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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 are pending in the application. Claims 1-12 are rejected. Claims 1-12 are objected to. Claims 13 and 14 are withdrawn.
Restriction/Election of Species
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-12, and further elected species of a compound of formula (I), as shown below, in the reply filed on April 23, 2026 is acknowledged:
PNG
media_image1.png
342
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
i.e.,
PNG
media_image2.png
256
287
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Applicant has not provided a ground(s) for the traversal. Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on April 23, 2026.
Priority
This application is a 35 U.S.C. § 371 National Stage Filing of International Application No. PCT/CN2022/084704, filed on April 1, 2022, which claims priority to Chinese Application No. CN202110356848.8, filed on April 1, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on September 27, 2023, June 13, 2025 and September 22, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the Examiner has considered the IDS documents and signed copies of the 1449 forms are attached.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of ambiguous language (e.g., “lower production cost and generates less three wastes”). See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Specification
The amendment filed on September 27, 2023 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the phrase “the benefit of priority of each of which is claimed herein, and which applications and publication are hereby incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.”
MPEP 211.02 and MPEP 201.06(c)(IV) state the following in regard to “Incorporation by Reference” and PCT Rule 20.6, Rule 20.7 and Rule 4.18 are directed specifically to International applications:
MPEP 211.02, in-part
For applications filed on or after September 21, 2004, a claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120 and 37 CFR 1.78 for benefit of a prior-filed provisional application, nonprovisional application, international application designating the United States, or international design application designating the United States that was present on the filing date of the continuation or divisional application, or the nonprovisional application claiming benefit of a prior-filed provisional application, is considered an incorporation by reference of the prior-filed application as to inadvertently omitted material, subject to the conditions and requirements of 37 CFR 1.57(b). The purpose of 37 CFR 1.57(b) is to provide a safeguard for applicants when all or a portion of the specification and/or drawing(s) is (are) inadvertently omitted from an application. See MPEP § 201.06 and 217. However, applicants are encouraged to provide in the specification an explicit incorporation by reference statement to the prior-filed application(s) for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120 if applicants do not wish the incorporation by reference to be limited to inadvertently omitted material pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(b). See 37 CFR 1.57(c). See also MPEP §§ 217 and MPEP § 608.01(p).
When a benefit claim is submitted after the filing of an application, and the later-filed application as filed did not incorporate the prior-filed application by reference, applicant cannot add an incorporation by reference statement of the prior application. An incorporation by reference statement added after an application’s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date (see 35 U.S.C. 132(a) ). See Dart Indus. v. Banner, 636 F.2d 684, 207 USPQ 273 (C.A.D.C. 1980). See also 37 CFR 1.57(b).
MPEP 201.06(c)(IV), in-part
201.06(c) 37 CFR 1.53(b) and 37 CFR 1.63(d) Divisional-Continuation Procedure [R-08.2017]
IV. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
An applicant may incorporate by reference the prior application by including, in the continuing application-as-filed, an explicit statement that such specifically enumerated prior application or applications are “hereby incorporated by reference.” The statement must appear in the specification. See 37 CFR 1.57(c) and MPEP § 608.01(p). The inclusion of this incorporation by reference statement will permit an applicant to amend the continuing application to include subject matter from the prior application(s), without the need for a petition provided the continuing application is entitled to a filing date notwithstanding the incorporation by reference. For applications filed prior to September 21, 2004, the incorporation by reference statement may appear in the transmittal letter or in the specification. Note that for applications filed prior to September 21, 2004, if applicants used a former version of the transmittal letter form provided by the USPTO, the incorporation by reference statement could only be relied upon to add inadvertently omitted material to the continuation or divisional application.
An incorporation by reference statement added after an application’s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date (see 35 U.S.C. 132(a) ). If an incorporation by reference statement is included in an amendment to the specification to add a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 120 after the filing date of the application, the amendment would not be proper. When a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 120 is submitted after the filing of an application, the reference to the prior application cannot include an incorporation by reference statement of the prior application. See Dart Indus. v. Banner, 636 F.2d 684, 207 USPQ 273 (C.A.D.C. 1980).
20.6 Confirmation of Incorporation by Reference of Elements and Parts
(a) The applicant may submit to the receiving Office, within the applicable time limit under Rule 20.7, a written notice confirming that an element or part is incorporated by reference in the international application under Rule 4.18, accompanied by:
(i) a sheet or sheets embodying the entire element as contained in the earlier application or embodying the part concerned;
(ii) where the applicant has not already complied with Rule 17.1(a), (b) or (b-bis) in relation to the priority document, a copy of the earlier application as filed;
(iii) where the earlier application is not in the language in which the international application is filed, a translation of the earlier application into that language or, where a translation of the international application is required under Rule 12.3(a) or 12.4(a), a translation of the earlier application into both the language in which the international application is filed and the language of that translation; and
(iv) in the case of a part of the description, claims or drawings, an indication as to where that part is contained in the earlier application and, where applicable, in any translation referred to in item (iii).
