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. Non-Final Rejection The Status of Claims: Claims 1-2, 9-17, 27, 42, 49, 71-72, 110, 116-117 are pending. Claims 1-2, 9-17, 27, 42, 49, 71-72, 110, 116-117 are rejected. DETAILED ACTION 1. Claims 1-2, 9-17, 27, 42, 49, 71-72, 110, 116-117 are under consideration in this Office Action. Priority 2 . It is noted that t his application is a a 371 of PCT/US22/27026 04/29/2022 PCT/US22/27026 , which has a priority of 63181817 04/29/2021 . . Drawings 3. The drawings filed on 10/25/23 are accepted by the examiner. IDS 4. The IDS filed on 12/20/23 & 4/8/25 have been reviewed by the examiner. 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 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 . 5. Claims 1-2, 9-17, 27 , 42, 49, 71-72, 110, 116-117 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wikstrom et al ( WO 2019/166626 A1) in view of Github ( CFQ-R, Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised Application -online version, 2017, latest version 0-17-9, pages 1-2). Determination of the scope and content of the prior art Wikstrom et al discloses a method of treating cystic fibrosis in a patient in need thereof, comprising, administering to the patient the pharmaceutical composition (see page 87, claim 28) comprising:(a) from about 1.0 to about 30 wt % of a compound of Formula (I), or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof; R2 is hydrogen, F, Cl, Br, OSO2C1-3alkyl, or C1-3alkyl; R3 is hydrogen, F, Cl, Br, CN, CF3, SO2C1-3alkyl, CONH2 or SO2NR4R5, wherein R4 and R5 together with the nitrogen atom to which they are attached form an azetidine, pyrrolidine or piperidine ring; or R6 is C1-3alkyl, optionally substituted by 1, 2 or 3 F and/or optionally by OH, OC1-3alkyl, N(C1-3alkyl)2, cyclopropyl, or tetrahydropyran; R7 is hydrogen, F, Cl or CH3; X is 0, S or CF2; Y is O or S; Q is CH or N; (b) from about 55 to about 75 wt % of a pharmaceutical diluent;as in claim s 1-2, 9-10, 27 (see page 84, claim 1) Furthermore, Wikstrom et al displays the compound of Formula (I) is (2S)-N -{ ( IS)-1-cyano-2-[ 4-(3-methyl-2-oxo-2,3-dihydro-1,3-benzoxazol-5-yl)phenyl]ethyl }-1,4-oxazepane-2-carboxamide ( known as brensocatib ) : as in claims 11-14 and 16-17 (see page 10 , a paragrpah#0057). In addition, some of the examples of the compounds of formula(I) are as followed: (2S)-N-[(1S)-1-Cyano-2-( 4' -cyanobiphenyl-4-yl)ethyl]-1,4-oxazepane-2- carboxamide; (2S)-N-{ (IS)-1-Cyano-2-[ 4-(3-methyl-2-oxo-2,3-dihydro-1,3-benzoxazol-5-yl)pheny1] ethy1 }-1, 4-oxazepane-2-carboxamide; (2S)-N-{ ( lS )-1-Cyano-2-[ 4-(3, 7-dimethyl-2-oxo-2,3-dihydro-1,3-benzoxazol-5-yl)phenyl] ethyl }-1, 4-oxazepane-2-carboxamide (see page ,paragraphs# 0059-61). Wikstrom et al teaches that t he composition comprises the compound of Formula (I) is in an amount of 10 mg to 50 mg as in claim 42 in the composition (see page 15, a paragr aph #0109) and administration schedules can be determined by the user of the method, e.g., a prescribing physician; administration is once daily as in claim 49 ( see page 25, a paragraph#00162). In addition, treatment via a method of the invention, comprises improving the lung function in the patient, wherein the lung function is measured by spirometry. Spirometry is a physiological test that measures how an individual inhales or exhales volumes of air. The primary signal measured in spirometry may be volume or flow (see page 30 ,a paragraph#00180).The improvement in lung function is an improvement compared to lung function immediately prior to treatment, as in claim 71 or compared to an untreated bronchiectasis patient. Improving lung function comprises increasing the forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) of the patient compared to the patient's FEV 1 prior to treatment, or compared to an untreated bronchiectasis patient's FEV 1. FEV is the volume of gas exhaled in a specified time (typically 1 second, i.e., FEV1) as in claim 72 from the start of the forced vital capacity maneuver (see page 31, a paragraph#00186). Moreover, it describes that improving lung function comprises improving the peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) of the patient. The improvement is an improvement compared to PEFR immediately prior to treatment as in claim 110 ( see page 32, a paragraph#00190). The current invention, however, differs from the prior art in that t reating comprises ( i ) improving the lung function of the patient, as compared to the lung function of the patient prior to the administration period and/or (ii) improving the patient's quality of life (QOL) assessed by the cystic fibrosis questionnaire-revised (CFQ-R), as compared to the patient's QOL assessed by the CFQ-R prior to the administration period and the improving the lung function of the patient comprises increasing the patient's percent predicted forced expiratory volume in one second (ppFEV1) compared