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
Formal Matters
Claims 2-4, 7-9, 12-13, 15-17, 20-22, 24-29, 34-35, 39, 44, 46-49, and 51-53 are cancelled. Claims 1, 5, 6, 10-11, 14, 18, 19, 23, 30-33, 36-38, 40-43, 45, and 50 are pending and under examination.
Priority
This application is a national stage entry of PCT/US2021/044564 filed on 8/4/2021, which claims priority from US provisional application 63/060,968 filed on 8/4/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 12/05/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Rejections Withdrawn
The rejection under USC 112(a) Written Description over claim 33 is withdrawn per applicant’s amendments to claim 1, which provides the compound that claim 33 is dependent on.
The rejection under USC 112(b) over claims 9-10 are withdrawn as applicant has cancelled claim 9 and amended claims 1 and 10.
The rejection under USC 112(b) over claim 11 is withdrawn per applicant’s amendment to claim 11.
The rejection under USC 112(b) over claim 30 is withdrawn as the applicant has inserted the compounds of the table into the claim.
The rejection under USC 112(b) over claims 32 and 42 is withdrawn per applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The rejection under USC 112(b) over claims 38 and 40 and claim 41 is withdrawn per applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The rejections under USC 112(b) over claim 42 are withdrawn per applicant’s amendment to the claim.
The rejections under USC 112(b) over claims 38, 40, 45, and 50 and claim 41 are withdrawn per applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The rejection under USC 112(d) over claims 9 and 10 is withdrawn as claim 9 was cancelled and claim 10 was amended to correct the issue.
The rejection under USC 112(d) over claim 30 is withdrawn as claim 30 was amended and compound 100 was not added into the claim.
As these rejections are withdrawn, applicant’s arguments toward the rejections are moot.
Maintained Rejection – Modified As Necessitated by Amendment
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 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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 14, 19, 23, 30, 31, 32, 33, 37, 45, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Veiseh WO 2018067615A1 as evidenced by Master Organic Chemistry, Carboxylic Acid Derivatives, Amide hydrolysis, 2025, https://www.masterorganicchemistry.com/2019/10/07/amide-hydrolysis/).
Veiseh teaches a compound that has a structure of formula II-q -
PNG
media_image1.png
148
437
media_image1.png
Greyscale
that has definitions as in paragraph 309-310 that are like those of the applicant’s claims. The squiggle denote attachment to a device or material (paragraph 309). Veiseh teaches a compound of formula III-1 that has an RC group at the N position -
PNG
media_image2.png
147
270
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. RC can be hydrogen, alkyl, alkenyl, alkynyl, heteroalkyl, cycloalkyl, heterocyclyl, or heteroaryl (paragraph 343 group definitions). Veiseh teaches
PNG
media_image3.png
267
471
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. These compounds (3267-3270) have groups on the -NH- group that can be construed to protect the amine group while being attached to the compound via the -C-C-O- repeat group. Additionally, see compounds
PNG
media_image4.png
499
475
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(figure 6H). Compound 3260 in figure 6H has a Boc groups on the amine group. Veiseh teaches provides for use of protection group (paragraph 532). Veiseh also teaches
PNG
media_image5.png
198
495
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(page 222). Veiseh teaches
PNG
media_image6.png
101
476
media_image6.png
Greyscale
which is compound 100 in applicant’s table 1. Paragraphs 478 and 514-522 teaches a composition. Paragraphs 115 and 116 provide that various isomers, etc can be isolated by techniques known in the art, and thus, recognizes the compounds can be isolated to be pure as well as more than 75% by weight. Veiseh teaches single compounds, and thus, also envisions there isolated state without other compounds. Veiseh provides for salts of its compounds and treating disorders (pharmaceutical purpose) (Abstract). In regards to onset temperatures and maximum exothermic output, these are properties of the compound, but can be affected by reaction conditions and procedures used for calculation. These compounds of the prior art like compounds 3039, 3254, 3255, and 3270 have close structural similarities to compounds in applicant’s specification and will be expected to have similar onset temperatures and maximum exothermic outputs (see MPEP 2112). As Veiseh teaches compounds of the claims that have groups that can act as protecting groups on the amine group, these compounds would have such properties. They are also expected to be in liquid state based on the close structural relationship. The amide groups in compounds like 3255 would be acid or base labile under conditions (see Master Organic Chemistry, Carboxylic Acid Derivatives, Amide hydrolysis, 2025, https://www.masterorganicchemistry.com/2019/10/07/amide-hydrolysis/) for evidence of acid and base hydrolysis of amide groups.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments over the Rejection under USC 102 over Veiseh as evidenced by Master Organic Chemistry
