Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/093,833

OXAZOLIDINONE COMPOUNDS AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF AS ANTIBACTERIAL AGENTS

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Nov 10, 2020
Examiner
PATEL, SAGAR S
Art Unit
1626
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC
OA Round
7 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
7-8
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
345 granted / 455 resolved
+15.8% vs TC avg
Strong +34% interview lift
Without
With
+33.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
485
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
32.8%
-7.2% vs TC avg
§102
20.7%
-19.3% vs TC avg
§112
23.6%
-16.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 455 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
DETAILED ACTION Request for Continued Examination A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 6, 2026 has been entered. 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 . Status of the Claims Claims 1 – 3, 6 – 7, 9 – 17, 19 – 21 and the newly added claim 22 are pending. Claims 1, 6, 11, 19 and 22 are rejected. Claims 6 – 7 and 9 – 10 are objected. Claims 2 – 3, 12 – 17 and 20 – 21 are withdrawn. Response to Applicant’s Remarks The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) of claims 1, 11 and 19 as being anticipated by Patil et al. IN 2011MU0020 is withdrawn in view of amendments to recite the provision, when R1 is –CH2NR2R4, R4 is selected from PNG media_image1.png 118 254 media_image1.png Greyscale . Examination: Applicant’s amendments necessitate extending the search. In accordance with MPEP §803.02, examination of the Markush-type claim has been extended to the scope of formula I, wherein: R1 is 1 –CH2R6 or PNG media_image2.png 98 126 media_image2.png Greyscale , and R6 is 5-membered heterocycle (triazolyl). Noncompliant Amendment The Amendment filed on February 6, 2026 is not compliant with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c)(2) which states in part that “All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of "currently amended," and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text”. Claim 1 recites the limitation (see, page 2, lines 5-6): PNG media_image3.png 202 930 media_image3.png Greyscale However, the moiety PNG media_image4.png 114 151 media_image4.png Greyscale is a newly recited limitation but does not indicate proper marking (underlining the added text). Amendment is required to underline all added text in the claims to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. Since Applicant’s reply appears bona fide, the amendment has been entered; however, appropriate correction is required in replying to this Office Action. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 6, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claims 7 and 9 – 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a new matter rejection. The instant claim 1 is directed to a compound of formula I: PNG media_image5.png 124 124 media_image5.png Greyscale , wherein PNG media_image3.png 202 930 media_image3.png Greyscale . See, page 2, lines 5-6. According to page 2, lines 28-30, the specification discloses the compound of formula I, wherein PNG media_image6.png 86 632 media_image6.png Greyscale The disclosure does not teach or provide any guidance that variable R1 can also be the moiety PNG media_image4.png 114 151 media_image4.png Greyscale . As such, the disclosure does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Therefore, said amendment to the instant claim is deemed new matter. In order to overcome the rejection, Applicant may amend to delete the moiety PNG media_image4.png 114 151 media_image4.png Greyscale from the scope of variable R1 in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. (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 1, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patil et al. IN 2011MU0020 A (publ. March 14, 2014) . Thomas et al. teach compound of Example-12 (see, e.g., pages 29-30) as presented below: PNG media_image7.png 230 692 media_image7.png Greyscale The prior art compound anticipates the instant claims as presented below: Claims 1 and 19, directed to the compound of formula I PNG media_image8.png 130 128 media_image8.png Greyscale , wherein: R1 is PNG media_image2.png 98 126 media_image2.png Greyscale ; E is 6-membered aryl (phenyl) substituted with one halogen (-F); A is an aryl (phenyl) substituted with a single occurrence of R8; and R8 is C5 heterocycloalkyl (thiopyranyl ring) substituted with -OH. With respect to Claim 11, Patil et al. teach that the compound was prepared by using the procedure described in Example-1 (Method B). See, e.g., page 30. According to Step-3 of Methods A and B, cooled trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) (15 mL) was