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 .
Priority
2. The instant application claims is a national stage entry of PCT/EP2022/070601, filed July 22, 2022.
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) by application no. EP21306032.0 filed in the European Patent Office on July 23, 2021, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on January 17, 2024; March 26, 2026; and March 29, 2026 were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. The IDS documents were considered. A signed copy of each form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Election/Restrictions
5. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on April 29, 2026 is acknowledged.
6. In accordance with the MPEP 803.02, if upon examination of the elected species, no prior art is found that would anticipate or render obvious the instant invention based on the elected species, the search of the Markush-type claim will be extended (see MPEP 803.02). If prior art is then found that anticipates or renders obvious the non-elected species, the Markush-type claim will be rejected. It should be noted that the prior art search will not be extended unnecessarily to cover all non-elected species. Should Applicant overcome the rejection by amending the claim, the amended claim will be reexamined. Id. The prior art search will be extended to the extent necessary to determine patentability of the Markush-type claim. Id. In the event prior art is found during reexamination that renders obvious or anticipates the amended Markush-type claim, the claim will be rejected and the action made final. Id.
7. As per MPEP 803.02, the Examiner will determine whether the entire scope of the claims is patentable. Applicants' elected species
PNG
media_image1.png
87
583
media_image1.png
Greyscale
makes a contribution over the prior art of record. Therefore, according to MPEP 803.02: should the elected species appear allowable, the search of the Markush-type claim will be extended. The Markush-type claim shall be rejected and claims to the nonelected invention held withdrawn from further consideration. It has been determined that the entire scope claimed is not patentable.
Status of Claims
8. Claims 1-19 are pending in the instant application. Claim 11-19 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention and species. Therefore, claims 1-10 read on an elected invention and species and are therefore under consideration in the instant application.
Claim Rejections – Improper Markush Group
9. The nonstatutory Markush grouping rejection is based on a judicially approved “improper Markush grouping” doctrine. Claims 1-10 are are rejected on the judicially-created basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). The improper Markush grouping includes species of the claimed invention that do not share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature.
A Markush claim contains an “improper Markush grouping” if: (1) The species of the Markush group do not share a single structural similarity,” or (2) the species do not share a common use. Members of a Markush group share a "single structural similarity” when they belong to the same recognized physical or chemical class or to the same recognized physical or chemical class or to the same art-recognized class. Members of a Markush group share a common use when they are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent (see Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 27, Wednesday, February 9, 2011, p. 7166, left and middle columns, bridging paragraph).
In the present case, at least (1) applies. It cannot be said that all members of the Markush group have a single structural similarity from which the activity flows. Specifically, the species of the Markush group do not share a “single structural similarity” because there are no required structural features within the compounds of formula I such that each member of the group would have at least one structural feature, which feature is essential to the activity/function of the claimed compounds, in common.
In addition, at least (2) applies since each alternatively usable member of the Markush group does not share a common use. Rather, the specification discloses that the compounds are useful as GRAM-NEGATIVE BACTERIA EFFLUX PUMP INHIBITORS; however, there is no common core in the compounds of formula I that are known GRAM-NEGATIVE BACTERIA EFFLUX PUMP INHIBITORS. It is suggested that applicant amend the claims to contain only proper Markush groupings to compounds sharing a single structural similarity and a common use, wherein the common use shared by the compounds is a result of the structural similarity essential to the function of the compounds.
