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. Claim Status The preliminary amendment filed on 12/27/2023 is acknowledged . Claims 6-9, 11, 13, and 15-16 were amended. Claim 12 was cancelled. Claims 1-11 and 13-16 are currently pending and under examination. Priority Applicant claims benefit to U.S. a pplication number 63/379,573 filed on 10/14/2022 and U.S. application number 63/457,624 filed on 04/06/2023 . Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S .C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement s (IDS) submitted on 10/07/2025 and 12/18/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claim s 1 -3, 5-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)( 1 ) as being anticipated by Janin et al. (WO 2018/197727, published on 10/31/2018, IDS dated 10/07/2025) . left 3724275 Janin et al. teaches imidazopyrazine derivatives, process for preparation thereof, and their uses as luciferins (luciferase enzyme substrates) . In the recent past, bioluminescent reporting systems, made out of an expressed luciferase/photoprotein and a luciferin, have become important tools in many research domains such as biological and biochemical studies, whole cell or animal imaging, diagnostics as well as in many types of screenings for potential biological activities of small molecules (see paragraph 0002) . The disclosed imidazopyrazine derivatives provide alternative to conventional luciferins, leading to better bioluminescence signals in terms of intensity, signal-to-noise ratio, and/or duration (se paragraphs 3-5, page 3). Another aim is to provide stable precursors of luciferins, storable in convenient conditions prior to their use. The derivatives made were also tested for bioluminescence properties. One of the structures selected for bioluminescence properties testing includes structure Q-54 shown below. 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 1-11 , 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janin et al. ( WO 2018/197727 , published on 10/31/2018, I DS dated 10/07/2025) . The teachings of Janin et al. were discussed above. left 1257300 The teachings of J anin et al. differs from that of the instantly claimed invention in that Q-54 , taught by Janin et al., does not include the alternatives of instant application wherein X is selected from S, R a is selected from hydrogen, fluoro , and C 1-4 fluoroalkyl, R 3 is selected from F, and wherein R 1 selected from: left 788670 and . Furthermore, Janin et al. does not teach a kit comprising the compound of instant claim 1. 666750 211455 Janin et al. further discloses the compound of formula (IIIa): wherein R 2 is selected from the group consisting of: R 3 being in particular selected from the group consisting of: Z is selected from the group consisting of: (see page 25) . While the teachings of Janin et al. do not exemplify the instantly recited species, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the 5-methylfuranyl group of Q-54 with Za, Zc , Zf , Zh , and Zi of the Z Markush group shown above and substitute the benzyl group of Q-54 with 3c of the R 3 Markush group shown above to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the 5-methylfuranyl and benzyl positions of Q-54 because Janin et al. teaches in the Markush formula (IIIa) shown above that positions Z, R 2 , and R 3 can be modified to be another chemical moiety and this substitution would therefore result in the claimed species . In regards to instant claim 13, the patentability of a kit using the compound of instant claim 1 depends on the compound. Therefore, if the compound of claim 1 is made obvious, the kit is also found to be obvious. Instant claim 16, which depends from instant claim 13, is being interpretated by the examiner to be nonfunctional descriptive material that does not add more to the interpretation of instant claim 13 (see MPEP 2111.05(I)(B)). One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because , as taught by Janin et al., any of the chemical moieties would be suitable for producing a compound with the ability of a luciferin . Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janin et al. (WO 2018/197727, published on 10/31/2018, IDS dated 10/07/2025) in view of Su et al. (Nature M ethods, published August 2020, IDS dated 12/18/2025 ) . The teachings of Janin et al. were discussed above. left 622935 The teachings of Janin et al. differ from that of the instantly claimed invention in that Janin et al. does not teach R 1 is selected from : recited as an alternative by instant claims 1-3 and compounds selected from the group consisting of: left 1781175 left 0 and given as alternatives by instant claim 10. Su et al. teaches the development of new NanoLuc substrates with greater solubility and higher maximum possible doses in vivo. In medicinal chemistry, fluorination on a target