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
This office action is in response to applicant’s reply filed on January 7, 2026.
Restrictions/Elections.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group IV (Claims 5, 10 and 14-16) in the reply filed on January 7, 2026, is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-63 are currently pending and are the subject of this office action.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-13 and 17-63 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 7, 2026.
Claims 5, 10 and 14-16 are under examination.
Priority
The present application claims priority to provisional application No. 63/350,693 filed on 06/09/2022.
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 (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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 5, 10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gillberg et. al. (US 2025/0333390).
The applied reference has a common Applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
For claim 5 and 10, Gillberg teaches a method of treating viral hepatitis comprising the administration of a therapeutically effective amount of a compound of Formula (I-a) or mixtures thereof:
PNG
media_image1.png
152
248
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the viral hepatitis can be hepatitis D (HDV) (see claims 27-28) and wherein the compound of formula (I-a) can be: (Z)-3-((3-butyl-2-methyl-7-(methylthio)-1,1-dioxido-5-phenyl-2,3,4,5-tetrahydro-1,2,5- benzothiadiazepin-8-yl)-oxy)-2-fluoroacrylic acid (either the R or S enantiomer, see claim 36, right column, third and fourth compounds from the top; see also Examples 12 and 13 on page 61):
PNG
media_image2.png
250
256
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For claim 14, Gillberg teaches that the patient can also have hepatitis B (see claim 27).
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 (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.
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.
Claims 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Gillberg et. al. (US 2025/0333390).
The applied reference has a common Applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Gillberg teaches all the limitations of claims 15 and 16 (see above 102(a)(2)), except for the hepatitis being chronic hepatitis B or chronic hepatitis D. However, since Gillberg already teaches that the method is effective in treating hepatitis B and/or D in general, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been prima facie obvious for the skilled in the art to also treat chronic hepatitis B and/or D, thus resulting in the practice of claims 15-16 with a reasonable expectation of success.
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 (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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 5, 10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gillberg et. al. (US 12,202,809).
The applied reference has a common Applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
For claim 5 and 10, Gillberg teaches a method of treating viral hepatitis comprising the administration of a therapeutically effective amount of a compound of Claim 1 or mixtures thereof (See claim 7), wherein the viral hepatitis can be hepatitis D (HDV) (see claims 13-14) and wherein the compound can be: (Z)-3-((3-butyl-2-methyl-7-(methylthio)-1,1-dioxido-5-phenyl-2,3,4,5-tetrahydro-1,2,5- benzothiadiazepin-8-yl)-oxy)-2-fluoroacrylic acid (either the R or S enantiomer, see claims 7 and 8):
PNG
media_image2.png
250
256
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For claim 14, Gillberg teaches that the patient can also have hepatitis B (see claim 13).
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 (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.
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.
Claims 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Gillberg et. al. (US 12,202,809).
The applied reference has a common Applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Gillberg teaches all the limitations of claims 15 and 16 (see above 102(a)(2)), except for the hepatitis being chronic hepatitis B or chronic hepatitis D. However, since Gillberg already teaches that the method is effective in treating hepatitis B and/or D in general, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been prima facie obvious for the skilled in the art to also treat chronic hepatitis B and/or D, thus resulting in the practice of claims 15-16 with a reasonable expectation of success.
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 (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.
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) 5, 10 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et. al. (WO 2023/164186, August 31, 2023).
For claim 5 and 10, Yu teaches a method of treating hepatitis D comprising the administration of a therapeutically effective amount of a compound of Formula (II) or mixtures thereof (see abstract and claim 21):
PNG
media_image3.png
128
302
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the compound of formula (II) can be compound 91 or compound 92:
PNG
media_image4.png
124
218
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
132
220
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The above compounds differ from the instantly claimed compound by the presence of -CD3 group instead of a -CH3 group. The authors disclose the -CH3 compound (compound 6-11 on page 61) as an intermediate of synthesis:
PNG
media_image6.png
76
136
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Since it is well known that replacing Hydrogen with Deuterium or vice versa does not cause a major change in the chemical/biological properties of a molecule, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been prima facie obvious for the skilled in the art to substitute the -CD3 group with a -CH3 group and expect the resulting compound to have the same or very similar efficacy against hepatitis D, thus resulting in the practice of claims 5 and 10 with a reasonable expectation of success.
For claim 14, Yu teaches that the same compound can treat hepatitis B, thus resulting in the practice of claim 14 with a reasonable expectation of success.
Yu teaches all the limitations of claims 15 and 16, except for the hepatitis being chronic hepatitis B or chronic hepatitis D. However, since Yu already teaches that the method is effective in treating hepatitis B and/or D in general, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been prima facie obvious for the skilled in the art to also treat chronic hepatitis B and/or D, thus resulting in the practice of claims 15-16 with a reasonable expectation of success.
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.
1) Claims 5, 10 and 14-16 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 22, 27-28 and 36 of copending Application No. 18/974,438 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: both, the instant application and the copending application teach methods of treating hepatitis D and B comprising the administration of the compound: (Z)-3-((3-butyl-2-methyl-7-(methylthio)-1,1-dioxido-5-phenyl-2,3,4,5-tetrahydro-1,2,5- benzothiadiazepin-8-yl)-oxy)-2-fluoroacrylic.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
2) Claims 5, 10 and 14-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7-8 and 12-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,202,809. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: both, the instant application and the US patent teach methods of treating hepatitis D and B comprising the administration of the compound: (Z)-3-((3-butyl-2-methyl-7-(methylthio)-1,1-dioxido-5-phenyl-2,3,4,5-tetrahydro-1,2,5- benzothiadiazepin-8-yl)-oxy)-2-fluoroacrylic.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS L SZNAIDMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3498. The examiner can normally be reached Flexing M-F 7 AM-7 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, Amy L. Clark can be reached on 571 272-1310. 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.
/MARCOS L SZNAIDMAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1628
January 12, 2026.
Prosecution Insights