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. DETAILED ACTION STATUS OF THE CLAIMS : Claims 1-17 are pending in this application. Examiner Notes Examiner notes that claims 15-17 were treated as method claims for purposes of this Office Action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 & 35 USC § 112, 1 st paragraph 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either an asserted utility or a well-established utility. The claims are “ u se” claims, and use claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, 1 st paragraph 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 connec ted, 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 16-17 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Specifically, because the claimed invention is not supported by either an asserted utility or a well-established utility for the reasons set forth above, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, 1 st paragraph The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 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. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim is a compound directed to a use for treating a disorder. The claim is rejected for lack of enablement because there is an insufficient teaching of how to use the claimed compo und as claimed. The compound used for treating disorder specify that at least some therapeutic benefit arise from some property of the compo und . Intended use claims do not have patentability weight. A pill, for example is a pill no matter what it is used for, and thus, intended use are not consider patentable. Therefore, Applicant has not taught how to use the compounds of the invention to therapeutic effect for any condition. Examiner suggests amending the claim to a method claim. For example, “The method for treating .. . comprising administering to a human/subject in need , the compound /composition of claim 1 …. ”. 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: 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-15 (including claims dependent thereon or claims that relate back to claim 1) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng et al. ( J’nal of Med. Chem.’2021). Claim 1 is drawn to a LPA1 antagonist compound having the following structure (I) : (I) Claims 2-1 7 are drawn to the compounds having different characteristic peaks XRPD patterns, purity, differential scanning calorimetry thermogram and endotherm, specific stereochemistry and the crystal structure having unit cell parameters (e.g., dimensions, volume, density and temperature) and crystalline aqueous solubility , and said compounds being used for treating pulmonary disorders . The Cheng reference discloses the LPA1 antagonist compound of structure ( I ) on page 155549, right column, and disclose s that structure ( I ) contains an excellent physiochemical profile such as an excellent crystalline aqueous solubility at pH 1 and at pH 7.4 on page 15575 left column , last paragraph. Additionally on page 15575, left column , Cheng disclose s that the compound is 99.9% pur e and used for treating pulmonary disorders . (See Abstract, pages 15549-155476 ). The disclosure of the compound in Cheng anticipates claims 1-1 7 of the instant application. Further, i t is well confirmed that one cannot established novelty by claiming a known material by its properties. (See In re Spada , 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“The discovery of a new property or use or a previously known composition, even when that property and use are unobvious from prior art, cannot impart patentability to claims to the known composition.”) Since Cheng disclose s the compounds and methods for treating pulmonary disorders , Applicant claims are anticipated, and thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1-1 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. ( J’nal of Med. Chem.’2021 ). Applicants claim LPA1 antagonist compounds having the following structure (I) : Cheng discloses a generic group of compounds, which embraces Applicants’ claimed compounds, and methods for treating pulmonary diseases . (See pages 155459 and 155575 ). Cheng does not disclose the compounds of structure ( I ) characterized by having different characteristic peaks in a XRPD patterns, different crystalline and forms , differential scanning calorimetry thermogram and endotherm, and the crystal structure having unit cell parameters (e.g., dimensions, volume, density and temperature) and crystalline aqueous solubility . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Cheng to obtain the forms in the instant application. All of the moieties are taught in the art. Obviousness based on similarity of structure and functions entails motivation to make the claimed compound in expectation that the compounds similar in structure will have similar properties. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the claimed compounds in search for new forms to be used. See In re Payne , 203 USPQ 245(CCPA 1979). Since Applicant’s claims are prima facie obvious in view of the teachings of Cheng , Applicant’s claims are obvious, and therefore, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-17 will be allowed if the claim s are amended to: (1) overcome the rejections under 35 USC § 101 and 35 USC § 112, 1 st paragraph , as set forth in this Office action ; and (2) include the various forms and XRPD patterns , differential scanning calorimetry thermogram and endotherm, specific stereochemistry and the crystal structure having unit cell parameters in the independent claim 1 , (i.e., the claim (s) be rewritten in independent form). The compounds comprising the XRPD patterns , different crystalline and form, differential scanning calorimetry thermogram and endotherm, and the crystal structure having unit cell parameters (e.g., dimensions, volume, density and temperature) were not found to be obvious or anticipated by the prior art of record. The prior art does not teach or suggest the compounds in the manner claimed by the Applicant comprising the XRPD patterns , different crystalline and form, differential scanning calorimetry thermogram and endotherm, and the crystal structure having unit cell parameters (e.g., dimensions, volume, density and temperature) . Therefore, these claims will be allowed if claims are amended to overcome the rejections under 35 USC § 101 and 35 USC § 112, 1 st paragraph ” and include the various forms XRPD patterns , different crystalline and form, differential scanning calorimetry thermogram and endotherm, and the crystal structure having unit cell parameters (e.g., dimensions, volume, density and temperature). Conclusion Claims 1-1 7 are pending. Claims 1-1 7 are rejected. No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT PAUL V WARD whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2909 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9am to 5pm . 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 James Alstrum-Acevedo can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-5548 . 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. /PAUL V WARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1622