Applicant amends the claims to provide R1b is acid-labile amine protecting group, a base-labile amine protecting group, an ultraviolet light-labile protecting group, or an amine protecting group removed by hydrogenation (amine protecting groups characterized by what they are labile to) while arguing that the groups on amines of compounds in Veiseh would not be considered acid or base labile as they would need extensive treatment with acid or base. Applicant argues they would be incompatible with use of these compounds as intermediates in the synthesis of afibrotic compounds. The examiner disagrees that the groups cannot be labile under acidic, basic, UV or hydrogenation conditions. As observed in applicant’s specification, there are different, unique groups that may be present at this position (see compounds from table 1 in applicant’s specification). Applicant’s own specification does not provide the groups as having to be acid labile under particular acidic conditions, base labile under certain basic conditions, UV labile under any particular conditions (e.g. time of UV irradiation, etc), and conditions how a hydrogenation would have to occur allowing them to be interpreted broadly. It has not been shown by way of evidence that these groups in Veiseh’s teachings cannot be removed under any of the conditions (acid, base, UV or hydrogenation). Applicant’s argument also does not say Veiseh’s compounds are not acid or base labile, but that they would need extensive treatment with acid or base. The Master Organic Chemistry reference was provided to show that amide groups present at said groups in the compound(s) can be broken by acid or base hydrolysis. The prior art is presumed to be operable/enabling and efficacy is not a requirement for prior art enablement (i.e. showing that the acid or base lability of the groups is easy/fast) (see MPEP 2121 I and III). There is sufficient reason to believe that the groups attached to that amine position on Veiseh’s compounds have such lability (see MPEP 2112 III –V). Therefore, this rejection is maintained.
Maintained Rejection – Modified As Necessitated by Amendment
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 11, 18, 36, 38, 40, 41, 42 and 43 in addition to claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 14, 19, 23, 30, 31, 32, 33, 37, 45, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veiseh WO 2018067615A1 and Chemtips (Reactions that Work: Boc Protection, 2012, https://chemtips.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/reactions-that-work-boc-protection/).
Veiseh teaches the claims as discussed above. It is noted that Veiseh teaches broader structures of formula I and II with definitions of each group that allows for formation of more compounds including those encompassed by applicant’s genus structures (paragraphs 3-21). Figure 6H and other figures in Veiseh provide for compounds using other definitions of the groups for formula I or II. Compound 3260 in figure 6H has a Boc groups on the amine group. Veiseh provides for use of protection group (paragraph 532).
Veiseh does not teach a compound with one of the groups as in claim 11, it does not provide for BOC as the 1b group in a compound as claimed in claim 1, and does not provide a method of making a compound with the exact compounds provided in claim 43. Veiseh teaches a process for making a compound that involves reacting a compound with an azide and a alkyne (page 235, also page 226 and page 219).
PNG
media_image7.png
335
1105
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Veiseh does additionally teach other compounds similar to claimed compounds with a BOC group on the amine as provided above by Veiseh. Thus, Veiseh does allow provide this group for adding to the amine group of its compounds allowing one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize this group on the amine in each of its compounds. Furthermore, Veiseh provides for a compound with a group on the amine group that is similar in structure to a succinimide group (compound 3253). Thus, Veiseh does provide for such groups for its compounds at the amine position in its compounds.
Although Veiseh provides for use of a Boc group in compounds and use of protecting groups, it does not provide reasoning for doing so that might lead one to use in its other synthesis reactions.
Veiseh might not indicate a compound that is liquid, but these are known states of matter and based on the close structural similarity to applicant’s compounds, Veiseh would have provided compounds of both the liquid or solid states.
Veiseh provides for relative amounts of active ingredients where the composition can be 0.1% to 100% w/w of the active ingredient (paragraph 517). Veiseh provides for pharmaceutical compositions being prepared, packaged and/or sold in bulk, as a single unit or as a plurality of units (paragraph 516). Veiseh teaches 100 mg to 1000 mg of compound per dosage unit (paragraph 527). Veiseh teaches five, six… fourteen or more administrations which would allow for amounts of 500 to 5000 mg of the compound or more depending on the number of doses stored in a package (container).
Veiseh provides for purifying the compounds of its examples and providing pure enantiomeric compound (paragraph 116 and examples). Thus, substantially pure compounds would be a goal of Veiseh’s teachings.
