DETAILED ACTION
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 . 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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-12, 18, 26-29, and 47) and the species of compound in the reply filed on 20 July 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 19 and 31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Indefiniteness
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.
Claims 1-12, 18, 26-29, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The term “surfactant-like” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “like” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear in what manner a compound needs to be in order to be “like” a surfactant (size, amphiphilic, possessing a charge, having a side chain that is common to surfactants, etc.).
Claims 8 and 26-29 contain trademark/trade names (such as Eudragit, Celucire, etc.). Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the polymers and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 26 depends from claim 25, but claim 25 is cancelled. Thus, it is unclear what limitations are incorporated into claim 26.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. Lassen et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0078358), which discloses pharmaceutical compositions (abstract). Lassen et al. doesn't teach the claimed compounds, though the taught compounds are similar (such as compound 908 on column 40). In particular, Lassen et al. does not teach wherein Q is CH=CH, and thus Lassen et al. doesn't teach wherein Z for R1 is H. Lassen et al. also doesn't teach wherein Z for R2 is H (Lassen et al. teaches 4-chloropyridin-2-yl instead). Lassen et al. also doesn't teach wherein R3 is the substructure indicated on pg 55 of claim 1; wherein G is N; L is SO2, and K and J are (CH2)n; n is 1 (Lassen et al. teaches 1,1- dioxothiolan-3-yl amino instead). Lassen et al. also doesn't teach wherein R4 is H (Lassen et al. teaches a linker to the cyclopropyl moiety making a fused 5-membered ring instead). Lassen et al. also doesn't teach (ii) one or more pharmaceutically acceptable polymers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian Gulledge whose telephone number is (571) 270-5756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am - 4pm.
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, Fereydoun Sajjadi can be reached at (571) 272-3311. 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.
/Brian Gulledge/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1699
Prosecution Insights