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
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 10-16 are pending. Claims 1-3 stand amended. It should be noted that this application has a new Examiner. See contact information at the bottom of action for more detail.
Response to Applicant Argument/Amendment
In view of Applicant amendment and arguments, the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
In view of Applicant amendment, the 102 rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant argument with respect to the 103 rejection of record has been considered but is not found to be persuasive for at least the following reasons. First, with respect to the ‘unexpected or superior results’ the claims are not commensurate in scope with results. For example, the instant claims allow for example various values of ‘y’ and there are no examples where the oxygen ether is present. Further, terminal groups in the data presented included some chain lengths that fail to have activity.
The rejection from the action mailed 10/08/2025 is incorporated herein. With respect to the arguments relating to the amendment, Jones teaches overlapping terminal groups at least at [0036]. Further, [0037] teaches that the length of the carbon chain 4 to 20 and preferably 7-11 leads to improved binding. Still further, at least [0043] teaches Z as sulfur or oxygen (equivalents such that one could substitute one for another), chains and a terminal -SO3- group. Further, [0045] teaches termination with a carboxylic acid group. Since both groups are taught as terminal groups, one would expect similar properties on substituting a -CO2- for a -SO3- group leading to predictable properties. It should be noted that Jones fails to teach or suggest terminal -OSO3- groups and all data points from Applicant’s argument and specification containing those R groups have superior IC50’s. Thus, groups such as –(CH2)11-OSO3(R21 and RX) are viewed as 1) not being taught by Jones and/or as 2) having superior results based on the data in the specification. Claims limited to those specific R groups would be allowable.
Claims Rejection 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2016166317 (‘Haag’, previously made of record) in view of US20190275072 (‘Jones’, previously made of record) and in view of Farag et al. (previously made of record, ‘Farag’).
This rejection is incorporated by reference from the non-final action.
Haag teaches formula 2b, medicament (composition) thereof, useful for treating microbial infections and inflammation. See the entire document, particularly the abstract.
The prior art teaches treatment of microbial infections instead of viral infection: HIV, HSV, HCMV HPV, RSV, influenza virus, filoviruses, in the instant.
Harag fails to teach overlapping terminal groups.
Jones teaches virucidal compounds and composition thereof, useful for treating HIV, HSV, HCMV HPV, RSV, influenza virus, filoviruses, [0004], [0031]. The compounds are dendritic polymer derivatives, and can be administered in various forms and in combination therapy, [0034]-[0036], [0040], [0052]. See also the entire document.
Farag et al., teaches inflammatory response is induced by viral infections, e.g. SARs, HCV, HIV, RSV, MERS, Cov, CSFV. See the entire document, particularly table 1, figs. 1-3).
Rationale: Having known that 1) the compound by Haag et al., is useful for treating inflammatory response and microbial infections, 2) Jones et al., teaches treatment of the instant viral infections with similar compound, and 3) that they induced inflammatory response, a POSA would have known and be motivated to treat the viral infections with the compounds by Haag et al., at the time the invention was made, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation is also because the invention and the prior arts and in the same field of endeavor and substituting known groups would be expected to have similar properties.
Conclusion
No claims 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 CLINTON A BROOKS whose telephone number is (571)270-7682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 with flex.
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, Jennifer Michener can be reached at 571-272-1424. 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.
/CLINTON A BROOKS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1621
