Compound 1 and 4); and R3, R4, R5, R8 or R6 are not all hydrogen. The compounds thus read on the structural limitations of instant claims 1, 7-9, 12-14, and 16-20.
GILLARD teaches that the compounds of the invention act as prostaglandin antagonists offering new approaches to therapy in a number of disease states (Pg. 2 Col. 1 Lns. 12-19) – compounds 1 & 4 are potent inhibitors compared to analogous compounds (Pg. 12-13 Table 6). GILLARD teaches pharmaceutical compositions of the compounds (Pg. 14 Col. 25, Lns. 53-57 & Col. 25, Ln. 61 – Col. 26, Ln. 23) suitable for administering an effective dose to a subject (Pg. 14 Col. 25, Lns. 45-52). GILLARD further teaches a prophylactic or therapeutic dose of a compound of Formula I can be given (Col. 25, Lns. 22-29). Thus, the disclosure of Gillard teaches a method of treating a prostaglandin-dependent condition in a subject by administering a pharmaceutically effective amount of the compound of the invention.
HOXHA teaches data has elucidated that prostaglandins have pro-inflammatory action in COVID-19 – targeting these pro-inflammatory mediators may help in decreasing the mortality and morbidity rate in COVID-19 patients (Pg. 1501 Abstract). Further, SARS coronavirus was shown to have increased production of prostaglandins; studies have shown prostaglandins increase viral pathogenicity (Pg.1502 Left Col. ¶2).
Ascertaining the Differences Between the Prior Art and the Claims at Issue:
GILLARD does not explicitly teach treatment of a coronavirus or COVID-19.
HOXHA does not teach administration of the instant compound of Formula (I).
Resolving the Level of Ordinary Skill in the Pertinent Art:
The level of ordinary skill in the art is represented by an artisan who has sufficient background in the development of a method useful for treatment of coronaviruses and possesses the technical knowledge necessary to make adjustments to the method to optimize/enhance the treatment target. Said artisan has also reviewed the problems in the art regarding the role of prostaglandins in coronaviruses and understands the solutions that are widely-known in the art.
Considering Objective Evidence Present in the Application Indicating Obviousness or Nonobviousness:
The instant claims are prima facie obvious in light of the combination of references GILLARD in view of HOXHA.
The artisan would be motivated to treat COVID-19/coronavirus with the compound 1 or 4 of GILLARD in order to reduce the mortality and morbidity rate in COVID-19 patients by targeting prostaglandins, as recognized by HOXHA (Pg. 1501 Abstract). The artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success since the compounds 1 and 4 are effective prostaglandin antagonists (Pg. 2 Col. 1 Lns. 12-19 & Pg. 12-13 Table 6) and HOXHA teaches the pro-inflammatory role of prostaglandins in COVID-19 (Pg. 1501 Abstract). Furthermore, based on the role of prostaglandins in viral pathogenicity and other coronaviruses (e.g., SARS), as recognized by HOXHA (Pg.1502 Left Col. ¶2), the artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in targeting prostaglandins for treatment/prophylaxis of coronaviruses. Thus, the combined references render the instant claim 1 obvious.
The teachings of GILLARD read on: 1) Formula (I) as further defined in instant claims 7-9, 12-14, and 16 as described above, 2) pure optical isomers thereof (Pg. 20 claim 5) – instant claim 17, and 3) the delivery of such compound as an effective dose in a pharmaceutical composition (Pg. 14 Col. 25, Lns. 45-52) – instant claim 20. Thus, by the logic applied to claim 1, above, the instant claims 7-9, 12-14, 16-17, and 20 are rendered obvious.
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.
Claims 1-47 and 49-52 are rejected on the ground of anticipatory nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 12,138,243. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Reference claim 26 is drawn to a method of treating a viral disease in a subject by administering an effective dose of one or more compounds recited in a list of individual species. The species listed in reference claim 26 are the same species listed in instant claim 47. Reference claims 27-30 depend from reference claim 26 and recite wherein the compound is a pure optical isomer (ref. claim 27), use in prophylaxis/treatment by acting on FABP4 (ref. claim 28), wherein the viral disorder is common cold, SARS, or COVID-19 (ref. claim 29), and wherein the compound is administered as a pharmaceutical composition (ref. claim 30). The recited viral disorders are species of the instant claims. Thus, the reference claims clearly anticipate claims 47 and 49-52.
