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
2. This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s Amendment and Remarks, filed November 25, 2025. The amendment, filed November 25, 2025, is entered, wherein claims 1 – 2, 10, and 12 – 13 are amended, claim 5 is canceled, and claims 14 – 17 are new.
Claims 1 – 4 and 6 – 17 are pending in this application and are currently examined.
Priority
This application is a national stage application of PCT/CZ2021/050043, filed April 15, 2021, which claims benefit of foreign priority document EP20185156.5, filed July 10, 2020.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Withdrawn Objections
4. The objection of the abstract in the previous Office Action, mailed September 10, 2025, is withdrawn in view of the amended abstract.
The objection of claim 1 in the previous Office Action, mailed September 10, 2025, is withdrawn in view of the amended claim 1.
The objection of claim 5 in the previous Office Action, mailed September 10, 2025, is withdrawn in view of the canceled claim 5.
The objection of claim 10 in the previous Office Action, mailed September 10, 2025, is withdrawn in view of the amended claim 10.
The objection of claim 13 in the previous Office Action, mailed September 10, 2025, is withdrawn in view of the amended claim 13.
Withdrawn Rejections
5. The rejection of claims 12 – 13 in the previous Office Action, mailed September 10, 2025, under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for treating viral infection in a human or animal, does not reasonably provide enablement for preventing a viral infection has been considered and is withdrawn in view of the amended claim 12.
The rejection of claims 1 – 2 and 12 – 13 in the previous Office Action, mailed September 10, 2025, 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for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention has been considered and is withdrawn in view of the amended claims 1 – 2 and 12 – 13.
The rejection of claims 1 – 12 in the previous Office Action, mailed September 10, 2025, on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 2, 6, 8, 11, 13, 21, 33, 36, and 38 of copending Application No. 16/401,734 in view of Abbas has been considered and is withdrawn because the copending application has been abandoned.
The rejection of claims 1 – 12 in the previous Office Action, mailed September 10, 2025, on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3 – 8, 15 – 21, 23 – 24, and 28 of copending Application No. 16/225,990 in view of Abbas has been considered and is withdrawn because the copending application has been abandoned.
The following are maintained / modified grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s Amendment and Remarks, filed November 25, 2025, wherein claims 1 – 2, 10, and 12 – 13 are amended, claim 5 is canceled, and claims 14 – 17 are new. Previously cited references have been used to establish the maintained / modified grounds of rejection.
Maintained / Modified 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:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. 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 – 4 and 6 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birkus et al. (WO2019/123340A1, cited in the previous Office Action) in view of Abbas (Tetrahedron Letters, Vol. 41, Issue 22, page 4513 – 4517, cited in the previous Office Action).
a. Regarding claims 1 – 4 and 6 – 17, Birkus et al. teach 3’3’ cyclic dinucleotides of general formula J:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein L1 is C(R6R7)-O-; L2 is -O-C(R13R14)-; Y1 and Y2 are -O-; X1 and X3 are OH; X2 and X4 are O; R1 – R14 are H; and Base1 and Base2 are
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
The disclosure includes a pharmaceutical composition comprising the cyclic dinucleotide of formula J and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, excipient, and/or diluent (para. [0013]). Additionally, Birkus et al. teach a method of modulating the activity of STING adaptor protein to induce production of type I interferon, cytokine and/or chemokine dependent on the STING adaptor protein in a human or animal (para. [0016]). Finally, the substances disclosed can be used as adjuvants in vaccines (Abstract).
However, Birkus et al. do not teach L1 and/or L2 as -C(R13)=C(R14)-.
Abbas teaches an improved procedure for the synthesis of vinylphosphonate-linked nucleic acids (Title). Naturally occurring phosphodiester-linked nucleic acids are not suitable drug candidate molecules. One of their main limitations is their stability toward a number of nuclease enzyme. Abbas teaches that nucleotides possessing a vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage will able to increase nuclease resistance by the chemical modification (Abstract). One of the compounds disclosed in Abbas is (page 4515, Figure 2):
PNG
media_image3.png
171
155
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the phosphodiester linkages as taught by Birkus et al. with the vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage in view of Abbas because Birkus et al. teach the 3’3’ cyclic dinucleotide with the phosphodiester linkage and Abbas teaches the synthesis of nucleotide possessing a vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage and the benefit of vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage. One would have been motivated to substitute both phosphodiester linkages as taught by Birkus et al. with the vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage in view of Abbas because the substitution will yield an improved result in stability. Therefore, one of the ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to substitute the phosphodiester linkages as taught by Birkus et al. with the vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage in view of Abbas because Birkus et al. teach the 3’3’ cyclic dinucleotide with the phosphodiester linkage and Abbas teaches the benefit of replacing phosphodiester linkage with vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage for the improved stability.
