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 .
According to paper filed on Sep. 17, 2026, the applicants have canceled claims 8 and 9 and furthermore, have amended claims 1-7 and 10-17.
Claims 1-7 and 10-17 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed Sep. 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive regarding Improper Markush Group rejection. The applicants have amended claims to overcome all other rejections. Regarding Improper Markush Group rejection, the applicants argue on page 13 that N-acylhydrazone is the common core in the instant compounds of formula I. The examiner does not agree with this argument. In compounds of formula I, the value of variable A is critical for the common core since this variable is connected to phenyl ring on one side and is connected to N-acylhydrazone on the other side, specially when both variables R2 and R3 represent H in the instant compounds of formula I.
Conclusion
The Improper Markush Group rejection of claims 1-7 and 10-17 is maintained.
It is of note that since prior art reference was found against a specific species, search will not be extended to any additional species. Claims must be amended to read on the elected species.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1, 5-7, 13, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prabhakar (Heterocyclic Letters).
Prabhakar discloses compounds having antimicrobial activity. The compound (8) and its synthesis disclosed on page 856 disclosed by Prabhakar meets all the limitations of instant claims when variable A represents pyrimidine, variables R1, R2 and R4 represent H and variable R3 represents substituted heterocycle in the instant compounds of formula I except that Prabhakar does not mention that the compound (8) is either (E)-isomer or (Z)-isomer. However, the compound (8) of Prabhakar appears identical to the instant compounds, Therefore, unless applicants provide unexpected results of superior activity of (E)-isomers as compared to (Z)- isomers, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to prepare instant (E)-isomer of compound (8) disclosed by Prabhakar without losing its utility of antimicrobial activity with reasonable expectation of success.
10. 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). Applicants’ 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARANJIT AULAKH whose telephone number is (571)272-0678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-3:30.
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, Clinton A Brooks can be reached at 571-270-7682. 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.
/CHARANJIT AULAKH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1621
