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
The preliminary amendment dated 16 April 2024, in which claims 3-14, 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 38 have been amended, and claims 25-28 have been cancelled, is acknowledged.
Claims 1-24, 29-40 are pending in the instant application.
Claims 4-11, 13-17, 24, 30-40 are withdrawn, as being drawn to a non-elected invention or to a non-elected species.
Claims 1-3, 12, 18-23, 29 are being examined on their merits herein.
Priority
The instant application is a National Stage entry of International Application No. PCT/CA2022/050356, filed on 10 March 2022, which claims priority from U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/159,325, filed on 10 March 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 16 April 2024 and 4 September 2024 are acknowledged and considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group (I), claims 1-24, 29, drawn to a compound of formula (I), or a prodrug thereof, or a pharmaceutical composition thereof, in the reply filed on 11 February 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 30-40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant traverses the requirement for restriction (Remarks of 11 February 2026, page 31, last paragraph) and argues that it would not be unduly burdensome to perform a search on all of the claims together in the present application.
This argument is not persuasive. As indicated in the requirement for restriction mailed on 15 December 2025, there are six distinct inventions, Groups (I) to (VI). The inventions Groups I-VI do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: even though the common feature of Groups I-VI is a compound of formula (I), said common technical feature is not a special technical feature because it is anticipated by Minchinton et al. (WO 2021/050059, international filing date 11 September 2019, cited in IDS).
Minchinton (WO 2021/050059) discloses (page 100) compound 52 below
PNG
media_image1.png
114
336
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
which is a compound of instant formula II
PNG
media_image2.png
180
254
media_image2.png
Greyscale
of claim 1, for which the following definitions apply:
m = n = 0; R1 is C(O)R7, where R7 is OR5, where R5 is H.
Since the common technical feature, a compound of instant formula (II), is anticipated by the prior art, this common feature is not a special technical feature. Therefore, no unity of invention exists.
Further, there is a burden to perform a search on all of the claims together in the present application, because Groups (I)-(VI) require different search based on different structural elements present in a compound of formula (II), and based on the different classification corresponding to each Group of inventions. For example, based on their structural elements, the instant compounds of formula (II), Group (I), can be classified, at a minimum, in CPC class C07D471/04, A61K31/5377, A61K31/5386, A61K31/541, A61K31/55, C07D519/00; while a method of Group (III) is classified in A61P35/00; and method of Group (VI) is classified, for example, in CPC class C12N9/22, C12N9/99, C12N15/111, C12N15/63.
For all the reasons above, the requirement for restriction is herein maintained and is made FINAL.
Applicants’ election without traverse of the compound below (compound 69, [00954]-[00955], page 251 Specification):
PNG
media_image3.png
144
346
media_image3.png
Greyscale
as the species of a compound of formula (II)
PNG
media_image4.png
176
228
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, for initial examination, in the Reply of 11 February 2026, is acknowledged.
The elected species is a compound of formula (II) of instant claim 1, for which the following definitions apply:
m = n = 0; R3 is H;
R1 is NR6R7, where
R6 = H;
R7 is pyrimidine (5-10-membered heteroaryl), which is substituted with one R11 substituent which is ethoxy (C2-alkoxy), which is substituted with one R12 substituent which is piperazine (3 to 8-memebered heterocycloalkyl), which is substituted with one R13 substituent which is methyl (C1-alkyl).
Claims 1-3, 12, 18, 21, 23, 29 read on the elected species.
The requirement for restriction/election is herein maintained and is made FINAL.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner has extended the search to a subgenus of compounds of formula (II) encompassing the elected species, namely compounds of formula (II) where
m = n = 0;
R1 is NR6R7, where
R6 = H;
R7 is 6-membered heteroaryl, optionally substituted;
R3 is H;
and the claims have been examined to the extent they read on this subgenus.
Claims 1-3, 12, 18-23, 29 read of this subgenus.
Claims 4-11, 13-17, 24 are withdrawn, as being drawn to a non-elected species/subgenus encompassing elected species.
Claims 1-3, 12, 18-23, 29 have been examined to the extent they read on this subgenus and the following objections and rejections are made below.
