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 . Claims 1-9 are pending in this application.
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 1-9 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.
a. Claim 1 and claims dependent thereof are rejected because the term “derivatives” is indefinite. What is covered and what is not? Note that a derivative is a compound that is derived from a similar compound by a chemical reaction or a compound that is imagined to arise from another compound. The examiner recommends that applicants recite the derivatives or delete said term.
b. Claim 1 is rejected because the definition of variable R1 in chemical Formula 1 and chemical Formula 2 is not clear. The bond that connects the ring N to the variable R1 in Formula 1 is overlapped with the number 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
218
306
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The definition of R1 that includes variables R2 and R3 is also faded. The variable R2 and R3 are fuzzy and appears as Rz or R8.
PNG
media_image2.png
144
714
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In Formula 2 as shown below, the variable R1 is not legible.
PNG
media_image3.png
189
337
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It is recommended that applicants fix the chemical structures in the claim 1. It is recommended that applicants redraw the chemical structures so that Formula I and Formula II with the variables R1-R3 are legible and not fuzzy.
c. Claim 6 is rejected because the phrase “selected from the following group” is not clear. What do applicants mean by “group”? Is the first compound recited part of the group or is it a group by itself? Do applicants mean “selected from the following compounds”, “selected from the following species” or selected from the following”? It is recommended that applicants delete “group” and replace it with “compounds” and also insert “and” before the last compound e.g. “selected from A, B, C and D”.
d. In claims 7-9, the phrase “A pharmaceutical composition for the inhibition….” or “A pharmaceutical composition for the preventing or treating diseases….” is indefinite. Literally, it simply states an intention, which is a mental state, not a patentable limitation. Hence the claim is improperly dependent, as it does not further limit the claim on which it depends. That is how the claim has been examined. Alternatively, this may be intended as a method of use claim, in which case, the claim would be garbled, as it begins as a pharmaceutical composition claim, and ends as a method claim. Moreover, as it does not contain any actual step, it would not be a proper process claim. The intended scope of the claim is thus unclear.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification in general is faded and not consistent. For example, at page 8 of the specification shown below, some of the texts are bold and some are faded.
PNG
media_image4.png
457
677
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In the specification (pages 1 and 4), the definition of variable R1 in chemical Formula 1 and chemical Formula 2 is not clear. The bond that connects the ring N to the variable R1 in Formula 1 is overlapped with the number 1. The definition of R1 that includes variables R2 and R3 is also faded. The variable R2 and R3 are fuzzy and appears as Rz or R8. It is recommended that applicants replace the specification and also fix the chemical structures in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement, filed on 06/07/2024 has been acknowledged. Please refer to Applicant’s copies of the 1449 submitted herewith.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kahsay Habte Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)272-0667. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 - 5:00 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, JEFFREY MURRAY can be reached on 571-272-9023. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Kahsay Habte/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1624
June 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights