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 .
CONTINUING DATA
This application is a 371 of PCT/CN2021/139518 12/20/2021
FOREIGN APPLICATIONS
CHINA 202011518943.5 12/21/2020
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 7 and 10 are pixelated and difficult to read. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the third and fifth paragraphs in claim 1, there should be a space between “the” and “fondaparinux.” Appropriate correction is required. In claim 1, “formula” in “formula I” should be one word.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites that X, Y, and Z can be “various amino groups.” The limitation is indefinite because it is not clear what is meant by “various.” The specification does not provide guidance for the limitation. The ordinary definition of “various” on Merriam Webster online includes: of an indefinite number greater than one, or individual or separate, or of differing kinds, or having a number of different aspects or characteristics. It is unclear whether the amino groups must be different from one another. Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1 and incorporate the same limitation by reference.
Claim 1 recites that R8 is a glucosinolate leaving group. The specification does not define the leaving group, but exemplifies phenylthio. In the case of phenylthio, it is unclear whether that includes the sulfur atom which is already present in the structure (in which case R8 would be phenyl), or whether an additional phenylthiol group is attached to S. It is further unclear what is encompassed by “glucosinolate.” The structure of glucosinolate is as follows, and does not include groups such as phenylthiol.
PNG
media_image1.png
202
232
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1 and incorporate the same limitation by reference.
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites that the reactor is cooled at a specific temperature. Claim 1 recites more than one cooling step, so it is unclear which of the cooling steps is further limited in claim 3.
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin (Org. Chem. Front., 2019, cited on IDS) or Dey (Org. Lett. 2020, cited on IDS) in view of CN11077977A1 (machine translation, February 11, 2020) Chatterjee (Nature, Vol. 579, March 2020, pp. 379-384), and Collins (Org. Process Res. Dev. 2020, 24, 2064-2077).
Jin teaches a one-pot synthesis of a fondaparinux sodium pentasaccharide intermediate on page 3118:
PNG
media_image2.png
312
500
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Dey teaches a one-pot synthesis of protected fondaparinux in Scheme 3:
PNG
media_image3.png
369
478
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Jin and Dey do not teach an automated synthesis controlled by a computer.
CN11077977A1 teaches an intelligent chemical reaction device and a sampling method, a number of functional components, including a sampling staging chamber, reagent containers, a reaction chamber, a liquid phase sensor, a timer, a temperature sensor and heating tube, and refrigerating unit, which enables automated and intelligent sampling and reaction by setting corresponding parameters, saving labor and allowing a controlled and reasonable sample time. See Figure, description of drawings, and claims 1-6.
Chatterjee teaches that automated synthesis accelerates and simplifies preparation of molecules. See abstract. Figure 1 illustrates a linear approach or a radial approach for synthesis of small molecules. Figure 2 illustrates a synthesizer, which includes pressurized gas lines, syringe pumps, reagent vessels, reactors, etc. Continuous multistep linear synthesis processes include pumps, reactors, coolers, heater, and mixers. Page 379, first paragraph. Pipes are used for transporting fluids. See Figure 1 text. The analytical apparatus is connected to the control system. See Figure 1 (A).
Collins teaches a fully automated organic synthesis platform. Page 2064, first paragraph. Figure 1 illustrates a computer control system, pumps for delivering reagents, reactors, and analytical such as HPLC-MS. Automated synthesis enables integration of real-time analytics for reaction monitoring. Page 2067, first full paragraph.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to carry out a computer-controlled automated version of Dey’s or Jin’s reaction because automated synthesis accelerates and simplifies preparation of molecules, saves human labor, and saves time. MPEP 2144.04 states that one example of supporting rationale for obviousness is automating a manual activity. The claimed sample containers, reactors, stirring devices, and heaters/coolers are standard in the art for automated chemical synthesis. The skilled artisan would have optimized temperatures, reaction times, and stirring rates using routine optimization of the conditions taught by Dey or Jin. The skilled artisan would have monitored the reaction for completion as suggested by Collins to avoid incomplete reaction before proceeding to the next step, in order to maximize yield.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAYLA D BERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-9572. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00-3:00 CST, M-F.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/LAYLA D BERRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1693
Prosecution Insights