DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace the term “ ‘R’ ” with “R” (remove single quotation marks).
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 2-6, please replace “unsubstituted and substituted” with “unsubstituted or substituted” (six occurrences).
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 4-6, claim states that substituent R is an amino acid, protected amino acid, alcohol, or amine. The terminology is incorrect as these are discrete compounds rather than substituents. For example, in compound (Ic), R is a hydroxyalkyl group (hydroxyethyl, -CH2CH2OH), not an alcohol (ethanol).
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 5-7, please replace “Benzyl” with “benzyl” (three occurrences).
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 2, 5, and 9, please “i.”, “ii.”, and “iii.” With “i)”, “ii)”, and “iii)” so that format is consistent with that written throughout claim.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “butlyoxycarbonyl” with “butyloxycarbonyl”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, claim states that guanidine (I) is reacted with tert-butyloxycarbonyl (BOC). This is technically incorrect since tert-butyloxycarbonyl is a structural fragment rather than a discrete compound. According to specification on page 11, line 23, the reagent of choice is di-tert-butyl carbonate.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 12, please replace the term “ ‘R’ ” with “R”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 4, lines 1-5, please replace “unsubstituted and substituted” with “unsubstituted or substituted” (six occurrences).
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 4, lines 2-5, claim states that substituent R is an amino acid, protected amino acid, alcohol, or amine. The terminology is incorrect as are discrete compounds rather than substituents.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 4, lines 6 and 9, please “iv.” and “v.” with “iv)” and “v)”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 4, line 8, delete “the” which precedes “Boc protected”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 4, line 13, please “(v)” with “v)”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Please format lines in the reaction scheme so that definitions line up with letters a through g and so that lines do not overlap.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In the reaction scheme, item 4f, 5f, and If, it is unclear what superscript “Ɛ” means.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 5, line 1, please “a group” with “the group”.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim described an embodiment separate from that described in claim 3. Note that schemes accompanying claim 3 and claim 16 are unrelated. Therefore, claim 16 needs to be written as an independent claim. In line 1, delete “as claimed in claim 3, further”.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 18, replace “the intermediate (8)” with “Cbz-protected ethyl (2-aminoethyl) glycinate (8)” or “Cbz-AEG-OEt (8)”.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 18, please replace “step (I)” with “step i” and replace “step (III)” with “step iii”.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 19, please replace “compound” with “carboxylic acid”.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 19, please replace “respectively;” with “respectively.”.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: In the reaction scheme, it is unclear what the following superscripts associated with reference numerals mean: 75, 84b, 104b, 114a.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Please format lines in the reaction scheme so that lines do not overlap.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Please format R1, R2, and R3 as R1, R2, and R3 so that symbols are consistent with those depicted in structures. Also, delete the period mark at the bottom right of the scheme.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, please insert “peptide nucleic acids” prior to “PNAs”.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5, the structural fragments a through d are not “compounds”.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 7, line 1, please replace “step a)” with “step (a)”.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 7, line 4, please replace “compound” with “polymer building block”.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 3 and 18, from which claim 20 depends, are drawn to a process of making a triazine-based self-assembling Janus G-C base motif. Therefore, the process of covalent polymerization of compounds of formula (16) is not germane to the process of claims 3 and 18. At best, in line 2, insert “further” prior to “subjected”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) 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. Claim merely provides nomenclature for amino triazine compounds (17a) through (17d), and therefore, claim does not limit the subject of claim 18. 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 requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kay (US 4,226,990).
Table 3 of Kay discloses a triazine dione compounds corresponding to claimed compound of formula (I) in which R is a C2 and C4 alkyl.
PNG
media_image1.png
196
248
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suyama et al. (Yuki Gosei Kagaku Kyokaishi 1976, 34(6), 417-424).
Suyama et al. discloses the compound 6-amino-3-phenyl-1,3,5-triazaine-2,4-dione corresponding to claimed compound of formula (I) in which R is aryl.
PNG
media_image2.png
146
260
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome claim objection, supra, and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Subject of claims 3 and 14-21 is patentably distinct over by Kay (US 4,226,990) and Suyama et al. (Yuki Gosei Kagaku Kyokaishi 1976, 34(6), 417-424) and over references cited in Applicant’s PTO-1449. None of the references teaches the processes set forth in instant claims.
Claims are not in condition for allowance. For purposes of completing PTO-326, status of claims 14 and 21 is listed as “objected to”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rip A. Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-1104. The examiner can be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Jones, can be reached at (571)270-7733. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RIP A LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762 March 4, 2026