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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's Restriction Requirement remarks filed on March 27, 2026. Claim(s) 1-3, 7-12, 14-16, 19, 23-28, 30, 33, 35, 37 are pending. Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, 12, 16, 23, 30, 33, 35, and 37 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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's election of Group I drawn to a compound of Formula I or II and election of species of [18F]TZ82112 (compound) without traverse of the restriction requirement in the reply is acknowledged. The requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim(s) 3, 7, 8, 10-11, 14-15, 19, 24, and 28 are examined herein insofar as they read on the elected invention and species.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 3, 7, 8, 10-11, 14-15, 19, 24, and 28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims ## of U.S. Patent No.10,676,467. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The instant claims are drawn to a compound of formula V. The patented claims are a compound of formula I. As can be seen in the side-by-side comparison, the patented claims embrace the instant claims.
Instant Claims
Patented Claims (US 10,676,46)
PNG
media_image1.png
142
305
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
186
469
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
274
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
360
474
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Thus, the invention as a whole would have been anticipated in view of the patented claims.
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 3, 7, 8, 10-11, 14-15, 19, 24, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu (US 2019/0002450) of record.
Tu teaches compounds of formula I (claim 1; [0007]-[0010]):
PNG
media_image5.png
124
338
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
778
482
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
1004
388
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
1012
488
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
122
504
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Tu does not specifically exemplify a compound wherein R10 is F as required by the limitations of the elected species.
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have known of the compounds of formula I as taught by Tu and envisioned the R10 as F. Tu teaches a generic group of compounds which embraces applicants’ claimed compounds as discussed above. The claims differ from the reference by reciting specific species and a more limited genus than the reference, particularly as it pertains to R10. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select any of the species of the genus taught by the Tu, including those instantly claimed, because the skilled chemist would have the reasonable expectation that any of the species of the genus would have similar properties and, thus, the same use as taught for the genus as a whole. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the claimed compounds from the genus in the reference since such compounds would have been suggested by the reference as a whole. It has been held that a prior art disclosed genus of useful compounds is sufficient to render prima facie obvious a species falling within a genus. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423, 425 (CCPA 1971), followed by the Federal Circuit in Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 847 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ 2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Thus, based on the foregoing reasons, the instant claims are deemed unpatentable over the cited reference.
Conclusion
Claims 3, 7, 8, 10-11, 14-15, 19, 24, and 28 are not allowed.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sahar Javanmard whose telephone number is (571)270-3280. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00-5:00 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Alstrum-Acevedo can be reached on 571-272-5548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/SAHAR JAVANMARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1622
Prosecution Insights