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 .
Status of the Application
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I, drawn to compounds of formula I-3, and the species (compound 143), in the reply filed 1/23/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-2, 12-14, 21, 23-27, 29-30, 32, 36, 41, 43-44, 52, 57 are pending. Claims 52 and 57 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 21, 30, 32 have been withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a non-elected species. Claims 1-2, 12-14, 23-27, 29, 36, 41, 43-44 are examined herein insofar as they read on the elected invention and species.
A search has been performed on the species election (compound 143) and found free of the prior art, therefore allowable. The search will now be expanded to the genus of formula I-3 and another species will be selected for further examination.
It is noted that the following rejections are the only remaining issues towards allowance. Should the Applicant overcome the following rejections, the claims will be free of the prior art and allowable.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 12-14, 21, 23-27, 29-30, 32, 36, 41, 43-44 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 9-11, 13, 15, 17, 20-21, 23, 28, 32, 34, 37, 45-48 of copending Application No. 19/075,486.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims recite a compound of formula I having substantially overlapping scope.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
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)(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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kym et al. (US Patent Application 2025/0122160).
Kym et al. teach a compound of formula I as protein tyrosine phosphatase inhibitors in the method of treating cancer, diabetes, obesity, or metabolic disease (paragraph 0007-0008). Table 1 shows the following preferred compounds:
PNG
media_image1.png
102
264
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
112
280
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
216
278
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
240
382
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong S. Chong whose telephone number is (571)-272-8513. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday: 9 AM to 5 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Milligan, can be reached at (571)-270-7674. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866)-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Yong S. Chong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1623
Prosecution Insights