Responses to Applicant’s Remarks:
Applicant’s Remarks, filed November 25, 2025, have been fully considered and are found to be not persuasive.
Regarding Birkus et al., Applicant argues that nowhere in Birkus et al. identify instability or nuclease degradation as a problem that requires correction, thus, Birkus et al. provide no motivation to modify for the instability. However, the disclosure of the problem in Birkus et al. is not necessary because Abbas recognizes it. In this case, Birkus et al. teach the native bonds and Abbas identifies that the native bonds are less stable. This would provide motivation for one of the ordinary skill in the art to modify the chemical structure for an improved compounds with higher stability.
Regarding Abbas, Applicant argues that Abbas is directed to linear oligonucleotides, which are polymeric, flexible macromolecules that rely on Watson-Crick pairing and higher-order folding and nowhere suggests that the vinylphosphonate modification is biologically beneficial in small, rigid cyclic molecules. Applicant argues that the disclosure of compatibility of vinylphosphonate linkage in cyclic dinucleotide is absent in Abbas. Applicant argues that the combination of Birkus et al. and Abbas would result in a mixed-linker CDN containing one methylphosphonate and one vinylphosphonate linkage, not bis-vinylphosphonate structure of the present claims. However, these arguments are not persuasive because Birkus et al. teach the 3’3’ cyclic dinucleotides with different linkages and therapeutic uses involving STING activation, providing the motivation for one to modify the linkages. Abbas teaches that vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkages are chemically compatible with oligonucleotide structures and would improve oligonucleotide stability and nuclease resistance. Abbas provides examples of a linear oligonucleotide, but Abbas does not limit the use of vinylphosphonate linkage only to linear structures. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the stability provided by the vinylphosphonate linkage and would have reasonably applied the substitution to both L1 and L2 of the compound taught by Birkus et al.. Thus, the combination of Birkus et al. and Abbas would render the claimed structures obvious.
Maintained / Modified 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 – 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 14 of copending Application No. 18/280,527 in view of Abbas (Tetrahedron Letters, Vol. 41, Issue 22, page 4513 – 4517, cited in the previous Office Action).
a. Regarding claims 1 – 12, ‘527 teaches a compound of formula (J):
PNG
media_image4.png
198
234
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
wherein Y1 and Y2 are O; X1 and X3 are OH; X2 and X4 are O; RB1 is Base’, wherein Base’ and Base are
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
;
RB2 is H; and R1, R4, and R6 are H (claims 1 – 11). ‘527 teaches a pharmaceutical composition comprising the compound and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, excipient, and/or diluent (claim 12). ‘527 also teaches a method for treatment comprising administering the compound for in vivo modulating the activity of STING adaptor protein to induce production of a type I interferon, cytokine and/or chemokine dependent on the STING adaptor protein (claims 13 – 14).
However, ‘527 does not teach L1 and L2 as -C(R13)=C(R14)-.
Abbas teaches an improved procedure for the synthesis of vinylphosphonate-linked nucleic acids (Title). Naturally occurring phosphodiester-linked nucleic acids are not suitable drug candidate molecules. One of their main limitations is their stability toward a number of nuclease enzyme. Abbas teaches that nucleotides possessing a vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage will able to increase nuclease resistance by the chemical modification (Abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the phosphodiester linkages as taught by ‘527 with the vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage in view of Abbas because ‘527 teaches the 3’3’ cyclic dinucleotide with the phosphodiester linkage and Abbas teaches the synthesis of nucleotide possessing a vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage and the benefit of vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage. One would have been motivated to substitute both phosphodiester linkages as taught by ‘527 with the vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage in view of Abbas because the substitution will yield an improved result in stability. ‘527 also teaches a different position of Base. It is well established that position isomers are prima facie structurally obvious. The isomer is expected to be preparable by the same method and to have generally the same properties. This expectation is deemed the motivation for preparing the position isomers. For example, “Position isomerism has been used as a tool to obtain new and useful drugs” (Englehardt) and “Position isomerism is a fact of close structural similarity” (Mehta, emphasis in the original). Note also In re Jones, 21 USPQ2d 1942, which states at 1943 “Particular types or categories of structural similarity without more, have, in past cases, given rise to prima facie obviousness”; one of those listed is “adjacent homologues and structural isomers”. Position isomers are the basic form of close “structural isomers.” Similar is In re Schechter and LaForge, 98 USPQ 144, 150, which states “a novel useful chemical compound which is homologous or isomeric with compounds of the prior art is unpatentable unless it possesses some unobvious or unexpected beneficial property not possessed by the prior art compounds.” Therefore, one of the ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to substitute the phosphodiester linkages as taught by ‘527 with the vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage in view of Abbas because ‘527 teaches the 3’3’ cyclic dinucleotide with the phosphodiester linkage, Abbas teaches the benefit of replacing phosphodiester linkage with vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage for the improved stability, and position isomerism is a common practice to obtain new and useful drugs.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1 – 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 4, 26 – 29, 32 – 35, 38 – 41, 44, 46, 48 – 49, and 65 – 67 of U.S. Patent No. 11766447 in view of Abbas (Tetrahedron Letters, Vol. 41, Issue 22, page 4513 – 4517, cited in the previous Office Action).
b. Regarding claims 1 – 13, ‘447 teaches a compound of Formula (I) (claims 1 – 4, 26 – 29, 32 – 35, 38 – 41, and 44):
PNG
media_image5.png
257
282
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
‘447 teaches a pharmaceutical composition comprising the compound and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, excipient, and/or diluent (claim 46). ‘447 also teaches a method of treating or preventing a disease or disorder in human or animal comprising administering a therapeutically effective amount of the compound, wherein the disease is a viral infection (claims 48 – 49 and 66 – 67). Furthermore, ‘447 teaches that the compound is for use in enhancing the efficacy of a vaccine in a human or animal (claim 65).
However, ‘447 does not teach L1 and L2 as -C(R13)=C(R14)-.
Abbas teaches an improved procedure for the synthesis of vinylphosphonate-linked nucleic acids (Title). Naturally occurring phosphodiester-linked nucleic acids are not suitable drug candidate molecules. One of their main limitations is their stability toward a number of nuclease enzyme. Abbas teaches that nucleotides possessing a vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage will able to increase nuclease resistance by the chemical modification (Abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the phosphodiester linkages as taught by ‘447 with the vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage in view of Abbas because ‘447 teaches the cyclic dinucleotide with the phosphodiester linkage and Abbas teaches the synthesis of nucleotide possessing a vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage and the benefit of vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage. One would have been motivated to substitute both phosphodiester linkages as taught by ‘447 with the vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage in view of Abbas because the substitution will yield an improved result in stability. Therefore, one of the ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to substitute the phosphodiester linkages as taught by ‘447 with the vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage in view of Abbas because ‘447 teaches the cyclic dinucleotide with the phosphodiester linkage and Abbas teaches the benefit of replacing phosphodiester linkage with vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage for the improved stability.
Claims 1 – 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 8, 12 – 14, and 16 – 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11203610B2 in view of Abbas (Tetrahedron Letters, Vol. 41, Issue 22, page 4513 – 4517, cited in the previous Office Action).
c. Regarding claims 1 – 12, ‘610B2 teaches a compound of Formula (J):
PNG
media_image6.png
197
255
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
wherein L1 is C(R6R7)-O-; L2 is -O-C(R13R14)-; Y1 and Y2 are -O-; X1 and X3 are OH; X2 and X4 are O; R1 – R14 are H; and Base1 and Base2 are
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(claims 1 – 8 and 12 – 14).
‘610B2 teaches a pharmaceutical composition comprising the compound and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, excipient, and/or diluent (claim 16). ‘610B2 also teaches a method of treating or preventing a disease or disorder responsive to the modulation of STING adaptor protein in a human or animal comprising administering the compound to the human or animal in need thereof (claims 17 – 20).
However, ‘610B2 does not teach L1 and L2 as -C(R13)=C(R14)-.