Chemtips teaches how to use boc as a protecting group with an amine of interest and that it works well and is no muss, no fuss.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have added protecting groups to the amine used in the reactions taught by Veiseh to make its compounds as it works well and is easy (no muss, no fuss). This would produce compounds that have the Boc group on the amine (-NH2) group of compounds in Veiseh. One of ordinary skill in the art based on Veiseh would also be to package the drug in containers and provide amounts based on the desired dose of drug and amount of dosages to be administered to the subject in a given period of time.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments over the Rejection under USC 103
Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to add a boc protecting group based on teachings of Chemtips since they indicate that Veiseh does not provide its groups as being protecting groups as in the claim. Veiseh does teach using protecting groups. “Compound 3260 in figure 6H has a Boc groups on the amine group. Veiseh provides for use of protection group (paragraph 532).” Veiseh does teach forms of the compound of the claims with no protecting group on the free amine group. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have sought to use a boc protecting group to protect an amine of interest like those in example 2 of Veiseh (also compound 3037) by combined teachings of Veiseh and Chemtips as it is an easy process to add a protecting group to protect the amine group in a compound.
Applicant argues that Chemtips is silent to the energetics of the process and the office provides no scientific or technical reasoning for why a person of ordinary skill in the prior art would seek to combine Veiseh and Chemtips. In regards to using protecting groups, this teaching flows from teachings of Veiseh. Chemtips only adds a reason to use a boc protecting group on an amine as it is considered easy to do for protecting amine groups in a compound. As both Veiseh and Chemtips provide for using protecting groups, it is within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art to include them on compounds and at an amine group in need of protection. Therefore, a motivation from the prior art was provided for this combination to arrive at the claimed invention with teachings of protecting groups also being in Veiseh, which teaches the compounds.
Therefore, this rejection is maintained.
Maintained Rejection
Non-Statutory 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, 5, 6, 10, 19, 23, 37, 42, 45 and 50 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 46, 53, 56, and 64 of copending Application No. 16/651,892 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim set provides the compound of the formula (I) and compositions thereof. In regards to the amine protecting group, ‘892 has the amine group attached to an enclosing component (in the disclosure of ‘892, the enclosing agent is a polymeric component like alginate). Other chemical substituents bound to the amine group will be construed as offering protection against reacting. Although ‘892 does not provide for how much less of the other compounds are present, it provides for the compound, and thus, the presence of other components is adjustable. Thus, more of the modified alginate (the compound) may be desirable to fully enclose the cell.
The is a provisional double patenting rejection as the claims have not yet been patented.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 19, 23, 37, 42, 45 and 50 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 32-34, 62 of copending Application No. 17/045,137 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim set provides the compound of the formula (I) and compositions thereof. In regards to the amine protecting group, ‘137 has the amine group attached to an enclosing component (in the disclosure of ‘137, the enclosing agent is a polymeric component like alginate). Other chemical substituents bound to the amine group will be construed as offering protection. Although ‘137 does not provide for how much less of the other compounds are present, it provides for the compound, and thus, the presence of other components is adjustable. Thus, more of the modified alginate (the compound) may be desirable to fully enclose the cell.
The is a provisional double patenting rejection as the claims have not yet been patented.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 19, 23, 37, 42, 45 and 50 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 12, 14, 28, 41, 42 of copending Application No. 17/280,802 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim set provides the compound of the formula (I) and compositions thereof. In regards to the amine protecting group, ‘802 has the amine group attached to an enclosing component (in the disclosure of ‘802, the enclosing agent is a polymeric component like alginate). Other chemical substituents bound to the amine group will be construed as offering protection. Although ‘802 does not provide for how much less of the other compounds are present, it provides for the compound, and thus, the presence of other components is adjustable. Thus, more of the modified alginate (the compound) may be desirable to fully enclose/encapsulate the cell.
The is a provisional double patenting rejection as the claims have not yet been patented.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 19, 23, 37, 42, 45 and 50 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17, 18, 19 of copending Application No. 17/598,154 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim set provides the compound of the formula (I) and compositions thereof. In regards to the amine protecting group, ‘154 has the amine group attached to an enclosing component (in the disclosure of ‘154, the enclosing agent is a polymeric component like alginate). Other chemical substituents bound to the amine group will be construed as offering protection. Although ‘154 does not provide for how much less of the other compounds are present, it provides for the compound, and thus, the presence of other components is adjustable. Thus, more of the modified alginate (the compound) may be desirable to fully enclose/encapsulate the cell.
