DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the Applicant’s filing dated October 17th, 2024.
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 .
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/US2022/031437 filed on May 27th, 2022; and has a PRO of 63/301,300 filed on January 20th, 2022 and 63/194,740 filed on May 28th, 2021.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 70-71 are pending in the instant application. Acknowledgement is made of
Applicant's remarks and amendments filed on October 17th, 2024. Acknowledgement is made of
Applicant's cancelation of claims 3, 7-69 and 72-88.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4 and 70 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1 on line 6, the recitation of “C1-6alkyl” is improper. There should be a space in between the subscript and the next word, and should read “C1-6 alkyl”. This type of error is repeated several times throughout the instant claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 7, the claim recites “orR1” but should read “or R1”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 4 of the claims, in line 8 the claim recites “C1-6- haloalkoxy” but should read “C1-6 haloalkoxy”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 4 of the claims, in line 11 the claim recites “-OP(O)(OH)2 ;” but should read “-OP(O)(OH)2;”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 70 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 8 of the claims, in line 10 the claim recites “C6-10aiyl”. The term “aiyl” is not defined the specification and is thus unclear. This issue is repeated on page 9, line 4 of instant claim 70. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 70 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 8 of the claims, in line 18 the claim recites “andN(R9)2;” but should read “and N(R9)2;”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 71 is objected to because of the following informalities: In the first line, the indication of whether the claim is “(Original)” is missing. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 72 is objected to because of the following informalities: In the first line, the indication of whether the claim is “(Canceled)” is missing, it is indicated as “(Original)”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reddit user “everominous” (Reddit.com, posted 15 April 2017, URL: www.reddit.com/r/researchchemicals/comments/65gwr6/questions_about_the_borax_combo_using_6apb_4fmph).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4-6, Reddit user “everominous” discloses a composition comprising 8mg of 4F-MPH and 10mg 5-MeO-MiPT (addressing claims 2 and 5-6) shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
322
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
313
387
media_image2.png
Greyscale
4F-MPH reads on a compound of Formula (I) wherein n is 1; wherein R1 is halo, specifically F; and wherein R2 is C1 alkyl (addressing claims 1, section a). 5-MeO-MiPT reads on a compound of Formula (II) wherein R1 is C1 alkyl; wherein R2 is a branched C3 alkyl, forming isopropyl; wherein R3, R4, R5, R7 and R8 are H; and wherein R6 is C1 alkoxy (addressing claim 1, section b). 4F-MPH reads on a compound of Formula (IV) wherein R1 is H; wherein R2 is halo, specifically F; wherein R3 is C1 alkyl; and wherein R4 is H (addressing claim 4, section a). 5-MeO-MiPT reads on a compound of Formula (V) wherein R1 is C1 alkyl; wherein R2 is a branched C3 alkyl, forming isopropyl; wherein X is NH; wherein R3, R4, R5, R7 and R8 are H; and wherein R6 is C1 alkoxy (addressing claim 4, section b).
Thus, the teachings of Reddit user “everominous” anticipate the combination of instant claims 1-2 and 4-6.
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 70-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddit user “everominous” (Reddit.com, posted 2017 April 15, URL: www.reddit.com/r/researchchemicals/comments/65gwr6/questions_about_the_borax_combo_using_6apb_4fmph); in view of Shevyrin et al. (Journal of Mass Spectrometry, (2017), 52(10), 633-637); as evidenced by Sun et al. (Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters, (2018), 28(20), 3283-3289), cited for evidentiary purposes only.
Regarding claims 70-71, Reddit user “everominous” anticipate the combination of claims 1-2 and 4-6 as described in the above rejection.
Reddit user “everominous” further teaches the combination as disclosed in the above rejection further comprises 125mg 6-APB shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
205
325
media_image3.png
Greyscale
which is a very similar compound to Formula (III). The only differences between the two being the alkylamine substituent is bound to the 6-position of the core scaffold in 6-APB, but in Formula (III) it is bound to the 5-position; and the N is unsaturated in the instant Formula (III). A compound of Formula (III) can be N,N-dimethyl-5-APB shown below:
PNG
media_image4.png
295
509
media_image4.png
Greyscale
which is a compound of Formula (III) wherein R1, R2 and R3 are C1 alkyl; and wherein R4, R5, R6, R7 and R8 are H.
Reddit user “everominous” does not teach a compound of Formula (III) such as N,N-dimethyl-5-APB.
Shevyrin teaches that 5-APB and 6-APB, as well as their N-methylated counterparts 5-MAPB and 6-MAPB (page 634, Figure 1) shown below:
PNG
media_image5.png
131
240
media_image5.png
Greyscale
all inhibit the reuptake transporters of monoamines (dopamine, noradrenaline, and serotonin) thus facilitating intracephalic the release of the aforementioned monoamines, especially of serotonin and dopamine. APBs are also complete or partial agonists of the serotonin receptors 5‐HT2A and 5‐HT2B, which responsible for hallucinogenic effects and regulating cardiovascular activity. Pharmacological activity of APBs and that of stimulators of amphetamines series are similar, though with additional hallucinogenic action and with risks of cardiovascular toxicity. The consumers of APBs describe their effects as euphoria, increased empathy, visual, and auditory hallucinations (page 633, left column, second paragraph). Thus, 5-MAPB and 6-APB are already known in the art to be a part of the same recognized class and thus have the same function.
Sun, cited for evidentiary purposes only, teaches that replacement of a hydrogen atom with a methyl group plays an important role in drug design (page 3288, right column, last paragraph); that can result in a profound potency enhancement (page 3283, left column, second paragraph), as well as increased selectivity (page 3283, right column, first paragraph).
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute N,N-dimethyl-5-APB for 6-APB in the disclosed combination, as Shevyrin teaches that APB compounds, including positional isomers 5-APB and 6-APB as well as their N-methylated analogs constitute a known class of structurally related compounds that share the same pharmacological function. Furthermore, Sun teaches that replacement of a hydrogen atom with a methyl group is a routine medicinal chemistry strategy that can result in enhanced potency and selectivity, thereby providing motivation and a reasonable expectation of success. The selection of N,N-dimethyl-5-APB over 6-APB represents a routine design choice within a known class of APB compounds that share the same pharmacological function.
“[T]he rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Taken together, all of this would result in the combination of instant claims 70-71 with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 70-71 are rejected.
1, 4 and 70-72 are objected to.
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER L JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1672. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 08:00AM - 5:00PM EST with Flex on Fridays.
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.
/C.L.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1691
/RENEE CLAYTOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1691