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 .
Claims 170-199, submitted on 3 December 2024, represent all claims currently under consideration.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
This application claims priority to provisional US 63/570,350, filed 27 March 2024, and provisional US 63/533,447, filed 18 August 2023. The examined claims are supported in provisional US 63/533,447. The effective filing date is 18 August 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
One Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), submitted on 26 September 2025, is acknowledged and has been considered.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The currently filed abstract is less than 50 words.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 175, 181, 187, 193, and 199 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. The claims are indefinite due to the phrasing of several of the claimed conditions. Conditions such as “liver tumors and cancers”, “porphyrias”, “anaphylactoid drug reactions”, “pseudo-allergic reactions”, and “sarcoidosis granulomas” cause indefiniteness because they are written in the plural, making it unclear if the patient to be treated must have multiple liver tumors and cancers, for example. The Examiner suggests amending each to be in the singular to overcome the rejections. “Liver tumors and cancers” is also indefinite because it is unclear if the patient must have both a liver tumor and a liver cancer in order to be treated using this method. “Acute and chronic hepatitis B and C virus” causes indefiniteness as well because it is unclear if the patient must have both acute and chronic hepatitis B and C virus, or if they can be treated using this method to treat acute hepatitis B, for example. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to read “acute or chronic hepatitis B virus, acute or chronic hepatitis C virus” to clarify how this method can be practiced.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 170-174, 176-180, 182-186, 188-193, and 194-198 are allowed.
Claims 175, 181, 187, 193, and 199 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: There is no prior art which teaches, suggests, or provides motivation for, the specific compounds which are claimed in the examined application (See STN Search, Search Notes). Burnett (US 2005/0054628; Publication Date: 10 March 2005) is close but not prior art. Burnett discloses compounds of formula
PNG
media_image1.png
128
198
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which are useful for the treatment of conditions such as obesity, metabolic disorders, eating disorders, and diabetes (Abstract). Compounds disclosed include
PNG
media_image2.png
177
307
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Page 20). However, the compounds of Burnett are close, but not prior art because they differ in the attachment point to the heteroaromatic ring system, as well the central ring being a piperidine rather than azetidine, among other differences, with there being no teaching, suggestion, or motivation found within Burnett to modify the compounds to arrive at the presently claimed compounds. Co-pending application No. 19/036,820 is not double patenting as it is directed to compounds which differ by the inclusion of an additional carbon connecting the azetidine and phenyl ring, as seen here:
PNG
media_image3.png
207
249
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. Co-pending application No. 18/941,025 is not double patenting as well. The compounds are of genus
PNG
media_image4.png
258
307
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein A is
PNG
media_image5.png
308
731
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, with specific compounds including
PNG
media_image6.png
200
235
media_image6.png
Greyscale
. These compounds are patentably distinct from what is claimed in the examined application.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Claims 170-174, 176-180, 182-186, 188-193, and 194-198 are allowed.
Claims 175, 181, 187, 193, and 199 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP MATTHEW RZECZYCKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Thru Friday 730AM-5PM EST.
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, Andrew Kosar can be reached at 571-272-0913. 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.
/P.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1625
/JOHN S KENYON/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1625
Prosecution Insights