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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Applicant’s communication filed on August 22, 2024. Application No. 18/812,309, is a Continuation of PCT/US24/22233, filed March 29, 2024, and claims the benefit of U.S. provisional application No. 63/456,210, filed March 31, 2023. In a preliminary amendment filed August 22, 2024, Applicant cancelled claims 1-57, and added new claims 58-77. Claims 58-77 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
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 58-64 and 66-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeffs et al., 35(10) J. Org. Chem. 3512-18 (1970) (citing the CAS Abstract). The CAS Abstract for Jeffs discloses the following compounds:
PNG
media_image1.png
239
349
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
239
349
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Jeffs et al., citing the CAS Abstract for the compounds depicted above.) These compounds read on compounds of (IA) and (IB), wherein the formulas R2 and R5 are H; R3 is -CH3; R4 is -CH3; and n, o, p and r are 0.
Claims 58 and 76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wijnberg et al.,34(16) Tetrahedron 2579-86 (1978) (citing the CAS Abstract). The CAS Abstract for Wijnberg discloses the following compounds:
PNG
media_image3.png
374
356
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Jeffs et al., citing the CAS Abstract for the compounds depicted above.) These compounds read on compounds of (IA), wherein the formula R2 and R3 are -CH3; R4 are benzyl;; R5 is H; and n, o, p and r are 0.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(2)
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 58-64 66, 76 and 77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kirkland et al., US2024/0409566 A1, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional application No. 63/257,453, filed October 19, 2021, (citing the CAS Abstract). The CAS abstract for Kirkland disclose the following compounds and pharmaceutical compositions thereof:
PNG
media_image4.png
208
308
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
208
308
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Kirkland et al., citing the CAS abstract for the compounds depicted above.) These compounds read on compounds of formulas (IA) and (IB), wherein the formulas R2, R3, and R5 are H; and R4 is -CH3; and p, n, o, and r are O. Also, the compounds disclosed in Kirkland are used to treat mental health disorders. (See Kirkland et al., ‘566 publication, Abstract.)
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 58-77 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 93-112 of copending Application No. 18/799,037 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims the ‘037 application claim the same compounds and methods of use claimed by the present invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 58-77 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 31-50 of copending Application No. 18806,984 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims the ‘984 application claim the same compounds and methods of use claimed by the present invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 58-77 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21-49 of copending Application No. 18/807,015, (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims the ‘015 application claim the same compounds and methods of use claimed by the present invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY R ROZOF whose telephone number is (571)270-5992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 a.m. -5:00 p.m..
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.
/TIMOTHY R ROZOF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1625
Prosecution Insights