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 communication filed on 3/23/26.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and are being examined in this Office Action. Claims 2 and 4-20 remain withdrawn. Claims 1 and 3 are being examined in this office action.
Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 includes the synthetic scheme “formula (A)”. However, the scheme is still unreadable and blurry in major sections. In particular, the superscripts on the variable substituents are still too difficult to discern with clarity, e.g. the “H” superscripts. The examiner requests the applicant include a higher quality image of the synthetic scheme.
Furthermore, in applicant’s synthetic scheme “formula (A)”, applicant’s recite reaction steps (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i). But those reactions steps are not labelled or described within the actual claim language. Instead, the claim language describes the reaction steps as (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7). Thus applicant’s reaction scheme and the claim language do not have corresponding reaction steps.
Applicant’s disclosure is also again objected to because of the following informalities:
Every scheme in applicant’s specification is blurry, especially the superscript substituents on the compounds. The examiner requests the applicant include clearer depictions of their synthetic schemes in the disclosure. For reference, please see the schemes in applicant’s PGPUB (US 20240166597). Applicant has not submitted an amended specification yet correcting the blurry figures in their disclosure.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because of the synthetic scheme “formula (A)”, in which the compounds in the scheme have unclear variable substituents. In particular, the superscripts on the variable substituents are still too difficult to discern with clarity, e.g. the “H” superscripts. Furthermore, in applicant’s synthetic scheme “formula (A)”, applicant’s recite reaction steps (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i). But those reactions steps are not labelled or described within the actual claim language. Instead, the claim language describes the reaction steps as (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7). Thus applicant’s reaction scheme and the claim language do not have corresponding reaction steps. This is confusing and unclear. The dependent claim 3 is rejected as depending upon a rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Conclusion
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer Cho Sawyer whose telephone number is (571) 270 1690. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9 AM - 6 PM PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Renee Claytor can be reached on (571) 272-8394. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-274-1690.
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.
Jennifer Cho Sawyer
Patent Examiner
Art Unit: 1691
/RENEE CLAYTOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1691
Prosecution Insights