Office Action Predictor
Application No. 17/745,367

DERIVATIZATION OF BETA-LACTAM ANTIBIOTICS AS CALIBRATORS/ISTD IN MASSSPEC MEASUREMENTS

Final Rejection §112
Filed
May 16, 2022
Examiner
JARRELL, NOBLE E
Art Unit
1699
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Roche Diagnostics Operations, INC.
OA Round
2 (Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

81%
Career Allow Rate
822 granted / 1012 resolved
Without
With
+5.1%
Interview Lift
avg trend
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
57 pending
1069
Total Applications
career history

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
16.0%
-24.0% vs TC avg
§102
20.9%
-19.1% vs TC avg
§112
41.9%
+1.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION 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 . Response to Amendment The amendment filed 2025 November 7 containing newly amended claims 1, 3, 5-8, 13, 15-18, 21-24, 26, and 27 is examined on the merits. The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection over claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 16,17, 25, and 26 is overcome because claim 1 recites a complex (a compound as defined in the specification, page 11, lines 6-9) formed by the reaction of a C3-10-alkyl-NH2 with a β-lactam ring that also contains an isotope. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections are overcome because none of the cited references describe the preparation of an isotopically labelled C3-10- alkyl-NH-C(O)-C-C-N compound. Claim Objections Claims 13, 22, and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities. Claims 13 and 24 each recite an intended use, “suitable as an internal standard and/or calibrator in mass spectrometry measurements”. This intended use does not limit the usage of the derivatized antibiotic substance or the stabilized antibiotic substance recited in the respective claims. Claim 22 recites the text “for more for more” (line 2). It appears this text should be –-for more--. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. Claims 13, 15, 18, and 21-24 are 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. In claims 13, 15, and 21-24, the metes and bounds of an antibiotic substance are unclear. DESHPANDE (Current Science, 2004, 87 (12), 1684-1695) describes various antibiotics: penicillin, 6-APA, cephalosporin C, desacetylcephalosporanic acid; imipenem; meropnem, aztreonam, norcardicin (page 1685, figure 1; page 1686, figure 2; page 1687, figure 3). Do applicants mean that the antibiotic is limited to cephalosporin C? Even though antibiotics are recited in the specification, they do not limit the claims (page 13, line 4-23). It is unclear how an antibiotic substance is derivatized. The claims do not recite how an antibiotic substance is derivatized and is suitable as an internal standard and/or calibrator for mass spectrometry measurements. What structural features make a derivatized antibiotic suitable for the intended use recited in claims 13? The term “stabilized” in claim 15, 18, and 21-24 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “stabilized” 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. Neither the claims nor the specification define what is meant when an antibiotic is stabilized. What structural features make a derivatized antibiotic suitable for the intended use recited in claims 24? PNG media_image1.png 272 548 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 296 550 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 268 578 media_image3.png Greyscale A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 22 recites the broad recitation “for more than 12 hours”, and the claim also recites the terms “for more than [24 hours, 48 hours, 7 days, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 2 months, 3 months, 4 months, 5 months, or 6 months]”, which are a narrower statement of the range/limitation. Please note that more each limitation is a more narrow limitation of the preceding limitation, As one example, the limitations “for more than [48 hours, 7 days, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 2 months, 3 months, 4 months, 5 months, or 6 months]” are each a narrower range of “for more than 24 hours”. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Conclusion Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 16,17, 26, and 27 are allowed. Claims 13, 15, 18, and 21-24 are not allowable. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: LEVINE (US 4316882, issued 1982 February 23, cited in previous action) describes four compounds (column 7, line 24 to column 8, line 2; column 10, lines 10-65). In these compounds, an NH-[propyl, ethyl, butyl, or pentyl] group is attached to a carbonyl group. The compounds are prepared when a penicillin reacts with n-propyl amine, ethyl amine, n-butyl amine, or n-pentyl amine respectively. Compositions are described (column 8, lines 46-52; column 9, line 32 to column 10, line 4). These compounds are not prior art because they are not isotopically labeled. PNG media_image4.png 194 260 media_image4.png Greyscale PNG media_image5.png 178 258 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 218 270 media_image6.png Greyscale PNG media_image7.png 240 256 media_image7.png Greyscale Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOBLE E JARRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9077. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 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, 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. /NOBLE E JARRELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1699
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 16, 2022
Application Filed
Aug 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Nov 07, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 04, 2026
Final Rejection — §112
Apr 06, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology. Study what changed to get past this examiner.

Patent 12595235
PROCESS FOR PRODUCING 4,5-DIHYDRO-1H-PYRAZOLES AND INTERMEDIATES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595265
INHIBITORS OF ACTIVIN RECEPTOR-LIKE KINASE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588410
ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT MATERIAL AND METHOD PREPARING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12570660
PROCESS FOR THE PREPARATION OF A PYRIMIDINO-DIAZEPINE DERIVATIVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570626
DEGRADERS AND DEGRONS FOR TARGETED PROTEIN DEGRADATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026

AI Strategy Recommendation

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

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+5.1%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1012 resolved cases by this examiner