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
Claims 1-2, 16-20, 40-48, 54-57, 64, 66 and 73 are pending. Claims 17-20, 40-43, 45-47, 54, 57, and 73 are withdrawn. Claims 1-2, 16, 44, 48, 55-56, 64 and 66 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 6/25/2026 was considered by the Examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and the species:
PNG
media_image1.png
116
218
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, in the reply filed on 6/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-2, 16, 44, 48, 55-56, 64 and 66 embrace Applicant’s elected species and are therefore under examination. The elected species is free of the prior art. As per MPEP 803.02, “Following election, the Markush claim will be examined fully with respect to the elected species and further to the extent necessary to determine patentability.” Consequently, claims 1-2, 16, 44, 48, 55-56, 64 and 66 have been rejected below for being indefinite under 112b.
Claims 17-20, 40-43, 45-47, 54, 57, and 73 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-2, 16, 44, 48, 55-56, 64 and 66 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, p. 2, lines 8-10 recite the following (arrow added by Examiner):
PNG
media_image2.png
115
394
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. The indentations render the definition of “Y” unclear because a skilled artisan may question whether “ N, or NRc” is part of the “Rb” definition or overall “Y” definition. In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner is using the following definition from p. 2 of the instant specification:
PNG
media_image3.png
50
666
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, wherein it is clear that “N, or NRc” is part of the “Y” definition because of appropriate indentations and punctuations. Examiner recommends amended the instant claims to have appropriate indentations and punctuations for clarity.
Claims 2, 16, 44, 48, 55-56, and 66 are additionally rejected for depending from claim 1 and failing to remedy its deficiencies.
Claim 64 is rejected because it refers to Table 1 of the instant specification. A claim should particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention and, under modern claim practice, stand alone to define the invention. MPEP 2173.05(s) states “Where possible, claims are to be complete in themselves. Incorporation by reference to a specific figure or table “is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim. Incorporation by reference is a necessity doctrine, not for applicant’s convenience.” Ex parte Fressola, 27 USPQ2d 1608, 1609 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993)”.
Closest Prior Art
The closest prior art is WO0112612 (as disclosed on 6/25/2026 IDS). WO0112612 discloses the following compound in Table 1, p. 7 (arrow added by Examiner):
PNG
media_image4.png
200
585
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, which differs from that of the instant claims in multiple locations, including that of the added arrow. The added arrow location of the prior art has a -COOH group, which corresponds to “R8” of the instant claims. R8 of the instant claims does not allow for a -COOH group. The prior art does not provide motivation for, nor render obvious, the instant claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEGHAN C HEASLEY whose telephone number is
(571)270-0785. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30-4:30 PM.
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, Amy Clark can be reached at 571-272-1310. 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.
/MEGHAN C HEASLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 1626 /REBECCA L ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1626
Prosecution Insights