The is a provisional double patenting rejection as the claims have not yet been patented.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 19, 23, 37, 42, 45 and 50 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 31 and 35 of copending Application No. 17/923,283 (Issue fee paid) (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim set provides the compound of the formula (I) and compositions thereof. In regards to the amine protecting group, ‘283 has the group attached to A, which can be groups having alkenyl, nitrogens with other constituents. Although ‘283 does not provide for how much less of the other compounds are present, it provides for the compound, and thus, the presence of other components is adjustable.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 19, 23, 37, 42, 45 and 50 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11, 13, 14, 23, 24, 36, 38 of copending Application No. 18/274,134 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim set provides the compound of the formula (I) and compositions thereof. In regards to the amine protecting group, ‘134 has the group attached to A, which can be groups having alkenyl, nitrogens with other constituents. Although ‘134 does not provide for how much less of the other compounds are present, it provides for the compound, and thus, the presence of other components is adjustable.
The is a provisional double patenting rejection as the claims have not yet been patented.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 19, 23, 37, 42, 45 and 50 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 31, 37, 41, 42 of copending Application No. 18/274,125 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim set provides the compound of the formula (I) and compositions thereof. In regards to the amine protecting group, ‘125 has the group attached to A, which can be groups having alkenyl, nitrogens with other constituents. Although ‘125 does not provide for how much less of the other compounds are present, it provides for the compound, and thus, the presence of other components is adjustable.
The is a provisional double patenting rejection as the claims have not yet been patented.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 19, 23, 37, 42, 45 and 50 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, and 8-12 of US Patent 12522571 (copending Application No. 18/529,334 (reference application)). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim set provides the compound of the formula (I) and compositions thereof. In regards to the amine protecting group, ‘334 has RD groups of various types attached to the amine component including alkenyl, alkynyl and others. Although ‘334 does not provide for how much less of the other compounds are present, it provides for the compound, and thus, the presence of other components is adjustable.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 19, 23, 37, 42, 45 and 50 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 41, 44, 45 of copending Application No. 18/833,641 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim set provides the compound of the formula (I) and compositions thereof. In regards to the amine protecting group, ‘641 has the amine group attached to an enclosing component (in the disclosure of ‘641, the enclosing agent is a polymeric component like alginate). Other chemical substituents bound to the amine group will be construed as offering protection. Although ‘641 does not provide for how much less of the other compounds are present, it provides for the compound, and thus, the presence of other components is adjustable. Thus, more of the modified alginate (the compound) may be desirable to fully enclose/encapsulate the cell.
The is a provisional double patenting rejection as the claims have not yet been patented.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 19, 23, 37, 42, 45 and 50 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 20, 23, 24 of copending Application No. 18/276010 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim set provides the compound of the formula (I) and compositions thereof. In regards to the amine protecting group, ‘010 has the amine group attached to an enclosing component (in the disclosure of ‘010, the enclosing agent is a polymeric component like alginate). Other chemical substituents bound to the amine group will be construed as offering protection against reacting. Although ‘010 does not provide for how much less of the other compounds are present, it provides for the compound, and thus, the presence of other components is adjustable. Thus, more of the modified alginate (the compound) may be desirable to fully enclose/encapsulate the cell.
The is a provisional double patenting rejection as the claims have not yet been patented.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 19, 23, 37, 42, 45 and 50 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 14, 15, 16, 18, 23-25 of US Patent 12161760. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim set provides the compound of the formula (I) and compositions thereof. In regards to the amine protecting group, ‘760 has the amine group attached to an enclosing component (in the disclosure of ‘760, the enclosing agent is a polymeric component like alginate). Other chemical substituents bound to the amine group will be construed as offering protection. Although ‘760 does not provide for how much less of the other compounds are present, it provides for the compound, and thus, the presence of other components is adjustable. Thus, more of the modified alginate (the compound) may be desirable to fully enclose/encapsulate the cell.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 19, 23, 37, 42, 45 and 50 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of US Patent 11945786. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim set provides the compound of the formula (I) and compositions thereof. In regards to the amine protecting group, ‘786 has RD groups of various types attached to the amine component including alkenyl, alkynyl and others. Although ‘786 does not provide for how much less of the other compounds are present, it provides for the compound, and thus, the presence of other components is adjustable.
Response to Applicant
Applicant does not argue these rejections or file terminal disclaimers at this time. Applicant asks for these rejections to be held in abeyance. Thus, these rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 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 MARK V STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7080. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST.
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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached on (571)272-0581. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK V STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613