Claims Objections
Claims 4-11, 13-17, 24, 30-40, while currently withdrawn, are objected to because of the following informality: The withdrawn claims are objected to for being presented in a non-compliant form. Specifically, the status identifier states the claims is “(Previously presented)”, but the claims are withdrawn because of the election made by the Applicant on 11 February 2026. As such, claims 4-11, 13-17, 24, 30-40 should be identified as "(Withdrawn)" until such time as examiner rejoins the claims for examination. Appropriate correction is required. See MPEP 714(C).
Claims 1, 18, 20 are objected to because the text “halo” could read --halogen--.
Objection to the Specification
The Specification is objected to because it recites
PNG
media_image5.png
94
660
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
The instant application is a National Stage entry of International Application No. PCT/CA2022/050356, filed on 10 March 2022, which claims priority from U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/159,325, filed on 10 March 2021.
Applicant is required to correct the priority statement in the Specification.
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 21-23 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 21 depends on claim 1 and recites, for example,
PNG
media_image6.png
154
286
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, which contains a cis substituted 1,4-cyclohexane ring; yet, claim 1 does not recite cis or trans stereoisomers of a compound of formula (II). As such, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the compound above (of claim 21) containing a cis substituted 1,4-cyclohexane ring, in claim 1.
A similar analysis applies to claims 22, 23.
Appropriate clarification is required.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets claim 1 as being drawn to a compound of formula (II) […], or a stereoisomer, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof.
Claims 1-3, 12, 18, 19, 20, 29 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.
Claims 1, 20 recite 5-membered aryl (several instances in claim 1 in the definitions of R2, R7, R9, R10, R11; in the definition of R11 in claim 20). It is unclear what is meant by 5-membered aryl (a cyclopentadienyl ring?- it is unclear how it would be part of the structure of formula (II)).
The examiner notes that the claims distinguish between aryl and heteroaryl.
Claim 1 recites (under the definition of R4): “wherein two R4 groups are optionally linked to form a 5- to 7-membered heterocycloalkyl”. It is unclear what is encompassed by this recitation, because it is unclear how two R4 groups such as halogen or alkyl or haloalkyl can be “linked” to form a heterocycloalkyl. It is confusing how different substituents on a morpholine ring (which is a heterocycloalkyl ring in itself) can be linked to form (another?) heterocycloalkyl ring- and what would be the relationship between the hetyerocycloalkyl ring newly formed and the morpholine ring. The examiner notes that claim 21 lists (page 19) a number of structures containing bridged morpholine rings; if that is what Applicant wants to claim in claim 1, Applicant is encouraged to draw such bridged rings as alternatives to the morpholine ring.
Appropriate clarification of the claim language is required.
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 –
(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 1-3, 12, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Minchinton et al. (WO 2021/050059, international filing date 11 September 2019, cited in IDS).
Minchinton (WO 2021/050059) discloses (page 100) compound 52 below
PNG
media_image1.png
114
336
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
which is a compound of instant formula II
PNG
media_image2.png
180
254
media_image2.png
Greyscale
of claim 1, for which the following definitions apply:
m = n = 0; R1 is C(O)R7, where R7 is OR5, where R5 is H; R3 is H.
Minchinton discloses a number of compounds of instant formula (II), namely
compound 3 (page 93), compound 5 (page 93), compound 54 (page 100),
PNG
media_image7.png
208
270
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
92
268
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(page 101)
PNG
media_image9.png
198
278
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
282
276
media_image10.png
Greyscale
(page 102),
compounds 66-69 (pages 103-104), compounds 70, 71, 72 (pages 105-106), compounds 74, 75, 76, 77, 78-81 (pages 106-110), compound 162, 163, 164, 166-168 (pages 135-136), compounds 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175 (pages 137-140). The list is not exhaustive. These are compounds of instant formula II of instant claim 1, for which the following definitions apply:
R3 is H; R1 is 5-membered heteroaryl, optionally substituted; n = 0; m = 0 or m = 1 and R2 is halogen (Br).
Minchinton pharmaceutical compositions comprising the compounds of the invention, as in instant claim 29.
