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 1-22 and 24 are pending in this application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I and a single disclosed species without traverse in the reply filed on 06/17/2026 is acknowledged.
PNG
media_image1.png
78
681
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner searched the elected the generic species and found no prior art.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Groups I and II share the same specifical technical feature, which is the compound of Formula (I)”. The examiner disagrees with applicant’s argument. A set forth in the Retsrcion Reqyuirement, the technical feature of Group II involves a therapeutic technique and additional infredients that are not present in the special technical feature of Group I. Furthermore, coexamination of the additional group would require search of subclasses unnecessary for the examination of the elected claims. For example, the search for the invention of Group II would include text search in EAST database and CAPLUS search in Chemical Abstract Services. Therefore, coexamination of the additional inventions would require a serious additional burden of search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Note that if the elected Group I and species a. 1,3-benzoxazines are found free from prior art, the method claims of Group II would be rejoined.
3. The claims are drawn to multiple inventions for reasons set forth in the restriction requirement. The claims are examined only to the extent that they read on the elected invention. Cancellation of the non-elected subject matter is recommended in response to this Office Action. It is recommended that applicants delete non-elected species from claim 1.
Double Patenting
4. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
5. Claims 1-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 12,441,735. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because there is significant overlap between the instant claims and claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 12,441,735.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement, filed on 06/17/2026, 02/06/2025 and 01/21/2025 has been acknowledged. Please refer to Applicant’s copies of the 1449 submitted herewith.
In order to expedite prosecution after rejoinder, the examiner recommends that applicants delete “preventing” and also recite specific “neurodegenerative disease” in claim 24.
Conclusion
7. 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
July 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights