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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Compound 1-68 in the reply filed on July 23, 2026 is acknowledged.
The elected species has the following structural formula
PNG
media_image1.png
174
296
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and is free from prior art. The search and examination was expanded to embrace compounds of formula (1) wherein Q is pyridyl, along with the full scope of the remaining variables. Copious amount of art was found.
Improper Markush Rejection
Claims 1-11 are rejected under a judicially created doctrine as being drawn to an improper Markush group, that is, the claims lack unity of invention. The variable Q is defined in such a way that it keeps changing the core of the compound that determines the classification. By changing the value of Q, several patentably distinct and independent compounds are claimed. In order to have unity of invention the compounds must have “a community of chemical or physical characteristics” which justify their inclusion in a common group, and that such inclusion is not repugnant to principles of scientific classification” In re JONES (CCPA) 74 USPQ 149 (see footnote 2). The structural formula (1) does not have a significant structural feature that is shared by all of its alternatives which is inventive. The structure has only a cyclohexene as common. This feature is not inventive (see rejection below). Compounds embraced by formula (1) are so diverse in nature that a prior art anticipating a claim with respect to one member under 35 USC 102 would not render obvious the same claim under 35 USC 103. This is evidentiary of patentably distinct and independent inventions.
Limiting the claims to compounds of formula (1) wherein Q is pyridyl would overcome this rejection.
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 6, 7 and 11 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.
Claims 6 and 7 are open-ended because they do not say what else the compound comprises. Appropriate clarification/correction is required. These claims are duplicates of each other and may also be duplicates of claim 1. Note, intended use of a compound does not carry patentability weight.
Claim 11 provides for the use of a compound, but, since the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the method/process, it is unclear what method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101. See for example Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd. App. 1967) and Clinical Products, Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966).
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lamberth et al. (WO 2012107477). The claims read on the compounds of Table 1 corresponding to formula I.ce in page 55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamberth et al. (WO 2012107477). The reference teaches a generic group of compounds which embrace applicants’ claimed compounds (See page 55, compounds of formula I.ce and definitions of the variables. The claims differ from the reference by reciting specific species and a more limited genus than the reference. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select any of the species of the genus taught by the reference, including those instantly claimed, because the skilled chemist would have the reasonable expectation that any of the species of the genus would have similar properties and, thus, the same use as taught for the genus as a whole. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the claimed compounds from the genus in the reference since such compounds would have been suggested by the reference as a whole. It has been held that a prior art disclosed genus of useful compounds is sufficient to render prima facie obvious a species falling within a genus. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423, 425 (CCPA 1971), followed by the Federal Circuit in Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 847 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ 2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCK KIFLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0668. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 6 PM, M-F.
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 H. Murray can be reached at 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 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.
September 30, 2026
/BRUCK KIFLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1624