(b) Where the receiving Office finds that the requirements of Rule 4.18 and paragraph (a) have been complied with and that the element or part referred to in paragraph (a) is completely contained in the earlier application concerned, that element or part shall be considered to have been contained in the purported international application on the date on which one or more elements referred to in Article 11(1)(iii) were first received by the receiving Office.
(c) Where the receiving Office finds that a requirement under Rule 4.18 or paragraph (a) has not been complied with or that the element or part referred to in paragraph (a) is not completely contained in the earlier application concerned, the receiving Office shall proceed as provided for in Rule 20.3(b)(i), 20.5(b) or 20.5(c), as the case may be.
20.7 Time Limit
(a) The applicable time limit referred to in Rules 20.3(a) and (b), 20.4, 20.5(a), (b) and (c), and 20.6(a) shall be:
(i) where an invitation under Rule 20.3(a) or 20.5(a), as applicable, was sent to the applicant, two months from the date of the invitation;
(ii) where no such invitation was sent to the applicant, two months from the date on which one or more elements referred to in Article 11(1)(iii) were first received by the receiving Office.
(b) Where neither a correction under Article 11(2) nor a notice under Rule 20.6(a) confirming the incorporation by reference of an element referred to in Article 11(1)(iii)(d) or (e) is received by the receiving Office prior to the expiration of the applicable time limit under paragraph (a), any such correction or notice received by that Office after the expiration of that time limit but before it sends a notification to the applicant under Rule 20.4(i) shall be considered to have been received within that time limit.
4.18 Statement of Incorporation by Reference
Where the international application, on the date on which one or more elements referred to in Article 11(1)(iii) were first received by the receiving Office, claims the priority of an earlier application, the request may contain a statement that, where an element of the international application referred to in Article 11(1)(iii)(d) or (e) or a part of the description, claims or drawings referred to in Rule 20.5(a) is not otherwise contained in the international application but is completely contained in the earlier application, that element or part is, subject to confirmation under Rule 20.6, incorporated by reference in the international application for the purposes of Rule 20.6. Such a statement, if not contained in the request on that date, may be added to the request if, and only if, it was otherwise contained in, or submitted with, the international application on that date.
The instant application is a 371 application which has an International filing date of April 1, 2022.
Specifically, PCT/CN2022/084704 was filed without an “incorporation by reference” statement to the earlier application filed in China. Then, Applicant filed a 371 of the PCT and attempted to amend the specification to include the “incorporation by reference” statement via a preliminary amendment filed September 27, 2023, which is after the instant application's International filing date of April 1, 2022. This is considered new matter. MPEP 201.06(c): “An incorporation by reference statement added after an application’s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date (see 35 U.S.C. 132(a)).”
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
This objection to the specification can be overcome by deleting the phrase “the benefit of priority of each of which is claimed herein, and which applications and publication are hereby incorporated herein by reference in their entirety” from the instant specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should be amended to replace “m(R1)” with “(R1)m” in the first recited generic formula (I) for sake of clarity and consistency.
Claim 1 should be amended to correct for the offset placement of “(I-5)” as currently recited in “step(C’)” of the claim.
Claim 1 should be amended to recite “...and ring A is linked to L by [[the]] a N atom” for sake of clarity. See variable “ring A” definition.
Claim 1 should be amended to include the word “and” before the recited definition for variable “R2” for proper Markush language.
Claim 2 should be amended to recite, “in step (C’), the halogenation reagent is one or more selected from [[of]]...” for sake of clarity and consistency.
Claim 2 should be amended to recite, “in step (D’), the base is one or more selected from [[of]]...” for sake of clarity and consistency.
Claim 3 should be amended to recite, “in step (C’), the organic solvent is one or more selected from [[of]]...” for sake of clarity and consistency.
Claim 3 should be amended to recite, “in step (D’), the organic solvent is one or more selected from [[of]]...” for sake of clarity and consistency.
Claim 4 should be amended to indicate a reaction arrow in the halogenation reaction of “step (C)” for sake of clarity and consistency.
Claim 4 should be amended to show the full generic chemical formula for “(I’-5)” in “step (C)” for sake of clarity and consistency.
Claim 4 should be amended to include the word “and” before the recited definition for variable “M” for proper Markush language.
Claim 5 should be amended to recite, “in step (C), the halogenation reagent is one or more selected from [[of]]...” for sake of clarity and consistency.
Claim 5 should be amended to recite, “in step (D), the base is one or more selected from [[of]]...” for sake of clarity and consistency.
Claim 6 should be amended to recite, “in step (C), the organic solvent is one or more selected from [[of]]...” for sake of clarity and consistency.
Claim 6 should be amended to recite, “in step (D), the organic solvent is one or more selected from [[of]]...” for sake of clarity and consistency.
Claim 7 should be amended to include the word “and” before the recited definition for variable “M” for proper Markush language.
Claim 8 should be amended to recite, “in step (B), the base is one or more selected from [[of]]...preferably, the base is one or more selected from [[of]]...” for sake of clarity and consistency.
