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 .
Claims 2-6, 11-14, and 27-30 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 7-10, 15-26, 31-38, 65, and 96 have undergone amendments. Thus, Claims 1, 7-10, 15-26, 31-65 and 90-97, submitted on 4 March 2026, represent all claims currently under consideration.
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.
Response to Amendment
The objection to Claims 7-38 is withdrawn. Applicant has deled the phrase “at least one occurrence of” from Claims 7-10, 15-26, and 31-38, and Claims 11-14 and 27-30 have been cancelled.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of Claims 63 and 64 is withdrawn. Applicant has amended Claim 63 to depend from Claim 1 and to remove substituents which are not recited in Claim 1.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of Claims 65 and 96 for references to tables found in the specification are each withdrawn. Claims 65 and 96 have been amended to recite the specific compounds’ structures.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of Claim 96 for referring to compounds 1-33, which lack antecedent basis, is withdrawn. Applicant has amended the Claim to recite compounds 34-37 and 39-59, which fall under the scope of amended Claim 1.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) rejection of Claims 63 and 64 is withdrawn. Applicant has amended Claim 63 to depend from Claim 1, and to remove substituents not recited in Claim 1.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) rejection of Claim 96 is withdrawn. Applicant has amended Claim 96 to recite compounds 34-37 and 39-59, all of which fall under the scope of currently amended Claim 1.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 26, 29, 30, 31, 34, 39, 47, and 51-60 over Zhong is withdrawn. Applicant has amended Claim 1 to recite a structure which is distinct from the compound of Zhong.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejections over each of the cited STN Registry compounds are each withdrawn. Applicant has amended Claim 1 to recite a structure which is distinct from each of the cited compounds.
Response to Arguments
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of Claims 1-7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 26, 27, 30, 31, 34, 35, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 48, 51, 60, 63, 64, 90-92, 94-95, and 97 over Sakar in view of Thornber is withdrawn. Sarkar does not teach a 6-aza-pyrrolopyridine, and Sakar does not teach any antibiotic compounds containing a pyrrolopyridine moiety. Applicant argues that there are numerous possible aromatic carbons for potential replacement by nitrogen, resulting in over 30,000 possible combinations. There also is no motivation provided for selecting these two specific positions among the multitude of combinations for replacement with nitrogen. The Examiner finds these arguments persuasive. There would have been no reasonable expectation of success in modifying the compounds of Sakar to arrive at compound of Formula Ib due to the numerous possible bioisosteric replacement locations.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of Claims 1-65, 90-95, and 97 over Ramkissoon in view of Thornber is withdrawn. Ramkissoon does not teach any antibiotic compound containing a compound of Formula Ib (a 6-aza-pyrrolopyridine). Applicant argues that there are numerous possible aromatic carbons for potential replacement by nitrogen, resulting in over 30,000 possible combinations. There also is no motivation provided for selecting these two specific positions among the multitude of combinations for replacement with nitrogen. Applicant further argues that this replacement results in an unexpected result, with the 6-aza-pyrrolopyridine compounds of the examined application have potent rescue antibiotic activity in comparison with the 7-aza compounds. Thus, Applicant argues that they have surprisingly found that 6-aza compounds have superior, unexpected antibiotic rescue activities over 7-aza compounds, demonstrating the unpredictability of the bioisosteric replacement within this class of compounds. The Examiner finds this argument to be persuasive. There are thousands of possible combinations of nitrogen substitutions on the ring system which may be made, and Applicant has demonstrated that each substitution does not result in compounds which perform similarly, supporting the non-obviousness of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)- NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
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 65 and 96 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. There is no “or” or “and” prior to the final compound in the Markush group of compounds claimed in Claims 65 and 96, leading to indefiniteness. There is also no “and” or “or” in between “compounds 34-37, 39-59 as shown in Table A” in Line 2 of Claim 65 and in Lines 2-3 of Claim 65.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 7-10, 15-26, 31-64, 90-95, and 97 are allowed.
Claims 65 and 96 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: There is no prior art which teaches, suggests, or provides a motivation for, the compounds of Formula Ib (See Updated STN Search, Search Notes). The closest prior art comes from Sakar (WO 2017/161374; Publication Date: 21 September 2017), Ramkisson (WO 2020/104842; Publication Date: 28 May 2020), and Zhong (Organic Letters, Vol. 24, Issue 4, 20 January 2022). Sakar and Ramkisson (See IDS, 15 August 2023) describe antibacterial compounds which differ from the compounds of the examined application as they do not possess a 6-aza-pyrrolopyridine moiety, having structures such as
PNG
media_image1.png
244
297
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Neither Sakar nor Ramkisson teach that the aromatic carbons can be replaced with nitrogen, and as described previously, Applicant has provided data demonstrating that replacing these carbons with nitrogen does not result in compounds with similar levels of activity. As there are over 30,000 combinations which could be tested, it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the two specific locations in the ring system and substitute the carbon for nitrogen. Zhong discloses Compound 2m
PNG
media_image2.png
242
267
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, which is distinct from the compounds of Formula 1b as it does not contain a 6-aza-pyrrolopyridine moiety. Zhong does not demonstrate any biological activity for this compound, and as described previously, Applicant has provided data demonstrating that replacing these carbons with nitrogen does not result in compounds with similar levels of activity. As there are over 30,000 combinations which could be tested, it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the two specific locations in the ring system and substitute the carbon for nitrogen.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Claims 65 and 96 are rejected.
Claims 1, 7-10, 15-26, 31-64, 90-95, and 97 are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 PHILLIP MATTHEW RZECZYCKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Thru Friday 730AM-5PM 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, 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.
/P.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1625 /Andrew D Kosar/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1625
Prosecution Insights