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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-22, 50, and 79, drawn to a vanadium complex according to Formula I, Formula II, or Formula III, and a pharmaceutical composition thereof, in the reply filed on April 27, 2026 is acknowledged with appreciation.
Claim 81 (drawn to Group II), is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
4. Applicant additionally elected the compound species of Formula I:
PNG
media_image1.png
129
259
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, without traverse. Claims 1-3, 7, 11, 13, 15-17, 20, 21 and 50 are readable on the elected species.
5. Applicant’s elected species of the above compound of Formula I was found to be free of the prior art. However, no claim reads solely on the elected species. In accord with MPEP 803.02 the search was extended to the extent necessary to determine patentability of the Markush-type claim. As discussed in the 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 rejections below, art was found that reads on the Markush-type claim. In accord with MPEP 803.02 the search is not extended unnecessarily to all species. The scope of the independent invention that encompasses the elected species is as follows:
A vanadium complex according to Formula I, wherein R1a is hydroxyethyl; R1b is hydrogen; R2-R5 are independently selected from H, OH, NO2, CN, halo, C 1-6 alkyl, C 2-6 alkenyl, C 2-6 alkynyl, C 1-4 haloalkyl, C 3-10 cycloalkyl, 6-10 membered aryl; and R6-R9 are independently selected from halogen or hydrogen.
6. Claims 1-3, 7, 11, 13, 15-17, 20, 21, and 50 are readable on the scope of the independent invention. Thus, claims 4-6, 8-10, 12, 14, 18, 19, and 22 are withdrawn as directed to non-elected subject matter.
7. Claims 1-3, 7, 11, 13, 15-17, 20, 21, 50 and 79 are under examination with the scope of the independent invention defined above and are the subject of this office action.
Specification
8. The disclosure is objected to for the following reasons: the Specification employs the term “novel” in multiple instances, e.g., “Vanadium(V) pyridine-containing Schiff base catecholate complexes are novel lipophilic, redox-active and selectively cytotoxic in glioblastoma (T98g) cells”, (Example 5 at page 127) and “[i]n this Example, we designed and synthesized novel non-innocent pyridine containing Schiff base vanadium(V) catecholates,” (Conclusion at page 146). It is suggested that the term “novel” be deleted from the language of the disclosure. Once the determination of the novelty of a claimed invention has been established and the disclosure of the invention made public and/or patented, the claimed invention is no longer novel, since the scope of the invention no longer embraces what is considered “novel.” Thus, the incorporation of “novel” into the language of the Specification is not appropriate. Appropriate correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. 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.
10. Claims 3-10 and 12-15 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.
11. Claims 3-10 and 12-15 are indefinite regarding the recitation of the phrase "such as," which renders the claim(s) indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In view of a broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation(s) following “such as” in claims 3-10 and 12-15 are not given patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
12. 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.
13. Claims 1-3, 7, 11, 13, 15-17, 20, 21, 50 and 79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement regarding the scope of compounds and alternatives according to the genus of general formula (I). The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
14. In particular, support cannot be found for the full scope of compounds of Formula (I), Formula (II), and Formula (III), as instantly recited by the claims.
15. The MPEP §2163 states that the purpose of the written description requirement is to ensure that the inventor had possession, as of the filing date of the application, of the specific subject matter later claimed by him. In the case of chemical entities, Applicant's attention is further directed to Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1089, 118 S. Ct. 1548 (1998), which notes that an adequate written description requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties, “not a mere wish or plan for obtaining the claimed chemical invention.” While the court recognizes that, “[i]n claims involving chemical materials, generic formulae usually indicate with specificity what the generic claims encompass” (Id.), it is also recognized that for a broad generic claim, the specification must provide adequate written description to identify the genus of the claim and/or the genus must be sufficiently detailed to show that applicant was in possession of the claimed invention as a whole (see Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). If a genus has substantial variance, the disclosure must present a sufficient number of representative species that encompass the genus in order to adequately describe the genus (i.e., the disclosure must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within that genus). See MPEP § 2163. Otherwise, as stated by the court in Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Eli Lilly and Company (Fed. Cir. 2010), “a generic claim may define the boundaries of a vast genus of chemical compounds, and yet the question may still remain whether the specification, including original claim language, demonstrates that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to a genus. The problem is especially acute with genus claims that uses open-ended language such as “or an isotopically labeled derivative thereof.” In such a case, the claim simply recites the generic “derivative,” and may do so without describing species that achieve that result. But the specification must demonstrate that the Applicant has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the Applicant has invented sufficient alternative species to support the claim to the generically-defined genus.
