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 . Claims 1-2, 13-18 and 23-25 are pending in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 04/12/2026 in response to the previous Office Action (01/22/2026) is acknowledged. Rejection of claims 1, 3-5 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) has been obviated.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I and a species b. (i.e. T = C, see compound of Example 8, paragraph [0393]) in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that the restriction requirement between Groups I and II are without merit. Applicants argue that Groups I and II don’t lack unity of invention. The examiner disagrees with applicant’s argument. As set forth in the Restriction Requirement, Groups I and II lack unity of invention because the groups don not share the same or corresponding technical feature. Applicants also argue that the examination of Groups I and II should be examined together and would not require an additional burden of search. The examiner disagrees with applicant’s argument. The search for Group II would require search of subclasses unnecessary for the examination of the elected claims. For example, the search for the invention of Group II would include search of class A61K in EAST database and it also requires an additional text search in different databases. Therefore, co-examination of the additional invention would require a serious additional burden of search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Note that once the compounds of Group I are found allowable, the invention of Group II would be rejoined.
Previously, the search was stopped when a prior art was found. Now after response to the previous Office Action, the search was expanded and a prior art was found.
In order to expedite prosecution and place the case in condition for allowance, it is recommended that applicants delete non-benzo[b]thiophene species of formula (I-1A) of claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
152
244
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Note that many of the species in claims 23-24 are not embraced by formula (I-1A). See the following exemplary compounds below.
PNG
media_image2.png
338
657
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
108
206
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Note the position of the S in the above species is different from the benzothiophene chemical structure in claim 1.
PNG
media_image4.png
207
724
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 13-16, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yu et al. WO 2022135567 A1 (equivalent to US 20240391895 A1). Cited reference teaches the following compounds that are the same as applicants when applicants formula (I-1A) has the following substituents: R3 = R4 = R6 = H; R6 = CH3; Rb = H; n = 0 and R7 = methyl substituted piperidinyl.
PNG
media_image5.png
389
1291
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
381
1305
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Since said benzothiophene compounds are the same as applicants, a 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) rejection is proper.
Objection
6. Claims 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
7. Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement, filed on 04/14/2026 has been acknowledged. Please refer to Applicant’s copies of the 1449 submitted herewith.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kahsay Habte Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)272-0667. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 - 5:00 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Kahsay Habte/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1624
Prosecution Insights