molecule is often adopted in drug design to alter potency, membrane permeability, metabolism and pharmacokinetics properties . Su et al. s ynthesized derivatives of HFz and compound C with fluorine substitution on the phenyl ring , creating two new substrates with 2ʹ- fluoro substituents (see last paragraph of page 854). When administered by i.p. injection, the new substrates produced an approximately four- to fivefold improvement in Antares brightness from deep-tissue locations compared to furimazine at maximal doses. T he two most optimal new substrates hydrofurimazine ( HFz ) and fluorofurimazine ( FFz ). Compared to furimazine , photon generation from HFz in vivo is both more intense and more prolonged, allowing Antares-based reporters to track dynamic events in vivo at high temporal resolution and for extended periods of time. FFz exhibits even higher peak and integrated brightness than HFz in vivo. We demonstrate that Antares with FFz and AkaLuc with AkaLumine can be used in the same subjects for dual bioluminescence imaging (see last paragraph of introduction section). As demonstrated by FFz , fluorination of the phenyl and benzyl rings further improves in vivo brightness. While FFz produces approximately threefold more photons per mole than HFz in mice, it is only 1.1-fold brighter in vitro, suggesting the in vivo improvement is due to better bioavailability (see second paragraph of page 859). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of fluorination on enzyme substrates , as taught by Su et al., to improve the compounds as taught by Janin et al. to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the fluorination of enzyme substrates, as taught by Su et al., to improve the enzyme substrates, as made obvious by Janin et al., because, as taught by Su et al., fluorination on a target molecule is often adopted to alter potency, membrane permeability, metabolism and pharmacokinetics properties . One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because both Janin et al. and Su et al. are using their substrates as luciferins and both can be applied to whole cell or animal cell imaging. Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janin et al. (WO 2018/197727, published on 10/31/2018, IDS dated 10/07/2025) in view of Su et al. (Nature Methods, published August 2020, IDS dated 12/18/2025) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Firefly Luciferase Assay Kit ( online , published 02/21/2017 , PTO-892 ) . The combined teachings of Janin et al. and Su et al. were discussed above. The combined teachings of Janin et al. and Su et al. differ from that of the instantly claimed invention in that Janin et al. and Su et al. do not teach a kit comprising the compound of claim 1, or a tautomer or salt thereof, as required by instant claim 13, the kit further comprising a luciferase, a buffer reagent, and instructions for performing a luminescence assay, as required by instant claims 14-16. Firefly Luciferase Assay Kit teaches t he enzyme catalyzes ATP-dependent D-luciferin oxidation to oxyluciferin, producing light emission centered at 560 nm (see Product Description ) . The kit components including 5x Firefly Luciferase Lysis Buffer, Firefly Luciferase Assay Buffer 2.0, and D-Luciferin. The instructions of use of the kit are also found in the Assay Protocols section. It would have been obvious to substitute D-luciferin, as taught in the Firefly Luciferase Assay Kit, with the compound of instant claim 1, as made obvious by the combined teachings of Janin et al. and Su et al. to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute D-luciferin with the compounds as taught by Janin et al. and Su et al. and have a reasonable expectation of success because, as taught by Janin et al., the compounds produced can be used as luciferins. Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janin et al. (WO 2018/197727, published on 10/31/2018, IDS dated 10/07/2025) in view of Firefly Luciferase Assay Kit ( online , published 02/21/2017, PTO-892 ). The teachings of Janin et al. were discussed above. The teachings of Janin et al. differ from that of the instantly claimed invention in that Janin et al does not teach a kit comprising the compound of instant claim 1, further comprising a luciferase, a buffer reagent, and instructions for performing a luminescence assay. The teachings of Firefly Luciferase Assay Kit were discussed above. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute D-luciferin, as taught in the Firefly Luciferase Assay Kit, with the compound of instant claim 1, as made obvious by the teachings of Janin et al. to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute D-luciferin with the compounds as taught by Janin et al. and have a reasonable expectation of success because, as taught by Janin et al., the compounds produced can be used as luciferins. 