16. The factors considered in the Written Description requirement are:
(1) level of skill and knowledge in the art,
(2) partial structure,
(3) physical and/or chemical properties,
(4) functional characteristics alone or coupled with a known or disclosed
correlation between structure and function, and
(5) the method of making the claimed invention.
17. Level of skill and knowledge in the art: The level of skill to practice the art of the instantly claimed invention is high and requires a variety of skills usually found in institutions and companies that employ highly trained and skilled scientists to carry out these tasks.
18. Partial structure; Physical and/or chemical properties; and Functional characteristics: The claims are drawn to a vanadium compound according to the extremely broad genera of Formula (I), Formula (II), or Formula (III):
PNG
media_image2.png
174
203
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image3.png
193
226
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, or
PNG
media_image4.png
180
221
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, and their pharmaceutical compositions. The claimed genera of Formula (I), Formula (II) and Formula (III) embrace hundreds of millions of compounds, and potentially billions of compounds, which bear little structural overlap with one another, e.g., presently each genus of compounds (Formula (I), Formula (II), and Formula (III)) encompass compound species wherein each of “R2,” “R3,” “R4,” and “R5” embrace any/all 6-10 membered aryl, 5-10 membered heteroaryl, 4-10 membered heterocycloalkyl, without limit. Thus, it is evident that the genera of vanadium compounds/complexes encompassed by the claims has substantial variance.
19. The instant vanadium compounds are alleged by the Specification to be useful in the treatment of cancer (page 1, Summary). Applicant discusses the potential anticancer activity of certain vanadium complexes in intratumoral injections (Examples 1-4) and the cytotoxic activity of two series of vanadium(V) pyridine-containing catecholate complexes against glioblastoma cells (Example 5).
20. Method of making: It is evident that the genera of compounds embraced by Formulae (I)-(III) of the claims has substantial variance, as discussed in paragraph “16” above, embracing hundreds of millions of compound species, and potentially billions of compound species. Yet, the instant Specification discloses the preparation of just a few dozen compound species according to instant Formulae (I)-(III), i.e., [VO(HSHED)(DHI)], [VO(Cl-HSHED)(TB)], [VO(Cl-HSHED)(4Ni)], [VO(SALIEP)(DHI)], [VO(3-OMeHshed)(cat)], [VO(3-OMeHshed)(4-tbu)], [VO(3-OEtHshed)(dtb)], [VO(3-OEtHshed)(cat)], [VO(dea-HShed)(cat)], [VO(nap-HShed)(dtb)], [VO(nap-HShed)(dad)], [VO(SALIEP)(cat)], [VO(SALIEP)(4TB)], [VO(SALIEP)(DTB)], [VO(Cl-SALIEP)(cat)], [VO(Cl-SALIEP)(4TB)], [VO(tbu-HSHED)dtb], [VO(tb-HSHED)cat], etc in the reactions described at pages 164-209 (and depicted in the Table at pages 209-216).
21. While the MPEP does not define what constitutes a sufficient number of representative species, the courts have indicated what does not constitute a representative number of species to adequately describe a broad generic claim. For example, in In re Gostelli, the courts determined that the disclosure of two chemical compounds within a subgenus did not describe that subgenus. In re Gostelli, 872 F.2d 1008 (Fed. Cir. 1989). In the instant case, it is similarly determined that the disclosure of the preparation of a few dozen compound does not adequately describe genera of three separate formulae embracing billions of possible compounds. That is, the Specification does not disclose a sufficient variety of species to reflect the breadth of the possible compound selections recited in the claims.
