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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Five information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted: one on 09/12/2024; one on 10/04/2024; one on 10/29/2024; one on 04/23/2025; and one on 02/03/2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 10, 12-13, 15-17, 21-22, 26-27, 29, 31-34 are pending in this application. Claims 3,6, 8-9, 11, 14, 18-20, 23-25, 28, and 30 have been cancelled by Applicant.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 33 is allowed.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5, 10, 12-13, 15-17, 21-22, 26-27, 29, 31-32 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.
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.
Claim 7 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the ligand is selected from…" There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim or in claim 4, from which claim 7 depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CAS 1068709-24-9; CAS Registry Accessed May 7th, 2026 from STN; Entered into STN Oct. 31st, 2008.
PNG
media_image1.png
322
401
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CAS 1021325-54-1; CAS Registry Accessed May 7th, 2026 from STN; Entered into STN May 16th, 2008.
PNG
media_image2.png
322
407
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CAS 121887-11-4; CAS Registry Accessed May 7th, 2026 from STN; Entered into STN July 28th, 1989.
PNG
media_image3.png
321
405
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CAS 7342-11-2; CAS Registry Accessed May 7th, 2026 from STN; Entered into STN Nov. 16th, 1984.
PNG
media_image4.png
313
427
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al. (WO 2020/118113 A1 – Int. Pub. Date: Dec. 5th, 2019 – cited in IDS) (“Yan”); in view of Roberts et al. (Obtained from libretexts.org [obtained on 05/11/2026] <URL: https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Organic_Chemistry/Basic_Principles_of_Organic_Chemistry_(Roberts_and_Caserio)/13%3A_Polyfunctional_Compounds_Alkadienes_and_Approaches_to_Organic_Synthesis/13.10%3A_Protecting_Groups_in_Organic_Synthesis> From Basic Principles of Organic Chemistry, second edition – 1977) (“Roberts”).
Regarding instant claims 1-2, Yan discloses a similar deprotection to afford the instant compound 1, in methanol and with Cs2CO3 as base.
PNG
media_image5.png
171
547
media_image5.png
Greyscale
While Yan’s reaction is for the removal of an acetate (Ac) protecting group, rather than benzoyl (Bz) as in the instant claims; the teachings of Roberts are relied upon for these disclosures.
Roberts teaches different hydroxyl protecting groups in organic synthesis, including Ac and Bz. Roberts discloses both of these groups can be removed with an acid or base (section 13.10.1, page 1), and while they do state that Bz is more stable than Ac, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to try Yan’s basic conditions for the removal of Bz.
Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to prepare the instant compound 1 by deprotection of the Bz-protected alcohol with cesium carbonate and a solvent (such as methanol) as taught by Yan in view of Roberts. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to utilize a benzoyl protecting group instead of acetate because it is more stable, as taught by Roberts. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Yan teaches an Ac-deprotection reaction with cesium carbonate and methanol to afford instant compound 1; further because Roberts teaches Ac and Bz as removable under basic conditions. A person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp. Note: MPEP 2143(E) KSR,550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACKSON J HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5382. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 7:30 to 5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 L. Klinkel can be reached at (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.
/JACKSON J HERNANDEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 1627
/SARAH PIHONAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1627
Prosecution Insights