Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/495,933

ACETAMIDO-PHENYLBENZAMIDE DERIVATIVES AND METHODS OF USING THE SAME

Final Rejection §102§112
Filed
Oct 07, 2021
Examiner
HABTE, KAHSAY
Art Unit
1624
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Athenex, Inc.
OA Round
4 (Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
1y 11m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
1348 granted / 1589 resolved
+24.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 11m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
1634
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.7%
-38.3% vs TC avg
§103
6.9%
-33.1% vs TC avg
§102
18.9%
-21.1% vs TC avg
§112
47.0%
+7.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1589 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 1-7, 10-11, 13, 31, 37 and 47-65 are pending in this application. Response to Amendment 2. Applicant’s amendment filed 03/10/2026 in response to the previous Office Action (12/11/2025) is acknowledged. Rejection of claims 1, 5, 7 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been obviated by claim amendment. Note that even though applicants overcome the previous prior art rejections by amending claim, said amendment would raise new issues that needs further rejections. Election/Restrictions 3. Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 06/04/2025 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)). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Claims 1-6, 10-11, 31, 37 and 47-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cha et al. WO 2005033101 A1. Cited reference discloses the following compounds that are the same as applicants when applicant’s Formula (I) has the following substituents: A = heteroaryl ring; Ry = H or OH; Rx = H or methyl; R1 = H; R2 = R3 = methoxy; R4 = H; R5 and R6 together with the atoms to which they are attached form dimethoxy-substituted heterocyclyl ring; and m = 1. PNG media_image1.png 119 1557 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 824 1218 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 132 1504 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 876 1087 media_image4.png Greyscale PNG media_image5.png 149 1549 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 814 1132 media_image6.png Greyscale Since said compound are the same as applicants, a 102(a)(1) rejection is proper. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 7. 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. 8. Claim 60 is 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. Newly added claim 60 is rejected because many of the chemical structures are not legible. For example, at the top of page 14 (page 15 according to applicant’s paper), the following compounds have substituents that are not clear. PNG media_image7.png 290 683 media_image7.png Greyscale It is unclear what is attched an atom that looks like N. The compounds drawn in claim 60 have faded bonds and are in different format compared to new claim 50. At the top of page 27, the following three compounds are not legible (see below). PNG media_image8.png 212 524 media_image8.png Greyscale As shown above, it is unclear what applicants are claiming. The ring atoms are not clear. To overcome this rejection, it is recommended that applicants redraw the new compounds with bigger fonts and legible bonds as it was done in claims 31 and 50. Objection 9. Claims 7, 13, 51-59 and 61-65 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1. Note that the search is ongoing. 10. Claim 13 is objected to because the definition of R5 = C1-6alkoxy-OH appears to be a typographical error. It is recommended that applicants review the definition of R5 in claim 13. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Conclusion 11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kahsay Habte Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)272-0667. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 - 5:00 PM. 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, JEFFREY MURRAY can be reached on 571-272-9023. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /Kahsay Habte/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1624 March 24, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 07, 2021
Application Filed
Oct 06, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 06, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Sep 10, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 24, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §112
Nov 20, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 05, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Mar 10, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 24, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590073
NOVEL PROCESS FOR THE PREPARATION OF MACROCYCLIC CHELANT 2,2',2''-(10-(2-HYDROXYPROPYL)-1,4,7,10-TETRA AZACYCLODODECANE-1,4,7-TRIYL) TRIACETIC ACID AND IT'S COMPLEXES WITH PARAMAGNETIC METAL IONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590067
HERBICIDAL CYCLOHEXANEDIONE DERIVATIVES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583866
PYRIDO[2,3-B][1,4]OXAZINES OR TETRAHYDROPYRIDO[2,3-B][1,4]OXAZEPINES AS IAP ANTAGONISTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576040
IONIZABLE LIPIDS AND METHODS OF MANUFACTURE AND USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577253
5,6-DIHYDROTHIENO[3,4-H]QUINAZOLINE COMPOUND
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+8.1%)
1y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1589 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