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 June 1, 2026, the applicants have elected compound 40 as specific species for further prosecution. The applicants have also amended claims 1-4 and 13.
Claims 1-17 are pending in the application.
The elected species is allowable over the prior art. Therefore, search has now been extended to additional species of compounds of formula (I).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for preparing and using salts of compounds of formula (I), does not reasonably provide enablement for preparing and using solvates and hydrates of compounds of formula (I). The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The following eight different factors (see Ex parte Foreman, 230 USPQ at 547; Wands, In re, 858.F. 2d 731, 8 USPQ 2d 1400, Fed. Cir. 1988) must be considered in order for the specification to be enabling for what is being claimed:
Quantity of experimentation necessary, the amount of direction or guidance provided, presence or absence of working examples, the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the relative skill of those in the art, the predictability or unpredictability and the breadth of claims. In the instant case, the specification is not enabling based on atleast four of the above mentioned eight different factors such as quantity of experimentation necessary, the amount of direction or guidance provided, presence of working examples, state of the prior art, unpredictability and the breadth of claims.
In regard to lack of enablement issue of instant claims 1-17 for hydrates and solvates of instant compounds of formula (I), there is no teaching or guidance present in the specification for preparing any specific hydrates (mono, di, tri or tetra) or solvates. Preparation of specific hydrates or solvates of any compound is a very specialized field and involves their characterization using different techniques such as infrared spectrum, XRD powder diffraction etc. There is no teaching or guidance present in the specification regarding any specific solvents used for preparing specific hydrates or solvates and their characterization using any techniques such as XRD powder diffraction or infrared spectrum etc. There is not even a single example present for preparing any specific hydrate or solvate of instant compounds of formula (I). Healy (Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev.) teaches that differences in solid forms (hydrates, solvates or polymorphic forms) often leads to differences in thermodynamic parameters and physiochemical properties such as solubility, dissolution rate, stability and mechanical properties (see abstract and table 1 on page 28). Therefore, in absence of such teachings, guidance, presence of working examples and unpredictability, it would require undue experimentation to select specific hydrates or solvates of instant compounds with enhanced stability properties.
8. 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 1-17 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.
In independent claim 1, the term - - compound comprises formula (I) - - - is vague and indefinite since it is not clear whether the compounds are represented by formula (I) or some other unknown large formula having formula (I) embedded somewhere.
In claims 1-17, the term - - - characterized in that - - - is vague and indefinite since its actual intent is not clear.
In claim 1, for the values of variables R7-R11, the term - - - linear or branched C1-6 branched C1-6 alkoxy - - is vague and indefinite since its actual intent is not clear.
Claims 8 and 9 are directed to use of compound of formula (I). However, it is not clear who is being treated and administered? and the steps of administration are also missing.
In claims 10-12, it is not clear who is being treated and administered? and the steps of administration are also missing.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "step (c) " in claim 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
IMPROPER MARKUSH GROUP
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
The Markush grouping of claims 1-17 is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: In the instant compounds of formula (I) the value of variable A is critical for the common core of these compounds.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-7, 13, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Prabhakar (Heterocyclic Letters).
Prabhakar discloses antimicrobial activity of some compounds. The compound (8) and its synthesis disclosed in scheme 1 on page 856 by Prabhakar anticipates the instant claims when variable A represents pyrimidine, variable R2 is H and variable R3 represents substituted heterocycle in the instant compounds of formula (I).
Claims 1, 5-7, 13, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Reddy (Eur. J. Biomed. & Pharmaceut. Sci.).
Reddy discloses biological activity of some compounds. The compound (8) and its synthesis disclosed on page 357 by Reddy anticipates the instant claims when variable A represents pyrimidine, variable R2 is H and variable R3 represents substituted heterocycle in the instant compounds of formula (I).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The instant compounds of formula (I) where variable A represents pyridine, are allowable over the prior art since they are neither disclosed nor obvious over the prior art. In the prior art, Harinath (J. Chem. Pharm. Res.) discloses pyridine compound in scheme 1 (see page 700) which is closely related to the instant compounds of formula (I) where variable A represents pyridine. However, this compound of Harinath differs from the instant compounds by having OH group substituted on phenyl ring (instant variable R6) instead of hydrogen, halogen or an alkoxy group. Furthermore, there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation in the prior art to modify the compound of Harinath to prepare instant compounds.
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
Prosecution Insights