mixed with the intermediate compound, the solution was warmed to room temperature, evaporated, filtered and eluted to obtain the final compound of Example-12. See, Method-A: page 20, Step-3; Method-B: pages 21-22, Step-3. Patil et al. also teach that the compound can be used in a pharmaceutical composition comprising an effective amount of the compound and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier to treat microbial infection in a subject. See, e.g., page 2, 2nd – 5th paragraphs. Thus, the solution qualifies as a pharmaceutical composition comprising compound of Example-12 and HCl, which qualifies as a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier (according to Official Notice). Claims 1, 6, 11, 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Carcanague et al. WO 2004/048392 A1 (publ. June 10, 2004; effect. filed November 28, 2002) . Carcanague et al. teach compound of Example 8, (5R)-3-[4’-[4,5-dihydroisoxazol-3-yl)-2-fluoro-l.l,-biphenyl-4-yl]-5-(1H-1,2,3-triazol-l-ylmethyl)-1,3-oxazolidin-2-one. See, e.g., page 89, lines 12-23. The compound of Example 8 is presented below: PNG media_image9.png 156 614 media_image9.png Greyscale . The prior art compound anticipates the instant claims as presented below: Claims 1, 19 and 22, directed to the compound of formula I PNG media_image8.png 130 128 media_image8.png Greyscale , wherein: R1 is –CH2R6, wherein R6 is 5-membered heterocycle (triazolyl); E is 6-membered aryl (phenyl) substituted with one halogen (-F); A is an aryl (phenyl) substituted with a single occurrence of R8; and R8 is C4 heterocycloalkyl (isooxazolyl ring). Claim 6, wherein the compound has the formula: PNG media_image10.png 206 196 media_image10.png Greyscale , wherein: R1 is –CH2R6, wherein R6 is 5-membered heterocycle (triazolyl). With respect to Claim 11, Carcanague et al. teach that the compound was prepared by using the same procedure as for Example 1. See, e.g., page 89, lines 17-20. Anhydrous N-methylpyrrolidinone was added to a mixture of the intermediate compound, tri(dibenzyliden-eacetone)dipalladium (0) and tri-2-furylphosphine after being degassed and maintained under argon. The reaction mixture was degassed again, heated at 90 °C for 64 hours, cooled, concentrated and purified to obtain the final compound. See, e.g., pg. 78, lines 14-24. Carcanague also teaches that the compound can be used in a pharmaceutical composition comprising the compound, and a pharmaceutically-acceptable diluent or carrier for treating bacterial infection in mammals. See, e.g., pg. 71, lines 15-24. Thus, the solution qualifies as a pharmaceutical composition comprising compound of Example 8 and N-methylpyrrolidinone, which qualifies as a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier (according to Official Notice). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sagar Patel whose telephone number is (571)272-1317. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am to 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, Amy L. Clark can be reached at (571) 272-1310. 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. /Sagar Patel/Examiner, Art Unit 1626 /KAMAL A SAEED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1626
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 10, 2020
Application Filed
Jul 15, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Oct 02, 2023
Response Filed
Jan 19, 2024
Final Rejection — §102, §112
Apr 24, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 25, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
May 29, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Sep 09, 2024
Response Filed
Dec 04, 2024
Final Rejection — §102, §112
Feb 11, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 20, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 23, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Jul 07, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 03, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §112
Feb 06, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 09, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599616
NOVEL SUBTITUTED SULFONYLUREA AND SULFOXIMINEUREA DERIVATIVES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599575
ANTIMICROBIAL ADJUVANT CONTAINING BIPHENYL DERIVATIVE COMPOUND AS ACTIVE INGREDIENT, AND USES THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594290
IP AND IP ANALOGS DOSAGE REGIMENS FOR THE TREATMENT OF ECTOPIC CALCIFICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590107
CERIUM (IV) COMPLEXES AND THEIR USE IN ORGANIC ELECTRONICS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589096
RUXOLITINIB FORMULATION FOR REDUCTION OF ITCH IN ATOPIC DERMATITIS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+33.8%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 455 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month