to the patient's ppFEV1 prior to the administration period are not exemplified in the prior art . Github teaches that t he Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised (CFQ-R) is a disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measure for children, adolescents and adults with cystic fibrosis (CF). It is a profile measure of HRQOL with several different domains. It has undergone extensive reliability and validity testing. The Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised (CFQ-R) application calculates the score derived from the CFQ-R, on a 0-100 scale with higher scores indicating better HRQoL as in claims 116-117 . It may be used clinically during routine CF care and for CF research (see from page 1, line 4 at the bottom to page 2, line 6) . Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims The difference between the current application and the applied Wikstrom et al art is that the Wikstrom et al does not expressly teach improving the patient's quality of life (QOL) assessed by the cystic fibrosis questionnaire-revised (CFQ-R), as compared to the patient's QOL assessed by the CFQ-R prior to the administration period . The deficienc y of the Wikstrom et al is cured by the Github . The difference between the current application and the applied Github art is that the Github does not expressly teach the method for treating cystic fibrosis (CF) in a patient in need of treatment, comprising, administering to the patient for an administration period, a pharmaceutical composition comprising an effective amount of a compound of Formula (1), The deficiency of the Github is cured by the Wikstrom et al . Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art . Regarding the claim 82 with respect to the lack of disclosing increasing the patient's percent predicted forced expiratory volume in one second (ppFEV1) compared to the patient's ppFEV1 prior to the administration period , the prior art is silent about it . However, Wikstrom et al does mention that i mproving lung function comprises increasing the forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) of the patient after taking a deep breathe compared to the patient's FEV 1 prior to treatment (see page 31, a paragraph#00186). Also, it is well-known in the art tha t t he percent predicted FEV1 is a comparison of the measured FEV1 to what is expected for a person based o n their age, height, and sex, helping to assess lung function and diagnose conditions like asthma or COPD or CF . So, if the skilled artisan in the art had desired to assess the improvement of lung function and diagnose a patient’s condition such as cystic fibrosis accurately, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art to be motivated to measure a patient's percent predicted forced expiratory volume in one second as a part of the routine check-up. This is because the skilled artisan in the art would expect such a manipulation to be within the purview of the skilled artisan in the art. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . Wikstrom et al expressly discloses the method of treating cystic fibrosis in a patient in need thereof, comprising, administering to the patient the pharmaceutical composition (see page 87, claim 28) comprising:(a) from about 1.0 to about 30 wt % of a compound of Formula (I), or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof : . Although Wikstrom et al does not teach improving the patient's quality of life (QOL) assessed by the cystic fibrosis questionnaire-revised (CFQ-R), as compared to the patient's QOL assessed by the CFQ-R prior to the administration period , Github does teach that t he Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised (CFQ-R) is a disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measure for children, adolescents and adults with cystic fibrosis (CF) ; t he CFQ-R application can be a useful tool clinically during routine CF care . So, if the skilled artisan in the art had desired to assess the improvement of the cystic fibrosis patient's quality of life (QOL) assessed by the cystic fibrosis questionnaire-revised (CFQ-R) accurately, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to use Github ’s CFQ-R application form in the Wikstrom ’s treatment- method during routine CF care . This is because such a combined practice to be feasible and successful as guidance shown in the prior art . Conclusion Claims 1-2, 9-17, 27, 42, 49, 71-72, 110, 116- 117 are rejected. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TAYLOR V OH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0689 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:00-5:00 . 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 Andrew Kosar can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-0913 . 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. /TAYLOR V OH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1625 3/21/2026