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. Claim Objections Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim fails to end in a period . Appropriate correction is required. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the bases depicted structurally are blurry. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: there should be a comma after the 1st depicted compound. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: there should be a comma after the 1st depicted compound. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is a “:, ,” between the 2nd and 3rd compounds which should just be a single comma. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: there should be an “and” between the last two depicted compounds. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim begins with “The method of treatment” wherein the claim should read “A method of treatment”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim begins with “The method of treatment” wherein the claim should read “A method of treatment”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim begins with “The method of treatment” wherein the claim should read “A method of treatment”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim begins with “The method of” wherein the claim should read “A method of”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim begins with “The method of treatment” wherein the claim should read “A method of treatment”. 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. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 2-5, 7-10, 13, and 15-18 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 2 -5 and 7-10 are indefinite wherein claim 1 is drawn to compounds having the group “ Base՛ ” (note the superscript line). However, claims 2-5 provide for variables “ Base’ ” (note the apostrophe) and claims 7-10 provide for variables “ Base՝ ” (note the different superscript line). As such, claims 2-5 and 7-10 recite limitations that do not have sufficient antecedent basis in the claim from which they depend. The examiner is interpreting these to read on each other, and notes that using the term Base’ for all would be sufficient to overcome this rejection. Claim 13 is indefinite as the claim is drawn to a method of administering a medicament but does not set forth any active steps. Methods should contain active steps. Claim 15 is indefinite as the claim is drawn to a method treatment comprising the compound according to claim 1… but does not set forth any active steps. Methods should contain at least one active step. Likewise, if applicants amend claim 15 to read as a method of treating or preventing the recited diseases, the claim would be rejected for lack of enablement in preventing the diseases and would be allowed as methods of treating the diseases. Claim 16 is indefinite as the claim is drawn to a method treatment comprising the compound according to claim 1… but does not set forth any active steps. Methods should contain at least one active step. Claim 17 is indefinite as the claim is drawn to a method of prophylactic treatments according to claim 1… but does not set forth any active steps. Methods should contain at least one active step. Claim 17 recites the limitation "the method of prophylactic treatment s according to claim 1 " in the 1st line . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 1 is drawn to a compound and not a method of treatment of any kind. Likewise, if applicants amend this claim to a method of prophylactically treating immunomodulation, this prophylactic method would be rejected as lacking enablement for prophylactic methods. Claim 18 is indefinite as the claim is drawn to a method treatment comprising the component of an immunomodulation composition according to claim 1… but does not set forth any active steps. Methods should contain at least one active step. Claim 18 recites the limitation "the component of an immunomodulation composition according to claim 1" in the 1st/2nd lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 1 does not comprise “a component of an immunomodulation composition”. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1, 6, and 12 are allowed. The closest prior art is seen to be WO19/193543 who discloses structurally similar 3’,3’-cyclic dinucleotides; but the compounds therein do not teach or fairly suggest at least the present limitation of having a nucleobase on the 2’-position of one of the sugars. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TRAVISS C MCINTOSH III whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0657 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9AM-5:30PM EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Scarlett Goon can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /TRAVISS C MCINTOSH III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1693