IMIDAZO[1,2-a]PYRAZINE OR PYRAZOLO[1,5-a]PYRIMIDINE DERIVATIVE AND USE THEREOF

DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to applicant’s filing dated August 17, 2026. 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 . Status of Claims Claims 1 – 5 and 7 – 19 are pending in the instant application. Receipt and consideration of Applicants' amended claim set and remarks/arguments filed on August 17, 2026 are acknowledged. Claims 3 – 5, 12 and 16 remain withdrawn, as being drawn to an unelected invention or species. Acknowledgement is made of Applicant's amendment of claims 1 – 5, 7 and 9 – 19 and cancelation of claims 6 and 20. Claims 1, 2, 7– 11, 13 – 15 and 17 – 19 under consideration in the instant office action. Objections and/or Rejections and Response to Arguments Applicants' arguments, filed on August 17, 2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated (Maintained Objections and/or Rejections) or newly applied (New Objections and/or Rejections, Necessitated by Amendment or New Objections and/or Rejections, NOT Necessitated by Amendment). They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application. Modified Objections and/or Rejections Modifications Necessitated by Claim Amendments 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. Claims 1, 2, 7 – 11, 13 – 15 and 17 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 2024/0216357 A1, cited in IDS, filed 06/26/2025). Instant claims are drawn to a compound of Formula (I) PNG media_image1.png 136 174 media_image1.png Greyscale , such as a compound of Formula (II): PNG media_image2.png 130 237 media_image2.png Greyscale or (III): PNG media_image3.png 132 223 media_image3.png Greyscale , where X, X1, and X3 is N; X2 and X4 is C; R3 is C6-10 aryl, unsubstituted or substituted with 1 – 4 R", R" is F, Cl, Br, -ORa (Ra is H, C1-6 alkyl); R4 is F; ring A is a heterocyclic ring composed of 3-6 atoms; ring B is a bridge ring composed of 6-8 atoms; m is 0 – 3, R’ is -NRbRc (Rb, and Rc are independently H, deuterium, C1-6 alkyl). One of the exemplary compounds of Formula (II) is PNG media_image4.png 122 155 media_image4.png Greyscale (ex. 1). The compounds of instant claims act as Lysine specific demethylase 1 (LSD1) inhibitors. Instant claims are further drawn to a pharmaceutical composition comprising an effective amount of a compound of Formula (I). Chen teaches compound of formula (I-1b) PNG media_image5.png 143 205 media_image5.png Greyscale , where fragment PNG media_image6.png 94 100 media_image6.png Greyscale is PNG media_image7.png 128 150 media_image7.png Greyscale , (page 6, [0053] and [0054]), m=0; ring B is PNG media_image8.png 98 140 media_image8.png Greyscale or e.g. PNG media_image9.png 77 144 media_image9.png Greyscale (page 20, [0222]); R1 and/or R2 is PNG media_image10.png 118 129 media_image10.png Greyscale and PNG media_image11.png 122 141 media_image11.png Greyscale (page 23, [0235]). Exemplary compounds taught by Chen are: PNG media_image12.png 215 297 media_image12.png Greyscale (page 120. Ex. 117) or PNG media_image13.png 221 301 media_image13.png Greyscale (page 132, ex. 169). The compounds, taught by Chen are capable to inhibit Lysine specific demethylase 1 (LSD1). Chen further teaches a pharmaceutical composition comprising therapeutically effective amount of the above compounds or the tautomer, the mesomer, the racemate, the enantiomer, the diastereoisomer, or the mixture thereof, or the deuterated isotope derivative (page 57, [0243]). Although the exemplary structures of compounds taught Chen are not identical to instantly claimed exemplary structures, they represent positional isomers, where identical structural fragments occupy different positions of the molecular core, and presented herein for illustrative purposes (see examples above). Thus, since Chen teaches compounds of equivalent and similar structure and functionality as instantly claimed compounds, where all structural elements, taught by Chen, are equivalent to the same of instantly claimed compounds, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify known compounds and make various structural analogs, by selecting known structural fragments and combining them with known core, to arrive at claimed compounds. The one of ordinary skills would be motivated to do so in search of an active agent, Lysine specific demethylase 1 (LSD1) inhibitor, possessing improved desired properties, with the reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Response to Arguments Applicant argues: - Chen discloses compounds where "Z₁, Z₂, Z₃, Z4, and