Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/793,204

MULTICYCLIC CARBOCATION AND CARBORADICAL COMPOUNDS AND METHODS OF USE

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Jul 15, 2022
Examiner
HABTE, KAHSAY
Art Unit
1624
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Arizona Board of Regents
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
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 1-2, 4-6 and 58-69 are pending in this application. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/17/2026 has been entered. Response to Amendment Applicant’s amendment filed 02/05/2026 in response to the previous Office Action (11/10/2025) is acknowledged. Rejection of claims 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) (item 7) has been obviated. Applicants were previously claiming a radical, cation and radical dication moieties of formula IB and formula IC. Applicants now deleted “a cation” from claim 1. Upon further review of the case and applicant’s amendment to the claims, it is deemed necessary to raise new issues that needs further rejection. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and election of a species in the reply filed on 07/08/2025 is acknowledged. PNG media_image1.png 206 660 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 44 201 media_image2.png Greyscale Previously, the examiner searched the elected invention of Group I focusing on the elected species (i.e. X1 = X2 = X3 = N) and stopped when a prior art was found. Now after the response of the Final Office Action and filing of RCE, the search continued focusing the elected species (i.e. X1 = X2 = X3 = N) and it stopped when a prior art was found. To expedite prosecution, the examiner recommends that applicants delete the definition of O, PR4a, CR4aR4 and SiR4aR4b from claim 1 and also delta “cation” from new claims from claims 59 and 64. 5. The claims are drawn to multiple inventions for reasons set forth in the restriction requirement. The claims are examined only to the extent that they read on the elected invention. Cancellation of the non-elected subject matter is recommended in response to this Office Action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. Claims 59 and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bas et al. Chimia (2003), 57(4), 173-174. Cited reference teaches the following compound that is the same as applicants compound of formula IB when X1 = X3 = N-propyl; Y1 = Y2 = Y3 = R1b = R1c = R2b = R2c = R3b = R3c = H; and R1a = R2d = methoxy. PNG media_image3.png 565 1278 media_image3.png Greyscale Since said compound is the same as applicants a 102(a)(1) rejection is proper. Note that claims 59 and 64 are drawn to compounds and the preamble capable of catalyzing an oxidative reaction or reductive reduction has no patentable weight. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 9. 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. 10. Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 58-69 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 1, 59 and 64, the phrase “a radical dication” is not clear. What is a radical dication of formula IB or formula IC? What is covered and what is not? Applicants disclose a radical cation at page 4 of the specification (see formula IIB below), but there is no guidance for a radical dication. There is no way to know what a radical dication of formula IB or formula IC is. PNG media_image4.png 226 330 media_image4.png Greyscale It is recommended that applicants delete said phrase or show an example in the specification to guide one skilled in the art. Information Disclosure Statement 11. Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement, filed on 11/07/2025 has been acknowledged. Please refer to Applicant’s copies of the 1449 submitted herewith. Conclusion 12. 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 February 26, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 15, 2022
Application Filed
Jul 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Oct 24, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 06, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §112
Feb 05, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 17, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 24, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 26, 2026
Non-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

3-4
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