As such, a compound of instant claims 1-3, 12, 29, or a composition comprising said compound, is anticipated by Minchinton.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-3, 12, 18-23, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minchinton et al. (WO 2021/050059, international filing date 11 September 2019, cited in IDS).
Minchinton (WO 2021/050059) teaches broadly ([0015], page 4, also claim 1) the following compounds of formula (I) as DNA-PK inhibiting compounds [0016], and pharmaceutical compositions thereof, as in instant claim 29, useful to treat cancer [0074]
PNG
media_image11.png
232
194
media_image11.png
Greyscale
wherein
Y is, for example, O;
R4 is -L1-L2-R9a;
-Ll- is , for example, absent;
-L2- is -L3-L4-; where -L3- is, for example, C3-C8-cycloalkyl; and -L4-is, for example, absent or -NR13a-, where R13a is H;
R9a is, for example, a 5, 6, 9 or 10 membered heteroaryl optionally substituted with 1 to 4 R15 substituents; R15 is , for example, C1-C6-alkyl, C2-C6-alkenyl, C2-C6-alkynyl, C1-C6- haloalkyl, cyano, halo, nitro, (CRR7)xOR6c, (CR7CR7)xNR7CR8c, C(O)R7c, C(O)NRR7C, C(O)OR7c, S(O)2R7c, S(O)R7C, S(O)2NR7R7, optionally substituted;
R1 is, for example, C1-C6-alkyl or C1-C6-haloalkyl; and n is 0, 1, 2, or 3;
R2 is H, C1-C6-alkyl, C1-C6-haloalkyl, or halogen;
R3 is, for example, halogen, OH, or O-alkyl; and m is 0, 1, 2, or 3.
Minchinton specifically teaches [0038] Y is O; in combination with
R4 being -L1-L2-R9a, wherein -L1- is absent [0040];
where -L2- is -L3-L4- [0041], wherein -L3-is C3-C6-cycloalkyl [0042];
PNG
media_image12.png
162
426
media_image12.png
Greyscale
;
[0044] defines -L4- as being absent or -NH-; and
R9a is a 5 or 6 membered heteroaryl [0053],
where the 5-membered heteroaryl is, for example, pyrazole, imidazole, 1,2,3-triazole or 1,2,4-triazole [0054], and
the 6 membered heteroaryl is pyridine, pyrimidine, pyrazine, or pyridazine [0055]; pyrimidin-2-yl (as in the instant elected species) is specifically taught as R9a [0055].
Minchinton teaches [0022] the following compounds of formula (III)
PNG
media_image13.png
156
212
media_image13.png
Greyscale
wherein R9a is, for example, a 5, 6, 9 or 10 membered heteroaryl optionally substituted.
The compounds of formula (III) correspond to (in formula (I))
Y is O; in combination with
R4 is -L1-L2-R9a, wherein -L1- is absent;
where -L2- is -L3-L4- [0041], wherein -L3-is cyclohexyl 1,4-substituted;
-L4- is absent; and
R9a is a 5 or 6 membered heteroaryl.
Minchinton exemplifies a number of such compounds of formula (III), namely
compound 5
PNG
media_image14.png
104
288
media_image14.png
Greyscale
(page 93),
compound 54
PNG
media_image15.png
122
126
media_image15.png
Greyscale
(page 100),
PNG
media_image7.png
208
270
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
92
268
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(page 101)
PNG
media_image9.png
198
278
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
282
276
media_image10.png
Greyscale
(page 102),
compounds 66-69 (pages 103-104), compounds 70, 71, 72 (pages 105-106), compounds 74, 75, 76, 77, 78-81 (pages 106-110), compound 162, 163, 164, 166-168 (pages 135-136), compounds 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175 (pages 137-140).
All these compounds contain a common 7-morpholino-1,6-naphthyridine core, with a 5-substituent which is -O-cyclohexyl-L4-R9a, where -L4- is absent; and R9a is a 5 membered heteroaryl, optionally substituted.