The question of whether the lack of a specific statutory basis is a fatal flaw against a holding of an Improper Markush group was decided in In re Harnish, 206 USPQ 300, 305, where the court said, “…we think it should be clear from our actions in Weber and Haas II that we there recognized the possibility of such a thing as an "improper Markush grouping." We were and are aware that it does not have a specific statutory basis …” The court went on to reverse the rejection, (which had been made by the Board under Rule 196(b)) but not on the lack of a specific statutory basis but rather, “Clearly, they are all coumarin compounds which the board admitted to be "a single structural similarity." We hold, therefore, that the claimed compounds all belong to a subgenus, as defined by appellant, which is not repugnant to scientific classification. Under these circumstances we consider the claimed compounds to be part of a single invention so that there is unity of invention…” Thus, the rejection was overturned not because of any lack of a specific statutory basis, but because of the specific facts in the case. The Markush group was held proper in that case, as was the case also in Ex parte Price 150 USPQ 467, Ex parte Beck and Taylor, 119 USPQ 100, and Ex parte Della Bella and Chiarino 7 USPQ2d 1669. Cases where the Markush group was held improper include Ex Parte Palmer, 7 USPQ 11, In re Winnek, 73 USPQ 225, In re Ruzicka, 66 USPQ 226, Ex parte Hentrich, 57 USPQ 419, Ex parte Barnard, 135 USPQ 109, Ex parte Reid, 105 USPQ 251, Ex parte Sun and Huggins, 85 USPQ 516, In re Thompson and Tanner, 69 USPQ 148, In re Swenson, 56 USPQ 180, and In re Kingston, 65 USPQ 371. Note In re Milas 71 USPQ 212 in which the structural difference between vitamin A and D was sufficient to uphold the improper Markush rejection. Also see In re Winnek 73 USPQ 225 and In re Ruzicka 66 USPQ 226 in which structural differences were small and yet a similar holding was maintained. All these cases involved compounds in the pharmaceutical art known to be structure-sensitive. Of particular interest is Ex Parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, which reversed an improper Markush rejection “in view of the relatively large proportion of the structure of the compounds in the claimed class which is common to the entire class.” Here, by contrast, the amount in common is none, relative to the entire molecule.
In response to this rejection, Applicant should either amend the claim(s) to recite only individual species or grouping of species that share a substantial structural feature as well as a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature, or present a sufficient showing that the species recited in the alternative of the claims(s) in fact share a substantial structural feature as well as a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. This is a rejection on the merits and may be appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §134 and 37 CFR 41.31(a)(1) (emphasis provided).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
10. 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.
11. Claim 5 is 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “R3 is chosen from a heterocycle comprising 4 to 10 members with at least one N,” and the claim also recites “in particular a piperazine” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
12. 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.
13. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
14. Claim 1-7 and 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CAS Registry Number: RN 2517000-52-9 [Database Registry Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio, Accession No. RN 2517000-52-9, Entered STN: 16 Nov 2020].
PNG
media_image2.png
502
798
media_image2.png
Greyscale
RN 2517000-52-9 anticipates the instant claims wherein Y is CH, X is N, R1 is F, R2 is C6 alkynyl group, R3 is piperazine.
Registry number 2517000-52-9 is available as prior art as of 16 Nov 2020, the day it was indexed into the CAS database.
Regarding the compositions of claim 10, comprising the anticipatory compounds and an excipient, the Registry entry for Registry no. 2517000-52-9 discloses a mass solubility of 0 g/L, in unbuffered water at pH 9.344. This teaching of water anticipates the claimed composition, wherein the compounds are present with an excipient (i.e., water).
See MPEP 2128: ELECTRONIC PUBLICATIONS AS PRIOR ART Status as a "Printed Publication" An electronic publication, including an on-line database or Internet publication, is considered to be a “printed publication” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (b) provided the publication was accessible to persons concerned with the art to which the document relates. See In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 227, 210 USPQ 790, 795 (CCPA 1981) Since this date represents the date that each compound entered the CAS database on STN, this represents the date that each compound was made accessible to the public.
The aforementioned compounds anticipate the instantly claimed compounds: It is further noted that for the purposes of determining if a reference is a “printed publication” for the purposes of 102(b), MPEP 2128 states the following:
PNG
media_image3.png
181
880
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where “prior art disclosures…on an on-line database are considered to be publicly available as of the date the item was publicly posted.” Since each of the database entries above lists the date that each compound was entered into the on-line database, the compounds were made publicly available as of that date in each citation, and the claims are anticipated.
Conclusion
15. No claims are allowed.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Samantha Shterengarts whose telephone number is (571)270-5316. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday 9-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. Adam Milligan can be reached on 571-270-7674. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/SAMANTHA L SHTERENGARTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1623
Prosecution Insights