CTNF 18/032,998 CTNF 99948 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-3, 5, 12-14, 17, 20, 22-23, 25-28, 30, 33-34, 36, 39, 42, 44-46, 49-50, 52-53, 55, 58, and 60-63 read on elected Group I , in the reply filed on 02/26/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant’s election without traverse of compound of Example 35 in Table 1 (shown below), which is included in claims 1-3, 12-14, 17, 25, 70, 71, 74, 75, 78, and 79. PNG media_image1.png 189 293 media_image1.png Greyscale Elected Species The elected species has been searched and found to be obvious in view of the prior art. Therefore, the search and examination of the claims was restricted to the claims covered by the elected species and elected group: claims 1-3, 12-14, 17, 25 in so far as they read on the elected species. Claims 1-3, 12-14, 17, 25 are examined on the merits herein, so far as they read on the elected species. Claims 4, 6-11, 15-16, 18-19, 21, 24, 29, 31-32, 35, 37-38, 40-41, 43, 47-48, 51, 54, 56-57, 59, 64-69, 80 are cancelled. Claims 5, 20, 22-23, 26 -28, 30, 33-34, 36, 39, 42, 44-46, 49-50, 52-53, 55, 58, 60-63, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, and 81-88 are withdrawn as they do not read on the elected species. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority. The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 63/105,013, filed on 10/23/2020. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/10/2025, 12/21/2023, 02/26/2026 are being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: the Cl in table 1 are formatted were the 'l' is subscript, this is not proper formatting and should be fixed . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 25 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 25 refers to table 1 of the specification. Where possible, claims are to be complete in themselves. Incorporation by reference to a specific figure or table "is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim. Incorporation by reference is a necessity doctrine, not for applicant’s convenience." Ex parte Fressola, 27 USPQ2d 1608, 1609 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (citations omitted). Table 1 of the specification refers to 119 compounds and thus is not an exceptional circumstance. 07-36 AIA 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. 07-36-01 AIA Claim 25 is 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. Claim 25 depends from independent claim 1 which requires the following structure PNG media_image2.png 185 251 media_image2.png Greyscale and removes compound N-(5-chloropyridin-2-yl)- 4-(5-ethoxypyridin-2-yl)thiazol-2-amine, claim 25 includes compounds( for example see compounds 85, 116-119) that are outside the structures of claim 1 and so improperly broaden the scope of claim 1 . PNG media_image3.png 152 750 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 384 350 media_image4.png Greyscale PNG media_image5.png 313 277 media_image5.png Greyscale 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Bhuniya (Bhuniya et al., Aminothiazoles: Hit to lead development to identify antileishmanial agents, European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 102 (2015) 582e593) . PNG media_image6.png 300 358 media_image6.png Greyscale The reference Bhuniya teaches the following compound 36 (figure 5). This is the same compound as compound 85 of table 1 of instant claim 25 (see below). This anticipates claim 25 . PNG media_image3.png 152 750 media_image3.png Greyscale Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-3, 12-14, 17, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG (WANG et al., WO-2005099673-A1, 2005-10-27) . The reference Wang teaches the following lead compound, (4-Methyl-pyridin-2-yl)-(4-pyridin-2-yl-thiazol-2-yl)-amine, (Table 1, second compound, page 46), wherein R2= 2-pyridyl, R3=H, R1=2-pyridyl substituted with one C1 alkyl, R4=H. This helps to teach claims 1-3, 12-14, 17, 25. PNG media_image7.png 290 172 media_image7.png Greyscale The reference Wang teaches the general formula (I) wherein it would be obvious to substitute the lead compound (shown above) with different reference (R1)s from the general formula below (reference claim 1 and 8).The reference Wang also teaches these compounds are useful for treating disease reference claims 19-21. PNG media_image8.png 406 704 media_image8.png Greyscale PNG media_image9.png 57 644 media_image9.png Greyscale The reference Wang does not teach the specific elected compound or the specific compound of the instant claims but instead requires picking and choosing for a list of variables (all claims). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified WANG to get the instant elected compound because Wang teaches the lead compound (shown above) that only differs from the elected compound by two -OCH3 groups and the lead compound would be obvious to modify by adding two -OCH3 groups because the general formula of Wang teaches R1=-OCH3 as specifically pointed out in reference claim 8 and teaches s=1-4. One would be motivated to do so because the compounds of references claims are considered to be useful for treating diseases. One would have a reasonable expectation of success because it is only two small modifications from the lead compound and the specific functional groups require are specifically pointed out in claim 8 in a very short list of options. Furthermore, it would be obvious in view of the lead compound of Wang to get instant compounds 1-2 and 4 (see instant table 1, also covered by instant claims 1-3, 12-14, 17, 25) because they only differ by a single additional methyl group from the lead compound of Wang. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lead compound of Wang to get compounds 1-2 or 4 because the general formula of Wang and reference claim 8 suggest and include this modification. One would have a reasonable expectation of success because it is included in the general formula and specifically pointed out in reference claim 8. One would be motivated to do so because the compounds of references claims are considered to be useful for treating diseases. Further, it is generally noted that the substitution of methyl for hydrogen on a known compound is not a patentable modification absent unexpected or unobvious results. In re Druey, 319 F.2d 237, 138 U.S.P.Q. 39 (C.C. P.A. 1963). Given that applicant did not provide unexpected or unobvious results of the invention, it is concluded that the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known would provide the motivation to substitute the H group for a Me. 2144.08(II)(A)(4)(c). The specific combination of features claimed is disclosed within the broad generic ranges taught by the reference but such “picking and choosing” within several variables does not necessarily give rise to anticipation. Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec., 868 F.2d 1251, 1262 (Fed. Circ. 1989). PNG media_image10.png 174 747 media_image10.png Greyscale However, it must be remembered that “[w]hen a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious”. KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S,Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007) (quoting Sakraida v. A.G. Pro, 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). “[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious”, the relevant question is “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” (Id.). Addressing the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court noted that the analysis under 35 USC 103 “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). The Court emphasized that “[a] person of ordinary skill is… a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 1742. PNG media_image11.png 159 771 media_image11.png Greyscale PNG media_image12.png 230 762 media_image12.png Greyscale Conclusion Claims 1-3, 12-14, 17, 25 are rejected. Claims 4, 6-11, 15-16, 18-19, 21, 24, 29, 31-32, 35, 37-38, 40-41, 43, 47-48, 51, 54, 56-57, 59, 64-69, 80 are cancelled. Claims 5, 20, 22-23, 26 -28, 30, 33-34, 36, 39, 42, 44-46, 49-50, 52-53, 55, 58, 60-63, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, and 81-88 are withdrawn as they do not read on the elected species. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISON AZAR SALAMATIAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4584. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30am-5pm EST Friday 7:30-4pm EST (every other Friday off). 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, Kortney Klinkel can be reached at (571) 270-5239. 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. /A.A.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 1627 /Kortney L. Klinkel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1627 Application/Control Number: 18/032,998 Page 2 Art Unit: 1627 Application/Control Number: 18/032,998 Page 3 Art Unit: 1627 Application/Control Number: 18/032,998 Page 4 Art Unit: 1627 Application/Control Number: 18/032,998 Page 5 Art Unit: 1627 Application/Control Number: 18/032,998 Page 6 Art Unit: 1627 Application/Control Number: 18/032,998 Page 7 Art Unit: 1627 Application/Control Number: 18/032,998 Page 8 Art Unit: 1627 Application/Control Number: 18/032,998 Page 9 Art Unit: 1627