Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
Claims 64-83 are pending and under examination in this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of the Information Disclosure Statement filed 2/7/25. The Examiner has considered the references cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see the attached USPTO Form 1449.
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.
Claim 64-83 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,040,782 (US 11,052093 (claims 1-20); (US 9394283 (claims 1-25). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The reasons are as follows:
· Both sets of claims refer to compound of N-((4,6-dimethyl-2-oxo-1,2-dihydropyridin-3-yl)methyl)-5-(ethyl(tetrahydro-2H-pyran-4-yl)amino)-4-methyl-4′-(morpholinomethyl)-[1,1′-biphenyl]-3-carboxamide hydrochloride (as recited by instant claim 81-83 (see wherein the starting compound is a compound according to instant claims 64-66 for example the patented specification is used as a dictionary (see col.19-20) in the preparation of the compound.
· Both applications recite using the same compositions and/or derivatives thereof. The compounds recited in the claims are an obvious variation of each other.
Thus, the process of making is a set of precursor steps to the compound therefore are part of the obvious variation of the patented claims when compared to the current application claims.
In view of the foregoing, the copending application claims and the current application claims are obvious variations.
Claim 64-83 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 8 of U.S. Patent No. 9522152 (US 10155002 claims 1-29). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The reasons are as follows:
· Both sets of claims refer to compound having a chemical structure
PNG
media_image1.png
160
240
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(as recited by instant claims 61-66, 81-83 Differ in that the patented claims are to a method of treating , nonetheless the compounds of the instant claims would have resulted in a method of treatment, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have prepared (see wherein the starting compound is a compound according to instant claims 64-66 for example the patented specification is used as a dictionary (see col.19-20) in the preparation of the compound.
· Both applications recite using the same compositions and/or derivatives thereof. The compounds recited in the claims are an obvious variation of each other.
Thus, the process of making is a set of precursor steps to the compound used therefore are part of the obvious variation of the patented claims when compared to the current application claims.
In view of the foregoing, the patented claims and the current application claims are obvious variations.
Claim 64-83 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 30 of U.S. Patent No. 9855275, US 10420775 (claims 1-20). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The reasons are as follows:
Both sets of claims refer to compound having a chemical structure
· Both sets of claims refer to compound having a chemical structure
PNG
media_image1.png
160
240
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(as recited by instant claims 61-66, 81-83 Differ in that the patented claims are to a method of treating , nonetheless the compounds of the instant claims would have resulted in a method of treatment, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have prepared (see wherein the starting compound is a compound according to instant claims 64-66 for example the patented specification is used as a dictionary (see col.19-20) in the preparation of the compound.
· Both applications recite using the same compositions and/or derivatives thereof. The compounds recited in the claims are an obvious variation of each other.
Thus, the process of making is a set of precursor steps to the compound used therefore are part of the obvious variation of the patented claims when compared to the current application claims.
In view of the foregoing, the patented claims and the current application claims are obvious variations.
Claim 64-83 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1- 20 of U.S. Patent No. 9090562, US 11,052,093) . Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The reasons are as follows:
Both sets of claims refer to compound having a chemical structure
PNG
media_image2.png
161
133
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have prepared the instantly claimed compound with a reasonable expectation of success and used in a treatment method.
Thus, the process of making is a set of precursor steps to the compound used therefore are part of the obvious variation of the patented claims when compared to the current application claims.
In view of the foregoing, the patented claims and the current application claims are obvious variations.
In summary, it is noted that applicant has numerous issued patent and pending applications encompassing the same or similar subject matter of the instant application. Applicant should review all subject matter considered the same or similar, and submit the appropriate Terminal Disclaimer(s) for each and every one considered to be the same or similar subject matter.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIRLEY V GEMBEH whose telephone number is (571)272-8504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Robert A. Wax can be reached at 571-272-0623. 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.
/SHIRLEY V GEMBEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615 7/30/26
Prosecution Insights