Abbas teaches an improved procedure for the synthesis of vinylphosphonate-linked nucleic acids (Title). Naturally occurring phosphodiester-linked nucleic acids are not suitable drug candidate molecules. One of their main limitations is their stability toward a number of nuclease enzyme. Abbas teaches that nucleotides possessing a vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage will able to increase nuclease resistance by the chemical modification (Abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the phosphodiester linkages as taught by ‘610B2 with the vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage in view of Abbas because ‘610B2 teaches the cyclic dinucleotide with the phosphodiester linkage and Abbas teaches the synthesis of nucleotide possessing a vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage and the benefit of vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage. One would have been motivated to substitute both phosphodiester linkages as taught by ‘610B2 with the vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage in view of Abbas because the substitution will yield an improved result in stability. ‘610B2 also teaches a different position of phosphodiester linkages. It is well established that position isomers are prima facie structurally obvious. The isomer is expected to be preparable by the same method and to have generally the same properties. This expectation is deemed the motivation for preparing the position isomers. For example, “Position isomerism has been used as a tool to obtain new and useful drugs” (Englehardt) and “Position isomerism is a fact of close structural similarity” (Mehta, emphasis in the original). Note also In re Jones, 21 USPQ2d 1942, which states at 1943 “Particular types or categories of structural similarity without more, have, in past cases, given rise to prima facie obviousness”; one of those listed is “adjacent homologues and structural isomers”. Position isomers are the basic form of close “structural isomers.” Similar is In re Schechter and LaForge, 98 USPQ 144, 150, which states “a novel useful chemical compound which is homologous or isomeric with compounds of the prior art is unpatentable unless it possesses some unobvious or unexpected beneficial property not possessed by the prior art compounds.” Therefore, one of the ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to substitute the phosphodiester linkages as taught by ‘610B2 with the vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage in view of Abbas because ‘610B2 teaches the cyclic dinucleotide with the phosphodiester linkage, Abbas teaches the benefit of replacing phosphodiester linkage with vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage for the improved stability, and position isomerism is a common practice to obtain new and useful drugs.
Claims 1 – 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 6, 12 – 14, 16, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 10966999B2 in view of Abbas (Tetrahedron Letters, Vol. 41, Issue 22, page 4513 – 4517, cited in the previous Office Action).
d. Regarding claims 1 – 12, ‘999B2 teaches a compound of Formula (J):
PNG
media_image7.png
234
288
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
wherein L1 is C(R6R7)-O-; L2 is -O-C(R13R14)-; Y1 and Y2 are -O-; X1 and X3 are OH; X2 and X4 are O; R1 – R14 are H; and Base1 and Base2 are
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(claims 1 – 6 and 12 – 14).
‘999B2 teaches a pharmaceutical composition comprising the compound and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, excipient, and/or diluent (claim 16). ‘999B2 also teaches a method of treating or preventing a disease or disorder responsive to the modulation of STING adaptor protein in a human or animal comprising administering the compound to the human or animal in need thereof (claim 18).
However, ‘999B2 does not teach L1 and L2 as -C(R13)=C(R14)-.
Abbas teaches an improved procedure for the synthesis of vinylphosphonate-linked nucleic acids (Title). Naturally occurring phosphodiester-linked nucleic acids are not suitable drug candidate molecules. One of their main limitations is their stability toward a number of nuclease enzyme. Abbas teaches that nucleotides possessing a vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage will able to increase nuclease resistance by the chemical modification (Abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the phosphodiester linkages as taught by ‘999B2 with the vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage in view of Abbas because ‘999B2 teaches the cyclic dinucleotide with the phosphodiester linkage and Abbas teaches the synthesis of nucleotide possessing a vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage and the benefit of vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage. One would have been motivated to substitute both phosphodiester linkages as taught by ‘999B2 with the vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage in view of Abbas because the substitution will yield an improved result in stability. Therefore, one of the ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to substitute the phosphodiester linkages as taught by ‘999B2 with the vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage in view of Abbas because ‘999B2 teaches the cyclic dinucleotide with the phosphodiester linkage and Abbas teaches the benefit of replacing phosphodiester linkage with vinylphosphonate internucleotide linkage for the improved stability.
Responses to Applicant’s Remarks:
Applicant’s Remarks, filed November 25, 2025, have been fully considered and are found to be not persuasive.
As Applicant does not file any terminal disclaimer and does not provide other remarks, the double patenting rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
No claim is found to be allowable.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the maintained / modified / 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOI YAN LEE whose telephone number is 571-270-0265. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 - 17:30.
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, SCARLETT GOON can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/H.Y.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1693
/SCARLETT Y GOON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1693