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. Priority Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S .C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. FILLIN "Insert the appropriate statutory section(s)." 386(c) as follows: The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc. , 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. FILLIN "Enter prior application number." EP20306246.8 , fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. FILLIN "Enter explanation of lack of support or enablement." A claim by claim analysis indicated a lack of support for many of the compounds of claim 8 in application EP20306246.8, thus a priority date of 10/19/2021 was used for claim 8. The remaining claims were given a priority date of 10/20/2020. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/20/2023 is being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claim s 1-7, 10, 12-17 are objected to because of the following informalities: The formulas look like several of the R variables are attached to H not N. Any chemist knows this would not be logical but correction of the formulas is required . Appropriate correction is required. Claim s 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: There is only one formula but the claim recites one of the following formulae . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation The claims that recite a radiosensitizer have been interpretated such that any compound of the given formula is a radiosensitizer , since no evidence to the contrary is provided. If this is not the case an enablement 112(a) rejection would be made since the specification does not provide a way to distinguish between compounds of the formulas that would be radiosensitizer and those that would not be. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 1- 7, 10, and 12-17 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. Regarding claim FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 1, 3-7, 10, and 12-17 , the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Regarding claim 1, 3-7, 10, and 12-17 , the phrase " preferably " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). 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. Claim FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, insert \“is\” or \“are\” as appropriate, and insert the claim number(s) which are under rejection." 8 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. FILLIN "Insert an explanation of what is in the claim and why it does not constitute a further limitation." Claim 8 improperly broadens the scope of claim 3 from which it depends because the aryl in the final compound of claim 8 removes a required H (N-H) that in formula (I) of claim 3. 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 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 – Claim(s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(1) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" clearly anticipated by FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 4 ]" Mailliet ( Mailliet et al., US8980875B2, 2015-03-17). The reference Mailliet teaches the following compound (reference claim 2, first compound), wherein R= R’1 = alkyl group, Y1=W1=CH, R1=alkyl group, X1=iodide, R3=H and R3’= cycloalkyl. Since the reference compound is the same as MS140 of the instant application which teaches it as a radiosensitizer this compound is also a radiosensitizer because “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F. 2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus it does not matter that the reference does not teach the compound as a radiosensitizer as the compound is one whether or not the property was known. This anticipates claims 1 and 2. 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. 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) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1- 8 , 12 - 14 , 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Bouché ( Bouché et al., Exploring diversity in platinum(IV) N-heterocyclic carbene complexes: synthesis, c haracterization, reactivity and biological evaluation , Dalton Trans., 2018, 47, 11491) . The reference Bouché teaches the following compound (scheme 1, compound 2), wherein R1=R2 =alkyl group, Y1-2=W1-2=CH, L= alkanediyl , R1=alkyl group, X1-X2=iodide, R3= R3’= R4=R4’= form a C6 unsaturated alkanediyl group connected to form a hetero aryl. This is included under claim 3 as can be seen in the last compound of claim 8. This helps to teach claims 1- 8 . The reference Bouché also teaches the following ligand to replace the heteroaryl group. The reference Bouché also teaches 771525 0 “ Overall, these data show that NHC-Pt(IV) compounds are good candidates as anti-cancer prodrugs ”(abstract). This helps to teach claims 12 and 14. The reference Bouché also teaches “ Cancer cell lines were obtained from the American Type Culture Collection (Rockville, MD, USA) and cultured according to the supplier’s instructions. Human HCT116 colorectal carcinoma , MCF7 breast adenocarcinoma and PC3 prostate adenocarcinoma cells were grown in RPMI 1640 supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum (FCS) and 1% glutamine ”(page 11501). This helps to teach claims 16. The reference Bouché also teaches “In DMSO/water, these compounds are reduced to biologically inactive cis[(NHC)PtX2(DMSO)] species. However, the redox activation of NHC-Pt(IV) complexes was ascertained in the presence of glutathione as a model for the bioreducing agent and supports the efficient release of cytotoxic NHC-Pt(II) analogs in biological media ”(page 11497 ). This helps to teach claim 13. The reference Bouché does not specifically teach the compounds of claim 8, or the compounds of claims 1-3 (if claim 8 last compound is in error), the medication of claim 12, the method of claim 14 and 16 , the composition of claim 13. 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 Bouché to achieve the instant invention. I f the last compound of claim 8 is a 112(d) error and not meant to be included under claim 3 than the compound of claim 3 are still obvious in view of the optional L group meant to replace the heteroaryl group (scheme 2) including the first 2 which are the same groups (6-membered rings) as can be seen in the second row of claim 8. Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make this substitution. Since the only other difference between the compounds of claim 8 and the reference is the length of the linker this is also obvious because c ompounds which homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH 2 - groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). The medications, compositions and methods to treat cancer with these compounds would also be obvious because the similar compounds would have a reasonable expectation to treat cancer as do their very close derivatives as taught by Bouché one would be motivated to make pharmaceutically acceptable medications with carriers to treat cancers as this is common practice for compounds that have a reasonable expectation to treat cancer. Claim(s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1- 8, 10, 12-14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Bouché ( Bouché et al., Exploring diversity in platinum(IV) N-heterocyclic carbene complexes: synthesis, c haracterization, reactivity and biological evaluation , Dalton Trans., 2018, 47, 11491) in view of Li ( Li et al., Current Developments in Pt(IV) Prodrugs Conjugated with Bioactive Ligands Bioinorganic Chemistry and Applications Volume 2018, Article ID 8276139, 18 pages . ) The Bouché has been discussed supra and does not disclose a conjugate of claim 10 . The reference Li teaches “ Current Developments in Pt(IV) Prodrugs Conjugated with Bioactive Ligands ” (title) and “ To overcome the side effects of and resistance to cisplatin, a variety of Pt(IV) prodrugs were designed and synthesized via different modifications including combination with lipid chains to increase hydrophobicity , conjugation with short peptide chains or nanoparticles to improve drug delivery , or addition of bioactive ligands to the axial positions of Pt(IV) complexes to exert dual function effec ts is review summarizes the recent progress in the development of Pt(IV) prodrugs conjugated with bioactivetargeting ligands, including histone deacetylase inhibitors, p53 agonists, alkylating agents, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents. Although Pt(IV) complexes that conjugated with bioactive ligands show satisfactory anticancer effects , none has been approved for clinical use. . erefore , we hope that this review will contribute to further study and development of Pt(IV) complexes conjugated with bioactive and other ligands ”(abstract) and “However, VAAP not only efficiently attached to the cell membrane but also improved the cytosolic platinum concentration, resulting in enhanced cytotoxicity”(2.1.1). This helps to teach claim 10. 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 Bouché with Li because both teach Pt complexes for cancer treatment. One would be motivated to combine the references because the bioactive conjugated ligands would help direct drug delivery to specific cancer cells. One would have a reasonable expectation of success since this has already been tried with other Pt complexes. Claim(s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1- 8, 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Bouché ( Bouché et al., Exploring diversity in platinum(IV) N-heterocyclic carbene complexes: synthesis, c haracterization, reactivity and biological evaluation , Dalton Trans., 2018, 47, 11491) in view of Fong ( Fong , Clifford , Platinum based radiochemotherapies : Free radical mechanisms and radiotherapy sensitizers, Free Radical Biology and Medicine 99 (2016) 99–109). The Bouché has been discussed supra and does not disclose a radiotherapy of claim 15 or 17 . The reference Fong teaches “ Platinum based radiochemotherapies : Free radical mechanisms and radiotherapy sensitizers ”(title) and “ The radiosensitizing ability of Pt drugs can in the first instance be predicted based on the ease that they undergo activation by electron attachment accompanied by structural modification prior to forming Pt - DNA adducts. ” (abstract) . The reference also teaches “ Radiation therapy is a technique often used in the treatment of cancer , particularly when the tumour is confined to a certain area in the body that can be physically targeted ) (introduction). This helps to teach claims 15 and 17. 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 Bouché with Fong because they both teach Pt compounds for cancer treatment. One would have been motivated to use Pt compounds in combination with radiotherapy because Fong teaches that the majority of drugs used in clinical oncology (introduction) have radiosensitizing properties thus one would have a reasonable expectation of success and would be motivated to treat cancer. 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 . Claim FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, insert \“is\” or \“are\” as appropriate, and insert the claim number(s) which are under rejection." s 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, and insert the claim number(s) of the U.S. Patent." s 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. FILLIN "Insert the number of the patent." US 8481522 B2 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct . The patent ‘522 claims trans-diiodo(N-cyclohexylamine)(1,3-dimethylimidazol-2-ylidene)platinum(II) ( reference claim 6), wherein R=R’1=alkyl group, Y1=W1=CH, R1=alkyl group, X1=iodide, R3=H and R3’= cycloalkyl. This anticipates claims 1-2. Claim FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, insert \“is\” or \“are\” as appropriate, and insert the claim number(s) which are under rejection." s 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, and insert the claim number(s) of the U.S. Patent." s 1- 2 of U.S. Patent No. U S 8980875 B2 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct. The patent ‘875 the following compound (reference claim 2, first compound), wherein R=R’1=alkyl group, Y1=W1=CH, R1=alkyl group, X1=iodide, R3=H and R3’= cycloalkyl. This anticipates claims 1-2. Claim FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, insert \“is\” or \“are\” as appropriate, and insert the claim number(s) which are under rejection." s 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, and insert the claim number(s) of the U.S. Patent." s 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. FILLIN "Insert the number of the primary reference patent." 9040513 B2 in view of FILLIN "Insert the secondary reference." US 8980875 B2 . The patent ‘513 claims the following: The patent ‘513 does not teach a specific compound of claims 1-2. Patent ‘875 has been discussed above and teaches a compound of claims 1-2 that is also a compound of reference claim 1. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified patent ‘513 with p atent ‘875 because it is clear that the compounds of patent ‘875 fit the formula of patent ‘513 thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make these compounds from patent ‘513. One would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because these compounds are already known to be made successfully in the art and thus have known methods of synthesis. Conclusion Claims 1- 8 , 10, 12-17 are rejected. Claim 9 is objected too. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ALISON AZAR SALAMATIAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-4584 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Kortney Klinkel can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 1627 /Kortney L. Klinkel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1627