Claim 9 should be amended to recite, “in step (B), the organic solvent is one or more selected from [[of]]...” for sake of clarity and consistency.
Claim 10 should be amended to include the word “and” before the recited definition for variable “R2” for proper Markush language.
Claim 11 should be amended to recite, “in step (A), the coupling reagent is one or more selected from [[of]]...” for sake of clarity and consistency.
Claim 12 should be amended to recite, “in step (A), the organic solvent is one or more selected from [[of]]...” for sake of clarity and consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites “a heteroatom of the 7-12 membered spiro-heterocyclyl is selected from one of or a combination of two of O and N” and is rejected as indefinite. See variable “ring A” definition. It is unclear how a single heteroatom can be defined as a “combination of two of O and N.” Dependent claims 2-12 do not correct this issue of indefiniteness and are likewise rejected.
Claim 1 recites multiple instances of exemplary language (at least as indicated below) and is rejected as indefinite. It is unclear whether Applicant intended the parenthetical expressions “(e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, provided...achieved)” to be further limiting of the term “more” as recited in the claim. It is also unclear whether Applicant intended the expressions “preferably,” “more preferably,” and “particularly more preferably” to further limit the instantly recited variables. Dependent claims 2-12 do not correct this issue of indefiniteness and are likewise rejected.
PNG
media_image3.png
679
908
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
681
894
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
374
891
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
97
861
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 2 recites multiple instances of exemplary language (at least as indicated below) and is rejected as indefinite. It is unclear whether Applicant intended the expressions “preferably,” “more preferably,” and “such as” to further limit the instantly required reagents/molar ratio.
PNG
media_image7.png
314
873
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 3 recites multiple instances of exemplary language (at least as indicated below) and is rejected as indefinite. It is unclear whether Applicant intended the expression “preferably” to further limit the instantly required reagents.
PNG
media_image8.png
310
867
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim 3 recites the limitations “the volume of formula (I’-4)” and “the volume of formula (I’-5)” and is rejected as indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as parent claim 1 does not provide for either a volume of formula (I’-4) or a volume of formula (I’-5).
Claim 5 recites multiple instances of exemplary language (at least as indicated below) and is rejected as indefinite. It is unclear whether Applicant intended the expressions “preferably” and “more preferably” to further limit the instantly required reagents/molar ratio.
PNG
media_image9.png
252
930
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim 6 recites the limitations “the volume of formula (I’-4)” and “the volume of formula (I’-5)” and is rejected as indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as parent claim 4 does not provide for either a volume of formula (I’-4) or a volume of formula (I’-5).
Claim 6 recites multiple instances of exemplary language (at least as indicated below) and is rejected as indefinite. It is unclear whether Applicant intended the expression “preferably” to further limit the instantly required reagents.
PNG
media_image10.png
333
909
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Claim 7 recites multiple instances of exemplary language (at least as indicated below) and is rejected as indefinite. It is unclear whether Applicant intended the expression “preferably” to further limit the instantly recited variables.
PNG
media_image11.png
44
850
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
84
848
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 recites an instance of exemplary language (as indicated below) and is rejected as indefinite. It is unclear whether Applicant intended the expression “preferably” to further limit the instantly required reagent.
PNG
media_image13.png
136
918
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the volume of formula (I’-3)” and is rejected as indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the parent claims do not provide for a volume of formula (I’-3).
Claim 9 recites multiple instances of exemplary language (at least as indicated below) and is rejected as indefinite. It is unclear whether Applicant intended the expression “preferably” to further limit the instantly required reagents.
PNG
media_image14.png
172
895
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Claim 10 recites multiple instances of exemplary language (at least as indicated below) and is rejected as indefinite. It is unclear whether Applicant intended the expression “preferably” to further limit the instantly recited variables.
PNG
media_image15.png
264
853
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Claim 11 recites an instance of exemplary language (as indicated below) and is rejected as indefinite. It is unclear whether Applicant intended the expression “preferably” to further limit the instantly required reagent.
PNG
media_image16.png
182
915
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Claim 12 recites instances of exemplary language (as indicated below) and is rejected as indefinite. It is unclear whether Applicant intended the expression “preferably” to further limit the instantly required reagents.
PNG
media_image17.png
185
939
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the volume of formula (I’-1)” and is rejected as indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the parent claims do not provide for a volume of formula (I’-1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS — Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 7 is drawn towards the method as recited in either parent claim 1 or 4. Claim 7 recites “step (B)” which is drawn towards a reaction forming formula “(I’-4)” as a product. Claim 1, however, does not recite formula “(I’-4)” which is a narrower embodiment of formula “(I-4)” as recited in claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 fails to include all the limitations of parent claim 1. It is suggested Applicant amend claim 7 to be solely dependent on claim 4. Dependent claims 8-12 do not correct this issue of improper dependent form and are likewise rejected.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 are allowable over the prior art. Claims 1-12 would be allowable if amended to address the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as discussed above.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID SHIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, RENEE CLAYTOR can be reached at (571)272-8394. 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.
/D.M.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1626
/REBECCA L ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1626
Prosecution Insights