22. The level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351, 94 USPQ2d at 1172; Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357-58, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1083-84 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The fields of biology and chemistry are considered “unpredictable” because the complexity and unpredictability of chemical and biological interactions can make it difficult to understand the exact properties of an invention. A person of ordinary skill in the art from the specification or from the prior art cannot predict the pharmacological effects of administration of the instant formulation in subjects in regards to prevention of pain. The pharmaceutical industry is the prototypical example of a highly unpredictable field. Pfizer v. Teva Pharm., 482 F.Supp.2d 390, 413 (D.N.J. 2007); 2 Chisum on Patents § 5.04.
23. Applicants have failed to provide guidance or data or evidence as to how the skilled artisan would be able to extrapolate from the disclosure to use the claimed invention. “A description of what a material does, rather than of what it is, usually does not suffice." Rochester, 358 F 3d at 923; Eli Lilly, 119 at 1568. Instead, the “disclosure must allow one skilled in the art to visualize or recognize the identity of the subject matter purportedly described.” Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 19 USPQ2d 1111, makes clear the "applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the 'written description' inquiry, whatever is now claimed." (See page 1117.) The specification does not "clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed." (See Vas-Cath at page 1116).
24. The description requirement of the patent statue requires a description of an invention, not an indication of a result that one might achieve if one made that invention. See In re Wilder, 736, F.2d 1516, 1521,222 USPQ 369, 372-73 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (affirming rejection because the specification does "little more than outlin[e] goals appellants hope the claimed invention achieves and the problems the invention will hopefully ameliorate.").
25. Accordingly, it is deemed that the specification fails to provide adequate written description for the full scope of compounds embraced by Formulae (I)-(III) and their pharmaceutical compositions, as recited by the claims, and does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the entire scope of the claimed invention.
As such, claims 1-3, 7, 11, 13, 15-17, 20, 21, 50 and 79 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
26. 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.
27. Claims 1-3, 7, 11, 16, 17, 20, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cornman et al., (J Am Chem Soc 1992).
Claim 1 is drawn to a vanadium complex according to Formula I:
PNG
media_image5.png
175
193
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, wherein R1a is hydroxyethyl (claim 17); R1b is hydrogen (claim 16); R2-R5 are independently selected from H, OH, NO2, CN, halo, C1-6 alkyl, C2-6 alkenyl, C2-6 alkynyl, C1-4 haloalkyl, C3-10 cycloalkyl, and 6-10 membered aryl (wherein one or more of R2-R5 are not hydrogen (claim 11)); and R6-R9 are independently selected from halogen and hydrogen (claims 2 and 3). Claim 7 is drawn to claim 1 and limits wherein R8 is halogen. Claim 20 is drawn to claim 1, wherein the complex is not one of the four recited complexes of claim 20. Claim 50 is drawn to a vanadium complex according to Formula B:
PNG
media_image6.png
193
201
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein R1a is hydroxyethyl; R1b is hydrogen; R2-R5 are independently selected from H, OH, NO2, CN, halo, C 1-6 alkyl, C 2-6 alkenyl, C 2-6 alkynyl, C 1-4 haloalkyl, C 3-10 cycloalkyl, 6-10 membered aryl; one of R6-R9 is halogen and the others are hydrogen; and Rc, Rd, and Re are each hydrogen.