Minchinton does not exemplify compounds of formula (I) having a 7-morpholino-1,6-naphthyridine core, with a 5-substituent which is -O-cyclohexyl-L4-R9a, where -L4- is -NH- and
R9a is a 6 membered heteroaryl, optionally substituted, as the instant elected species/subgenus encompassing elected species.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to prepare a compound from the genus taught by Minchinton to arrive at the instant invention.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have synthesized a compound from the genus of Minchinton
by replacing a 5-substituent which is -O-cyclohexyl-L4-R9a, where -L4- is absent; and R9a is a 5 membered heteroaryl, optionally substituted, in the 7-morpholino-1,6-naphthyridine compounds of formula (I) specifically taught by Minchinton,
with a 5-substituent which is -O-cyclohexyl-L4-R9a, where -L4- is -NH-; and R9a is a 6 membered heteroaryl, optionally substituted,
because Minchinton teaches compounds of formula (I) where -L4- is absent or is -NH-; and R9a is a 5 membered heteroaryl, or a 6-membered heteroaryl, optionally substituted.
Thus, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have replaced a 5-substituent in the 7-morpholino-1,6-naphthyridine compounds above specifically taught by Minchinton with a 5-substituent which is -O-cyclohexyl-L4-R9a, where -L4- is -NH-; and R9a is a 6 membered heteroaryl, optionally substituted, with the expectation that the compounds retain DNA-PK inhibitory activity. Further, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected a 6 membered heteroaryl R9a which is pyridine, pyrimidine, pyrazine, or pyridazine, and specifically pyrimidin-2-yl (as in the instant elected species), because Minchinton teaches these very moieties R9a in compounds of formula (I).
Further, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have explored different combination of substituents R1, R2, R3, and the 5-substituent above, in the genus taught by Minchinton, with a reasonable expectation that the resulting compounds retain biological activity as DNA-PK inhibitors effective to treat cancer.
As such, claims 1-3, 12, 18-23, 29 are rejected as prima facie obvious.
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.
Claims 1-3, 12, 18-23, 29 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable at least over claims 1, 5, 7-10, 12-14, 20-22, 24, 27 of copending Application No. 17/641,813 (reference application, published as US 2023/0063457, cited in PTO-892). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because a compound of claims 1, 5, 7-10, 12-14, 20-22, 24, 27 of copending Application No. 17/641,813 anticipates or renders obvious the instant invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7-10, 12-14, 20-22, 24, 27 of copending Application No. 17/641,813 are drawn to a compound of formula (I)
PNG
media_image11.png
232
194
media_image11.png
Greyscale
wherein
Y is, for example, O;
R4 is -L1-L2-R9a;
-Ll- is , for example, absent;
-L2- is -L3-L4-; where -L3- is, for example, C3-C8-cycloalkyl; and -L4-is, for example, absent or -NR13a-, where R13a is H;
R9a is, for example, a 5, 6, 9 or 10 membered heteroaryl optionally substituted with 1 to 4 R15 substituents; R15 is , for example, C1-C6-alkyl, C2-C6-alkenyl, C2-C6-alkynyl, C1-C6- haloalkyl, cyano, halo, nitro, (CRR7)xOR6c, (CR7CR7)xNR7CR8c, C(O)R7c, C(O)NRR7C, C(O)OR7c, S(O)2R7c, S(O)R7C, S(O)2NR7R7, optionally substituted;
R1 is, for example, C1-C6-alkyl or C1-C6-haloalkyl; and n is 0, 1, 2, or 3;
R2 is H, C1-C6-alkyl, C1-C6-haloalkyl, or halogen;
R3 is, for example, halogen, OH, or O-alkyl; and m is 0, 1, 2, or 3.
Further, claims 5, 7-10, 12-14 of copending Application No. 17/641,813 define
Y is O; in combination with
R4 being -L1-L2-R9a, wherein -L1- is absent; where -L2- is -L3-L4-, wherein -L3-is C3-C6-cycloalkyl;
claims 12-14 define -L4- as being absent or -NH-; and
R9a is a 5 or 6 membered heteroaryl.
As such, there is considerable overlap between the genus of compounds of formula (I) in claims 1, 5, 7-10, 12-14, 20-22, 24, 27 of copending Application No. 17/641,813, and the genus of compounds of formula (II) in the instant claims.
