DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-19 are currently pending in the instant application. Claims 1, 2, 4-15 and 17 are rejected. Claim 3 is objected. Claims 18 and 19 are withdrawn from consideration as being for non-elected subject matter. Claim 16 is allowed.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and the species:
PNG
media_image1.png
188
244
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in the reply filed on 4 September 2025 has been previously acknowledged.
According to MPEP 803.02, the examiner has previously determined whether the elected species is allowable. Applicants’ elected species appears allowable. Therefore, the search and examination has been previously extended to the compounds of claim 16 which are allowable, and now further to the compound:
PNG
media_image2.png
226
262
media_image2.png
Greyscale
which is not allowable.
Claims 1-17 have been examined to the extent that they are readable on the elected embodiment, the elected species and the above mentioned compounds.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant's amendment and arguments filed 26 December 2026 have been fully considered and entered into the instant application. Applicant’s amendment has overcome the objection to claim 2 by ending claim 2 with a period. As claim 16 has been amended to be independent, the objection to claim 16 is overcome. Applicant’s amendment to variable R’ in claims 1-3 has overcome the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejections as being anticipated by Registry No. 663620-09-5 and as being anticipated by US Pre-Grant Publication 2023/0147285 as R’ has been amended to exclude hydrogen and CO2C1-3alkyl.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 7,598,377 (Cite No. 1 US Patents IDS filed 4/28/2023). US Patent No. 7,598,377 discloses compounds of the formula (III)
PNG
media_image3.png
184
334
media_image3.png
Greyscale
as selective PI3-kinas B inhibitors for anti-thrombosis, column 4 wherein X and Y are C and O respectively, R3 is H, , R is C1-6 alkyl, R2 is H and R1 is C1-6 alkyl which is substituted with substituted amine. Column 6 and column 9 provides preferences towards Formula (III) where R1 is
PNG
media_image4.png
130
152
media_image4.png
Greyscale
. Preference is found on column 10 for R as methyl and R1 as
PNG
media_image4.png
130
152
media_image4.png
Greyscale
. Pharmaceutical compositions are provided on column 20. The compound of the formula (III): KN-303 is disclosed on column 29:
PNG
media_image5.png
56
376
media_image5.png
Greyscale
which corresponds to the formula
PNG
media_image6.png
244
280
media_image6.png
Greyscale
. KN303 is provided in example 16 for cell proliferation assay data, column 48. The compound KN303 corresponds to a positional isomer of a compound of the instant formula:
PNG
media_image7.png
192
230
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein R2 is
PNG
media_image8.png
146
118
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein R10 are each -H, R3 is -H, R4 is -H, R5 is methyl, R6 is -H, R7 is methyl; R8 is -H, R is -H; and R1 is a group of the formula:
PNG
media_image9.png
146
168
media_image9.png
Greyscale
wherein R’ is methyl; and one of R9 is fluorine and the other are -H. More specifically, the prior art compound KN303 corresponds to a positional isomer of the instant formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
226
262
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. In regards to claims 5 and 9, while the prior art compound stereochemistry is not specifically shown, the prior art compound would be a mixture of stereoisomers which would necessarily include the claimed specific stereoisomer. Nothing unobvious is seen in substituting the known claimed isomer for the structurally similar isomer, as taught by the prior art reference, since such structurally related compounds suggest one another and would be expected to share common properties absent a showing of unexpected results. In re Norris, 84 USPQ 458 (1950). Additionally, please see MPEP 2144.09, Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978).
Conclusion
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). Applicant 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-0696. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 6am-2pm.
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, Andrew Kosar can be reached at 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.
/REBECCA L ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1626 ____________________ 22 April 2026
Rebecca Anderson
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1626, Group 1620
Technology Center 1600
Prosecution Insights