DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 46, 49 and 51-67, submitted 16 March 2026, are pending in the application. Claims 49 and 51 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 46 and 52-67 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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1, 46, and 51-67, and the elected species, N-(4-((R)-2-(4- fluoro-6-methoxypyridin-3-yl)propyl)-6-(((R)-1-hydroxy-4-methylpentan-2-yl)amino)-1,3,5- triazin-2-yl)methanesulfonamide, in the reply filed on 16 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 49 and 51 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 16 March 2026.
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.
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code found on page 2, line 5. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Objections
Claims 62 and 65 are objected to because of the following informalities: (1) the limitation "R1" in line 2 of the claim 62 should be written as R1 to be consistent with the other variable moieties in the structure of Formula (I) (i.e., this is a clear typographical error) and (2) the limitation "R2" in line 2 of claim 65 should be written as R2 to be consistent with the other variable moieties in the structure of Formula (I) (i.e., this is a clear typographical error). Appropriate correction is required.
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, 46, and 52-67 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,404,253. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the compound of USPN ‘253 is obvious in view of the scope of the instant claims and identical to the elected species.
Independent claim 11 of USPN ‘253 claims a compound or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, shown below, which reads on the limitations of the instantly rejected claims.
Compound taught by USPN ‘253
PNG
media_image1.png
239
322
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Genus taught by Applicant
PNG
media_image2.png
178
292
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Elected species (Example 46)
PNG
media_image3.png
160
221
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The compound of USPN ‘253 reads on the instantly claimed genus when R1 = C4 branched alkyl (tert-butyl); R2 = C1 alkyl (i.e., methyl); m = 1; R3 = C1 alkyl (methyl); R4 = H; A = 6-membered monocyclic heteroaryl (pyridyl); p = 2; and each R5 independently = halo (fluorine) and C1 alkoxy (-OCH3). The above reads on the limitations of instant claims 1, 46, and 52-67. Claim 11 of USPN ‘253 obviates the elected species, and consequently all claims that read on said elected species, because the compound taught is identical to that of the Applicants.
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