The reference claims also disclose a method of treating a viral disease in a subject by administering an effective dose of one or more compounds of Formula (I) (ref. 1), Formula (II) (ref. 9), Formula (III) (ref. 15), and Formula (IV) (ref. 20). The species recited in reference claim 26 are clearly species of the reference Formulas (I)-(IV) and are also species of the instant Formulas (I)-(IV): e.g., the instant elected compound 5-[(4-cyanophenyl)methyl]-7-hexyl-5H,6H,7H,8H,9H,10H-cyclohepta[b]indole-4-carboxylic acid (see Col. 59 of ref claims). The elected compound reads on the reference and instant Formulas (I)-(IV) wherein: W2-W4 are each CH and W1 is C; Z1-Z3 and Z5 are each CH and Z4 is C; R1 is CN; R2 is COOH; R7 and R8 are H; n=2; X and Y are each CH; R3 and R5-R6 are H; R4 is unsubstituted C6 alkyl; and R3, R4, R5, R8 or R6 are not all hydrogen. The artisan would immediately recognize the species of reference claim 26 as species of reference claims 1, 9, 15, and 20 and their dependent claims. These species are species of instant Formulas (I)-(IV) claims 1, 21, 31, and 39. For each of the instant dependent claims 2-16, 22-26, 32-34, and 40-42, at least one of the ~hundred species of reference claim 26 reads on the further limitations on instant Formula (I)-(IV). Thus, claims 1-16, 21-26, 31-34, and 39-42 are anticipated.
The reference claims further teach wherein the compound is a pure optical isomer (ref. claim 5, 11, 16, & 22), use for prophylaxis/treatment by acting on FABP4 (ref. claim 6, 12, 17, & 23), wherein the viral disorder is common cold, SARS, or COVID-19 (ref. claim 7, 13, 18, & 24), and wherein the compound is administered as a pharmaceutical composition (ref. claim 8, 14, 19, & 25). Thus, claims 17-20, 27-30, 35-38, and 43-46 are anticipated.
Since the reference claims teach species of the instant claims (see ref. claim 26) and species of viral disorder which are coronaviruses common cold, SARS, or COVID-19 (see at least ref. claim 29); and since the other limitations of the instant claims are met by the reference claims called out above, the instant claims are anticipated by US 12,138,243.
Conclusion
Claims 1-47 and 49-52 are rejected.
The closest prior art is BARF (WO 2004/063156; cited IDS of 10/13/2023). BARF teaches compounds of Formula (I)-(IV) such as 9-(3-fluorobenzyl)-3-methyl-2,3,4,9-tetrahydro-1H-carbazole-8-carboxylic acid:
PNG
media_image8.png
255
248
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(Pg. 120 Ln. 27). BARF further teaches these compounds act as inhibitors of FABP4 (Pg. 3 Ln. 6-7); however, BARF does not disclose treatment of viral diseases nor coronaviruses and species including common cold, SARS, and COVID-19. Thus, BARF cannot anticipate the instant claims.
Examiner’s search did not find any evidence that inhibition of FABP4 was known to be useful in treatment of coronaviruses in the prior art. In fact, the prior art teaches away from inhibition of FABP4.
LIAO (Nature Medicine, June 2020, 26, 842-844; cited IDS of 10/13/2023) describes the following ideas: FABP4 is preferentially expressed in healthy controls and is downregulated in those with severe COVID-19 infection (Pg. 842 Right Col. ¶1 & Fig. 1d & Extended data Fig. 2d); and lowered FABP4 is associated with worse infection, the artisan would not expect inhibition of FABP4 to effect treatment/prophylaxis of coronaviruses like COVID-19.
V’KOVSKI (Nature Reviews Microbiology, 2021, 19, 155-170) provides an overview of the biology and replication of coronaviruses (Title) including common cold, SARS, MERS, and COVID-19 (Pg. 155 Left Col. ¶1-2). This review makes no mention of FABP4 playing a role in the development, treatment, or prophylaxis of such viruses. Thus, the artisan would not look to FABP4 inhibitors to treat such viruses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA ELIZABETH BELL whose telephone number is (703)756-5372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, Andrew Kosar can be reached at 571-272-0913. 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.
/S.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1625
/NOBLE E JARRELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1699
Prosecution Insights