Furthermore, claim 24 of copending Application No. 17/641,813 specifically recites the following compounds:
PNG
media_image16.png
390
408
media_image16.png
Greyscale
which are compounds of formula (II) which is a compound of instant formula II
PNG
media_image2.png
180
254
media_image2.png
Greyscale
of claim 1, for which the following definitions apply:
n = 0; R1 is 5-membered heteroaryl optionally substituted;
R3 is H;
m = 0 or 1, and
R2 is halogen (Br) when m = 1.
Thus, compounds of claim 24 of copending Application No. 17/641,813 anticipate the instant claims.
Furthermore, claim 24 of copending Application No. 17/641,813 teaches the following compound
PNG
media_image17.png
108
142
media_image17.png
Greyscale
and claim 1 teaches that the morpholine ring can be substituted with up to 3 (n = 0, 1, 2 or 3) substituents R1 such as methyl. It would have been obvious to synthesize a direct homolog n = 4 vs. n = 3 of a compound taught by claims of copending Application No. 17/641,813, to arrive at a compound of the instant invention (instant claim 21, page 8)
PNG
media_image18.png
230
100
media_image18.png
Greyscale
, with a reasonable expectation that said compounds retain therapeutic effect.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3, 12, 18-23, 29 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable at least over claims 1-4, 6, 7, 14, 16, 17, 19, 23-25, 32 of copending Application No. 18/279,377 (reference application, published as US 2024/0246960, cited in PTO-892). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because a compound of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 14, 16, 17, 19, 23-25, 32 of copending Application No. 18/279,377 renders obvious the instant invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 14, 16, 17, 19, 23-25, 32 of copending Application No. 18/279,377 are drawn to a compound of formula (I)
PNG
media_image19.png
180
246
media_image19.png
Greyscale
wherein
R1a is, for example, H;
R1b is, for example, 5- to 10-membered heteroaryl, NR6R7, C(O)R7, C(O)NR6R7, wherein each heteroaryl is optionally substituted with from 1 to 5 R8 substituents;
each R6 is, for example, H or C1-C6-alkyl;
each R7 is, for example, H, C1-C6-alkyl, C3-C8-cycloalkyl, 3- to 8-membered heterocycloalkyl, 5- to 10-membered aryl, 5- to 10-membered heteroaryl, -SO2-alkyl or -SO2-cycloalkyl, optionally substituted with 1 to 5 R9 substituents (such as, for example, halogen, cyano, alkyl);
each R8 is, for example, halogen, or alkyl or C-C6-haloalkyl;
where the definitions of R2, R4, m, n and R3 are similar to those in the instant claims.
Further, claims 16, 17, 19 of of copending Application No. 18/279,377 recite compounds of formula (Ia)
PNG
media_image20.png
182
242
media_image20.png
Greyscale
wherein R7 is a 6-membered hetereoaryl (as in the instant elected species).
As such, there is considerable overlap between the genus of compounds of formula (I) in claims 1-4, 6, 7, 14, 16, 17, 19, 23-25, 32 of copending Application No. 18/279,377, and the genus of compounds of formula (II) in the instant claims.
Furthermore, claim 23 of copending Application No. 18/279,377 specifically recites the following compounds:
PNG
media_image21.png
188
208
media_image21.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image22.png
176
210
media_image22.png
Greyscale
and claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/279,377 recites that R2 is, for example, halogen; OH; or NR6R7 where R6 is H and R7 is, for example, -SO2-alkyl or -SO2-cycloalkyl, optionally substituted with R9 halogen.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to synthesize compounds from the genus of claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/279,377, and replace the R2 halogen or OH (in the compounds above) by R2 = NR6R7 where R6 is H and R7 is -SO2-alkyl or -SO2-cycloalkyl, optionally substituted with halogen, to arrive at compounds of the instant invention (instant claim 21, page 16), with a reasonable expectation that said compounds retain therapeutic effect.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Claims 1-3, 12, 18-23, 29 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRINA NEAGU whose telephone number is (571)270-5908. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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 S. LUNDGREN can be reached at (571)272-5541. 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.
/IRINA NEAGU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1629