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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-10, 12 and 14-17 are pending. Claims 1-10, 12 and 14-17 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10, 12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 17, the phrase "for example" or “e.g.” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 3-6, 8-10, 12 and 14-16 are rejected as failing to obviate the indefiniteness of claim 1.
Regarding claims 4, the phrase "for instance" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Additionally, the claims should be free of parenthetical expressions as it is unclear if these limitations are optional or required by the claims. For example, the following is from page 4, lines 2 and 12-16 of claim 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
70
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
246
784
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
See page 5, lines 19 and 26-33 of claim 2; line 6 of claim 3; line 12 of claim 7; and page 10 lines 5 and 12-19 of claim 17.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the compound of formula (IV)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 is further rejected as indefinite as it is unclear how the compound of formula (IV) is involved in the active steps of the method of preparing.
Closest Prior Art
The closest prior art appears to be by Gladysz et al. ((2014), Repositioning the Substrate Activity Screening (SAS) Approach as a Fragment-Based Method for Identification of Weak Binders. ChemBioChem, 15: 2238-2247.) The prior art discloses compound 25 which is analogous to a compound of formula (I) where R1 is a 10-memebered bicyclic heteroaryl substituted by C1 alkyl, R3a and R3b are linked together to form a 6-membered cyclic group containing an additional nitrogen heteroatom, and R4 is halo (page 2241, Table 1):
PNG
media_image3.png
206
570
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
100
541
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
The prior art compound differs from the instant compounds as it lacks a substituent corresponding to variable R2 and the heteroaryl of R1 is substituted with oxo. Gladysz et al. explored the effect of modifying prior art fragment R on the inhibition of urokinase (uPA) however none of the other prior art compounds prepared contain the oxo-pyrdazine core required of the instant compounds. Furthermore, Gladyysz et al. provide no motivation or guidance for modifying the prior art compound further to introduce substituents or provide additional permutations of the compound that would be fully embraced by instant formula (I). For these reasons, the prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious the instant claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLI A CHICKS whose telephone number is (571)270-0582. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 a.m.- 5 p.m..
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.
/A.A.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1626
/MATTHEW P COUGHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1626