Z₅ are each independently selected from N or – CRz. Rz is selected from hydrogen, C1-6 alkyl, or C3-10 cycloalkyl." (Para. [0054]-[0059] in Chen). It seems Chen suggest Z₂ being N or CH, but fails to suggest Z₂ being C. Thus, as discussed during the interview, Applicant respectfully submits that Chen fails to teach or suggest, at least: "X1,and X₃ are N, X₂ and X4 are C," as recited in amended claim 1 (emphases added). - The exemplary compounds of Chen contain 6,5 ring where substituents are connected to the six-membered ring, which differ from the claimed 5,6 ring in Formula (I) where substituents are connected to the five-membered ring. - In the interview, the Examiner mentioned compound 11 in Chen as reproduced below. PNG media_image14.png 163 226 media_image14.png Greyscale (Example 11 in Chen). Similarly, example 11 in Chen does not teach "X1, and X₃ are N, X₂ and X₄ are C" as recited in amended claim 1 either. Examiner’s response: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because: as set forth above, Chen teaches structural analogs of the instantly claimed compounds where fragment PNG media_image6.png 94 100 media_image6.png Greyscale is exemplified as having a structure: PNG media_image7.png 128 150 media_image7.png Greyscale , where it is clearly shown that Z2 is C, Z1, Z3 and Z5 are N. Thus, the structural element shown above is identical to the instantly claimed fragment: PNG media_image15.png 86 106 media_image15.png Greyscale (see the circled). Furthermore, the structure of genus formula (I-1b) (see the rejection section above) clearly demonstrates that substituents R1 and R2 having a structure identical to the instantly claimed fragments PNG media_image16.png 53 56 media_image16.png Greyscale and PNG media_image17.png 54 52 media_image17.png Greyscale , are attached to the 5-membered ring of the imidazo[1,2‐a]pyrazine core ( PNG media_image7.png 128 150 media_image7.png Greyscale ). The structure of ring B, taught by Chen, is identical to the instantly claimed structure of ring A and ring B, and is connected to the imidazo[1,2‐a]pyrazine core in the same position as instantly claimed ring A and ring B. Thus, Chen teaches structurally similar compounds of the same utility as instantly claimed, where all the corresponding structural elements are described (see the rejection section above), thereby rendering the claimed compounds obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. As stated in MPEP 2145: If a prima facie case of obviousness is established, the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with arguments and/or evidence to rebut the prima facie case. See, e.g., In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc). Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). The argument about exemplary compounds of Chen, where substituents are connected to the 6,5-membered ring in a different position is not persuasive because, Chen teaches compound of formula (I-1b), which clearly demonstrates that all the corresponding variables are in the same positions of the imidazo[1,2‐a]pyrazine core ( PNG media_image7.png 128 150 media_image7.png Greyscale ). As noted in MPEP 2123: "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Furthermore, "[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Thus, the skilled artisan, when evaluating a series of compounds of common utilities and similar desired properties would consider not only the specific illustrated examples disclosed in the prior art reference, but also the generic structure of the compounds. In the instant case, the generic Formula (I) is structurally identical or similar to the genus formula (I-1b) taught by Chen. Regarding the argument about compound of Example 11 in Chen, it is not persuasive because this compound is not mentioned in the Office action, and its molecular structure is not similar to the instantly claimed compounds. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection of claims 1, 2, 7 – 11, 13 – 15 and 17 – 19 as obvious over teachings of Chen is maintained. Conclusion Claims 1, 2, 7 – 11, 13 – 15 and 17 – 19 are rejected. No claim is allowed. 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 ELENA V VISHNYAKOVA whose telephone number is (571)272-3781. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5pm ET. 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, RENEE CLAYTOR can be reached at (571)272-8394. 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. /E.V.V./ Examiner, Art Unit 1691 /RENEE CLAYTOR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1691