CTNF 18/573,372 CTNF 98406 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 1-45 are currently pending. Election/Restriction 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-37, drawn to a compound of Formula (I)) and the elected species PNG media_image1.png 147 152 media_image1.png Greyscale in the reply filed on 4/24/2026 is acknowledged. Claim s 4, 8, 15-36, and 38-45 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Group II or unelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Thus, Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-14, and 37 are being examined on the merits herein. The requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made final. The species as elected was searched and found to be free of the art, requiring at least two substitutions (first OCH 3 for F, and second the isotopic exchange). Search and examination was broadened to include compounds of Formula (I). 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation The terms alkyl, haloalkyl, alkoxy, and haloalkoxy as they appear in Claim 1 are interpreted to comprised deuterated forms thereof. See Claims 5-6. For example, deuterated methyl is a saturated hydrocarbon radical, an alkyl. Claim Objections Claim 37 is objected to because “a compound” should instead read “the compound”. Appropriate correction is required. 07-45 AIA Claim s 12 and 37 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim . See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim s have not been further treated on the merits. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2, 5-7, 9-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebhat (US20180085358, cited in 4/08/2024 IDS) . Sebhat teaches mGluR2 modulators (Abstract), including the following compound in Claim 13 (Page 93): PNG media_image2.png 199 193 media_image2.png Greyscale , which differs from examined Claim 13 compound PNG media_image3.png 144 139 media_image3.png Greyscale in that the Sebhat compound lacks a radiolabel at the para -F position. Sebhat teaches the compounds of the invention may be radiolabeled with either 11 C or 18 F, satisfying the proviso of examined Claim 1 and rendering obvious the compound of examined Claim 13 (Para 142). Additionally, PNG media_image4.png 168 208 media_image4.png Greyscale would also result from the described modification of the same Sebhat compound, which is taught in applicant’s Claims 26-27 to be a compound of examined Formula (I) of Claim 1. One of skill in the art seeking to form an mGluR2 modulator would find the modification obvious and expect success in forming said modulator before the effective filing date of the examined claims because Sebhat explicitly teaches the modification for forming radiolabeled compounds for mGluR2 modulation . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2, 5-7, 9-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebhat (US20180085358, cited in 4/08/2024 IDS) in view of Andres (J. Med. Chem. 2012, 55, 8685−8699) . Sebhat teaches mGluR2 modulators (Abstract), including the following compound in Claim 13 (Page 93): PNG media_image2.png 199 193 media_image2.png Greyscale , which differs from examined Claim 13 compound PNG media_image3.png 144 139 media_image3.png Greyscale in that the Sebhat compound lacks a radiolabel at the para -F position. Sebhat teaches the compounds of the invention may be radiolabeled with either 11 C and 18 F, satisfying the proviso of examined Claim 1 and rendering obvious the compound of examined Claim 13 (Para 142). Additionally, PNG media_image4.png 168 208 media_image4.png Greyscale would also result from the described modification of the same Sebhat compound, which is taught in applicant’s Claims 26-27 to be a compound of examined Formula (I) of Claim 1. Beyond the teachings of Sebhat, Andres teaches that in vivo PET imaging of mGluR2 with radioisotopes is known to be performed via radiolabeling with isotopic atoms explicitly listed in Claim 1, e.g., 11 C (Abstract). Therefore, one of skill in the art seeking to form a radioisotope for the specific purpose of mGluR2 imaging would find it obvious to modify the Sebhat modulator motivated by the desire to image the protein in vivo . One of skill in the art would expect success in doing so before the effective filing date because Sebhat explicitly suggests the modification and Andres teaches that such a radioisotope, containing the same isotopic species of atoms, is useful for imaging mGluR2. Conclusion 07-43 No claim is allowable. Claims 3 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Inquiries Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard G. Peckham whose telephone number is (703)756-4621. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 4:30pm 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, Kortney Klinkel can be reached on (571) 270-5239. 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. /RICHARD GRANT PECKHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 1627 Application/Control Number: 18/573,372 Page 2 Art Unit: 1627 Application/Control Number: 18/573,372 Page 3 Art Unit: 1627 Application/Control Number: 18/573,372 Page 4 Art Unit: 1627 Application/Control Number: 18/573,372 Page 5 Art Unit: 1627 Application/Control Number: 18/573,372 Page 6 Art Unit: 1627
Prosecution Insights