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 . Claim s 1-4 and 6-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11691976B2 (‘976 , IDS dated 10/07/2025 ) in view of Su et al. (Nature Methods, published August 2020, IDS dated 12/18/2025) . ‘976 recites a compound of formula (II): 457200 0 or a tautomer or a salt thereof, wherein: Y is nitro, or —NR y1 R y2 ; p is 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4; q is 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5; R 3 , at each occurrence, is independently halogen, CN, nitro, C 1-10 alkyl, C 1-10 haloalkyl, R 4 , at each occurrence, is independently halogen, CN, nitro, C 1-10 alkyl, C 1-10 haloalkyl . ‘976 further recites a method for detecting luminescence in a sample, the method comprising contacting a sample with the compound of claim 1, or a tautomer or a salt thereof; contacting the sample with a coelenterazine-utilizing luciferase, if it is not present in the sample; and detecting luminescence. ‘976 differs from that of the instantly claimed invention in that ‘976 does not teach Y is fluorine as required by instant claims 1. The teachings of Su et al. were discussed above. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of fluorination, as taught by Su et al., to fluorinate position Y on the compounds, as taught by ‘976 to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the fluorination of enzyme substrates, as taught by Su et al., to improve the enzyme substrates, as recited by ‘976, because, as taught by Su et al., fluorination on a target molecule is often adopted to alter potency, membrane permeability, metabolism and pharmacokinetics properties . One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because both references use the taught compounds as luciferins for luminescence assays. Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11691976B2 (‘976 , IDS dated 10/07/2025 ) in view of Su et al. (Nature Methods, published August 2020, IDS dated 12/18/2025) , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Janin et al. ( WO 2018/197727 , published on 10/31/2018, IDS dated 10/07/2025) . The combined teachings of ‘976 and Su et al. were discussed above. center 582930 The combined teachings of ‘976 and Su et al. differ from that of the instantly claimed invention in that ‘976 and Su et al. do es not teach wherein R 1 is The teachings of Janin et al. were discussed above. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of ‘976 and Su et al. with Janin et al. by choosing combinations of R 2 , R 3 , and Z to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to choose combinations of R 2 , R 3 , and Z, as taught by Janin et al., because, as taught by Janin et al., providing alternatives to conventional luciferins could lead to better bioluminescence signals. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because changing substitution is a routine element of high throughput screening for compounds exhibiting biological activity. Claim s 13-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11691976B2 (‘976 , IDS dated 10/07/2025 ) in view of Su et al. (Nature Methods, published August 2020, IDS dated 12/18/2025) , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Firefly Luciferase Assay Kit ( online , published 02/21/2017 , PTO-892 ). The combined teachings of ‘976 and Su et al. were discussed above. The combined teachings of ‘976 and Su et al. differ from that of the instantly claimed invention in that ‘976 and Su et al. does not teach a kit comprising the compound of claim 1, or a tautomer or salt thereof, as required by instant claim 13, the kit further comprising a luciferase, a buffer reagent, and instructions for performing a luminescence assay, as required by instant claims 14-16. The teachings of Firefly Luciferase Assay Kit were discussed above. It would have been obvious to substitute D-luciferin, as taught in the Firefly Luciferase Assay Kit, with the compound of instant claim 1, as made obvious by the combined teachings of ‘976 and Su et al. to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute D-luciferin with the compounds as taught by ‘976 and Su et al. and have a reasonable expectation of success because the substrates as discussed in both ‘976 and Su et al. can be used as luciferins. Conclusion No claim is found allowable. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KRISTEN WEEKS BRADY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5906 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8am-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 Scarlett Goon can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-5960 . 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. /KRISTEN W BRADY/ Examiner, Art Unit 1692 /SCARLETT Y GOON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1693