DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 10, 13-17, 21, 23, 29, 34, 39, 45-47 and 49-51, submitted on 11 October 2023, are pending in the application. Claims 2, 6, 10, 13, 15, 34 and 50-51 have been withdrawn. Claims 1, 4, 7, 14, 16-17, 21, 23, 29, 39, 45-47 and 49 are under examination in the instant Office 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
Claims 2, 6, 10, 13, 15, 34 and 50-51 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 20 January 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and the species election of the compound I-17,
PNG
media_image1.png
194
204
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, in the reply filed on 20 January 2026 is acknowledged.
The Examiner did not find prior art on the elected species. In the search of the
claimed species, prior art which reads on the genus and subsequent compounds of the
claimed invention was found. Thus, the species election was expanded to include
species identified in the below prior art rejection. As detailed in the following art rejection, the generic claim encompassing the elected species was not found patentable.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 14, 16-17, 21, 23, 29, 39, 45-47, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bearss et al. (US Patent No. 11,161,852).
The applied reference has a common Assignee and Inventors with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Bearss discloses a genus, shown below, similar to that of the Applicant, which reads on the compounds of the instantly claimed invention. This reference teaches compounds which read on the limitations of the genus when A = C10 aryl or 9-10 membered heterocyclyl; X = CH or N; Y = NH; R1 = H; R2 = C1-C6 alkyl, C2-C6 alkenyl, C2-C6 alkynyl; R3 = H (Col. 13, Lines 11-61); R4 =
PNG
media_image2.png
157
200
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image3.png
139
200
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image4.png
146
218
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image5.png
139
215
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image6.png
139
196
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image7.png
137
198
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image8.png
105
166
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image9.png
106
164
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image10.png
142
197
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image11.png
141
199
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image12.png
144
207
media_image12.png
Greyscale
, or
PNG
media_image13.png
136
209
media_image13.png
Greyscale
(Col. 16-17, Lines 60-67 and 1-33, respectively); R5 = H (Col 13, Line 62).
Genus taught by Bearss
PNG
media_image14.png
266
352
media_image14.png
Greyscale
(Col 13, Lines 13-26)
Genus taught by Applicant
PNG
media_image15.png
202
180
media_image15.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 14, Bearss teaches wherein the A ring can be a C10 aryl (Col. 13, Line 30) which reads on the limitations of the instant claim when
PNG
media_image16.png
106
89
media_image16.png
Greyscale
is
PNG
media_image17.png
94
92
media_image17.png
Greyscale
.
With respect to claim 16, Bearss teaches wherein X is nitrogen (Col. 13, Line 33) which reads on the limitations of the instant claim which recites that the equivalent moiety of the Applicant’s structure, Z, is nitrogen.
Regarding claim 17, the genus taught by Bearss, as shown above, does not have an equivalent moiety to the X moiety taught by the Applicant. However, the atom in place of the Applicant’s moiety is a carbon atom with an R3 moiety which reads on the limitations of the instant claim when R3 = H (Col. 13, Lines 33 and 43).
Regarding claim 21, Bearss teaches wherein R2 is C1-C6 alkyl, C2-C6 alkenyl, and C2-C6 alkynyl each of which is optionally substituted (Col. 13, Lines 36-40).
With respect to claim 23, Bearss teaches wherein R2 is cyclopropyl or cyclobutyl (Col. 14, Line 27)
With respect to claim 29, Bearss teaches wherein R2 is
PNG
media_image18.png
105
77
media_image18.png
Greyscale
(Col. 14, Lines 46-54).
Regarding claim 39, Bearss teaches wherein R4 is isoxazolyl (Col. 13, Line 49)
Regarding claim 45, Bearss teaches wherein R4 can be
PNG
media_image19.png
133
170
media_image19.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image20.png
124
178
media_image20.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image21.png
126
188
media_image21.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image22.png
114
176
media_image22.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image23.png
116
164
media_image23.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image24.png
121
175
media_image24.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image25.png
104
164
media_image25.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image26.png
100
155
media_image26.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image27.png
115
160
media_image27.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image28.png
114
161
media_image28.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image29.png
116
168
media_image29.png
Greyscale
, or
PNG
media_image13.png
136
209
media_image13.png
Greyscale
(Col. 16-17, Lines 60-67 and 1-33, respectively); R5 = H (Col 13, Line 62).
Regarding claim 46, while Bearss does not exemplify a compound of the instantly claimed invention, the contents of the prior art teach the limitations of a compound of the instant claim (e.g., Compound I-1).
With respect to claim 47, Bearss teaches wherein the compound of the disclosure is capable of inhibiting NEK7 and/or modulating the activity of NLRP3 inflammasome (Col. 11, Lines 47-50).
With respect to claim 49, Bearss teaches a pharmaceutical composition comprising a pharmaceutically acceptable diluents, excipients, and carriers (Col. 79, Lines 23-26).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 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. The closest prior art, Bearss, teaches wherein A can be C10 aryl or 9-10 membered heterocyclyl, which reads, in part, on the limitations of independent claim 1. However, Bearss does not teach wherein A is a bicyclic heteroaryl and instead teaches a 5-6 membered monocyclic heteroaryl (Col. 13, Line 30-31).
Claim 7 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. As shown above, the A ring as taught by Bearss is not explicitly drawn to a 6-membered heteroaryl containing a moiety at an equivalent point similar to that of the Applicant’s genus. Instead, Bearss exemplification of the A ring monocyclic heteroaryl has the nitrogen atom in a different location as shown,
PNG
media_image30.png
81
199
media_image30.png
Greyscale
(Col. 28, Lines 17-20).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN CHRISTOPHER SANCHEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-5336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday (0730-1700).
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, James H Alstrum-Acevedo can be reached at 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.
JUSTIN CHRISTOPHER SANCHEZ
Examiner
Art Unit 1622
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1622
/JAMES H ALSTRUM-ACEVEDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1622