28. Cornman et al. teach the following vanadium complexes:
Compound 1, [VO(HSHED)(CAT)], which is the same as a compound according to instant Formula (I) wherein R1a is hydroxyethyl; R1b is hydrogen; R2, R3, R4, and R5 are hydrogen; and R6, R7, R8 and R9 are hydrogen;
Compound 2, [VO(Br-HSHED)(CAT)], which is the same as a compound according to instant Formula (I) wherein R1a is hydroxyethyl; R1b is hydrogen; R2, R3, R4, and R5 are hydrogen; R6, R7, and R9 are hydrogen; and R8 is halogen (bromine);
Compound 9, [VO(HSHED)(DBC)], which is the same as a compound according to instant Formula (I) wherein R1a is hydroxyethyl; R1b is hydrogen; R2 and R4 are hydrogen, and R3 and R5 are di-tert-butyl; R6, R7, R8 and R9 are hydrogen;
Compound 10, [VO(Br-HSHED)(DBC)], which is the same as a compound according to instant Formula (I) wherein R1a is hydroxyethyl; R1b is hydrogen; R2 and R4 are hydrogen, and R3 and R5 are di-tert-butyl; R6, R7, and R9 are hydrogen; and R8 is halogen (bromine);
Compound 16, [VO(HSHED)(TBC)], which is the same as a compound according to instant Formula (I) wherein R1a is hydroxyethyl; R1b is hydrogen; R2, R3, R4, and R5 are halogen (bromine); R6, R7, R8 and R9 are hydrogen;
Compound 17, [VO(Br-HSHED)(TBC)], which is the same as a compound according to instant Formula (I) wherein R1a is hydroxyethyl; R1b is hydrogen; R2, R3, R4, and R5 are halogen (bromine); R6, R7, and R9 are hydrogen; and R8 is halogen (bromine);
Compound 20, [VO(HSHED)(4-NC)], which is the same as a compound according to instant Formula (I) wherein R1a is hydroxyethyl; R1b is hydrogen; R2, R4, and R5 are hydrogen, and R3 is NO2; R6, R7, R8 and R9 are hydrogen;
Compound 21, [VO(Br-HSHED)(4-NC)], which is the same as a compound according to instant Formula (I) wherein R1a is hydroxyethyl; R1b is hydrogen; R2, R4, and R5 are hydrogen, and R3 is NO2; R6, R7, and R9 are hydrogen; and R8 is halogen (bromine);
Compound 25, [VO(HSHED)(PYR)], which is the same as a compound according to instant Formula (I) wherein R1a is hydroxyethyl; R1b is hydrogen; R2 is hydroxy and R3, R4 and R5 are hydrogen; R6, R7, R8 and R9 are hydrogen;
Compound 26, [VO(Br-HSHED)(PYR)], which is the same as a compound according to instant Formula (I) wherein R1a is hydroxyethyl; R1b is hydrogen; R2 is hydroxy and R3, R4 and R5 are hydrogen; R6, R7, and R9 are hydrogen; and R8 is halogen (bromine);
Compound 28, [VO(HSHED)(TCC)], which is the same as a compound according to instant Formula (I) wherein R1a is hydroxyethyl; R1b is hydrogen; R2, R3, R4, and R5 are halogen (chlorine); R6, R7, R8 and R9 are hydrogen; and
Compound 29, [VO(Br-HSHED)(TCC)], which is the same as a compound according to instant Formula (I) wherein R1a is hydroxyethyl; R1b is hydrogen; R2, R3, R4, and R5 are halogen (chlorine); R6, R7, and R9 are hydrogen; and R8 is halogen (bromine) (see Figure 1 at page 9926 and Table III at page 9927).
29. Claims 1, 11, 16, 17, 50 and 79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Levina et al., (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2020).
Claim 1 is drawn to a vanadium complex according to Formula I:
PNG
media_image5.png
175
193
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, wherein R1a is hydroxyethyl (claim 17); R1b is hydrogen (claim 16); R2-R5 are independently selected from H, OH, NO2, CN, halo, C1-6 alkyl, C2-6 alkenyl, C2-6 alkynyl, C1-4 haloalkyl, C3-10 cycloalkyl, and 6-10 membered aryl (wherein one or more of R2-R5 are not hydrogen (claim 11)); and R6-R9 are hydrogen. Claim 50 is drawn to a vanadium complex according to Formula B:
PNG
media_image6.png
193
201
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein R1a is hydroxyethyl; R1b is hydrogen; R2-R5 are independently selected from H, OH, NO2, CN, halo, C 1-6 alkyl, C 2-6 alkenyl, C 2-6 alkynyl, C 1-4 haloalkyl, C 3-10 cycloalkyl, 6-10 membered aryl; one of R6-R9 is halogen and the others are hydrogen; and Rc, Rd, and Re are each hydrogen.
Claim 79 is drawn to a pharmaceutical composition comprising a vanadium complex of claim 1.
