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 .
Status of Claims and Response to Amendments
The amendments filed July 27, 2026 have been acknowledged and entered. Claims 6 and 8 are pending.
Election/Restriction
The present examination is based on Applicant’s election of Group II, presently claims 6 and 8. Applicant has overcome the prior rejections. The search has been expanded to formula (I) wherein X and Y are each CH; R1 and R3 are H; R2 is unsubstituted C6 cycloalkyl; A is -C=O-; and R4 is unsubstituted C2 alkoxy. And new art was found.
Claim 8 (in full) and claim 6 (in part, other than the subgenus indicated above) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species.
Withdrawn Rejections
Applicant is notified that any outstanding rejection or objection that is not expressly maintained in this Office Action has been withdrawn or rendered moot in view of Applicant’s amendments and/or
remarks.
Objections to Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code (see paragraph [424]). Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Rejections Necessitated by Applicant Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zilka et al. (ACS Cent. Sci. 2017, 3, 232-243)(hereinafter “Zilka”).
Zilka teaches Lip-1 which corresponds to a compound of formula
PNG
media_image1.png
140
272
media_image1.png
Greyscale
of the claims and Fer-1 which corresponds to a compound of instant formula (I) wherein X and Y are each CH; R1 and R3 are H; R2 is unsubstituted C6 cycloalkyl; A is -C=O-; and R4 is unsubstituted C2 alkoxy (see Abstract and Introduction, Lip-1 and Fer-1; pictured below for convenience). Zilka teaches Fer-1 and Lip-1 are potent inhibitors of ferroptosis (page 232, col 2) and that both compounds suppress the accumulation of LOOH (page 233, col 1). Zilka teaches that accumulation of lipid hydroperoxides (LOOH) has long been implicated in cell death and dysfunction, leading to aging, the onset and progression of degenerative disease and cancer (page 232, col 1). Zilka teaches that accumulation of LOOH occurs by two primary mechanisms and that compounds that inhibit either or both of these processes have the potential to inhibit ferroptosis and may provide important leads for preventive and/or therapeutic agents to combat degenerative disease (page 232, col 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
270
398
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The difference between Zilka and the instant claims is that the instant claims are drawn to a composition comprising Lip-1 and Fer-1. Zilka does not teach a composition. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine Lip-1 and Fer-1 into a composition as is claimed because both compounds were useful for the same purpose.
One would have been motivated as a matter of developing therapeutics for treating disease.
One would have expected that such a combination may be useful for treating disease since both compounds were known ferroptosis inhibitors and suppressed the accumulation of LOOH. The idea of combining the teachings of the reference flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
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 KEVIN MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Jeffrey Murray can be reached on (571) 272-9023. 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.
September 17, 2026
/K.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1624
/BRUCK KIFLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1624
Prosecution Insights