30. Levina et al. teach vanadium complex 1, according to the following structure:
PNG
media_image7.png
129
149
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(page 15835, Scheme 1), which is the same as a compound according to instant Formula (I) wherein R1a is hydroxyethyl; R1b is hydrogen; R2 and R4 are hydrogen, and R3 and R5 are di-tert-butyl; R6, R7, R8 and R9 are hydrogen. Levina et al. teach the cytotoxic effects of solutions of vanadium complex 1 when administered in vitro against T98g cells, A549 cells, and PANC-1 cells (page 15835, right column, last two paragraphs- page 15836, first paragraph). A solution comprising vanadium complex 1 for in vitro administration meets the limitation of a pharmaceutical composition, required by claim 79.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornman et al., (J Am Chem Soc 1992), as applied to claims 1-3, 7, 11, 16, 17, 20, and 50, above.
Claim 1 is addressed in detail, above.
Claim 21 is drawn to claim 1, and limits the vanadium complex of Formula I to the following complexes (first two complexes recited in claim 21):
PNG
media_image8.png
140
450
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
35. Cornman et al. teach the following vanadium complexes:
Compound 2, [VO(Br-HSHED)(CAT)], which is the same as a compound according to instant Formula (I) wherein R1a is hydroxyethyl; R1b is hydrogen; R2, R3, R4, and R5 are hydrogen; R6, R7, and R9 are hydrogen; and R8 is bromine; and
Compound 10, [VO(Br-HSHED)(DBC)], which is the same as a compound according to instant Formula (I) wherein R1a is hydroxyethyl; R1b is hydrogen; R2 and R4 are hydrogen, and R3 and R5 are di-tert-butyl; R6, R7, and R9 are hydrogen; and R8 is bromine (see Figure 1 at page 9926 and Table III at page 9927).
36. Cornman et al. do not teach a chlorine substitution in the position corresponding to “R8” on Applicant’s vanadium complex of Formula I.
37. However, regarding the bromo substitution on the phenyl ring, rather than the recited chloro substitution, in Ex parte Wiseman, 98 USPQ 277 (Bd. App. 1953), it was held that the claimed compound was rejected over prior art wherein the only structural difference between the claimed compound and the known compound taught by the prior art was two fluorine atoms versus two chlorine atoms. The basis of this reasoning was that fluorine and chlorine are both halogen elements from the seventh group of the periodic system having substantially similar activity and function (i.e., “halogen equivalents”), such that the claimed compound was expected to have close structural similarity and substantially similar properties as the compound disclosed in the prior art. In the instant case, the recited vanadium complex
PNG
media_image9.png
138
208
media_image9.png
Greyscale
differs from Compound 2 disclosed by Cornman et al. only in the substitution of one halogen for another, and the recited vanadium complex
PNG
media_image10.png
137
210
media_image10.png
Greyscale
differs from Compound 10 disclosed by Cornman et al. only in the substitution of one halogen for another, therefore each of the recited compounds is expected to possess similar properties differing only in degree from the respective complexes taught by Cornman et al. Furthermore, Applicant specifically discloses a chlorine substitution in same position in Compound 7 [VO(Cl2-ENSAL)(CAT)] and Compound 15 [VO(Cl2-ENSAL)(DBC)] (Table III at page 9927).
38. Therefore one skilled in the art would recognize the interchangeability of the bromine substituent employed by Cornman et al. for the corresponding halogen substituent (chlorine), and would have been motivated before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the instant chlorine moiety for the bromine moiety taught by Cornman et al., with a reasonable expectation of success.
As such, claim 21 is prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
39. 1-22, 50, 79 and 81 are present in the application. Claims 4-6, 8-10, 12, 14, 18, 19, and 22 are withdrawn as directed to non-elected subject matter. Claims 1-3, 7, 11, 13, 15-17, 20, 21, 50 and 79 are rejected. No claim is presently allowable.
40. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANET L COPPINS whose telephone number is (571)272-0680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM EST.
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, Amy L Clark can be reached at 571-272-1310. 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.
/JANET L COPPINS/Examiner, Art Unit 1628
/AMY L CLARK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1628
Prosecution Insights