Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 17/860,589

TETRACYCLIC COMPOUND

Final Rejection §102§112
Filed
Jul 08, 2022
Examiner
PAGANO, ALEXANDER R
Art Unit
1692
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
2 (Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
828 granted / 1049 resolved
+18.9% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+4.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
65 currently pending
Career history
1114
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.4%
-37.6% vs TC avg
§103
27.3%
-12.7% vs TC avg
§102
32.6%
-7.4% vs TC avg
§112
19.6%
-20.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1049 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. DETAILED ACTION Claims 27 and 59-61 of K. Kinoshita et al., US 17/860,589 (Jul. 8, 2022) are pending and under examination. Claims 27 and 59-61 are rejected. Election/Restrictions Pursuant to the restriction requirement, Applicant elected Group (II), (claim 27) drawn to an intermediate of Formula Ile, without traverse, in the reply filed on February 5, 2025. New claims 59-61 are added to the invention of Group (I). Claims 17-26 and 28-58 drawn to non-elected Groups (I), (III), and (IV) are maintained as withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) and have been cancelled by Applicant. The restriction requirement is maintained as FINAL. Pursuant to the Election of Species Requirement, Applicant elected the compound of formula Ile with each of A7 through A10 being C, each of R6 and R6’ being methyl; each of PR7 through PR10 being H, which has the following structure. PNG media_image1.png 200 400 media_image1.png Greyscale No claims (as currently amended) read on the elected species. Accordingly, the provisional election of species requirement is withdrawn. See, MPEP § 803.02. Withdrawal Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. 112 Rejection of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. 112 as indefinite because the recitation of “or represent a group which can be converted to R7 to R10” is unclear in view of Applicant’s cancellation of this language. Withdrawal Claim Rejections – Pre-AIA 35 USC § 102 Rejection of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by H. Gilman et al., 68 Journal of the American Chemical Society, 522 (1946) (“Gilman”) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments. Claim Objections Claim 27 is objectionable because the chemical drawing for Formula II2 is pixilated and unclear. Applicant is required to provide a clear drawing of claim 27, compound IIe. Rejections 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph 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. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, the claim must apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of its scope so as to provide clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement. MPEP 2173.02(II); Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 216 F.3d 1372, 1379, 55 USPQ2d 1279, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The meaning of every term used in a claim should be apparent from the prior art or from the specification and drawings at the time the application is filed. Claim language may not be ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention. MPEP § 2173.05(a). Undefined Claim Variable Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, because R9F is undefined within the claim. Preferable identities for R9F are given the specification at page 71. However, absent recitation of the meaning of R9F in the claims, one of skill cannot know which identity is intended within claim 27. Claim Rejections – Pre-AIA 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent. (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States. (c) he has abandoned the invention. (d) the invention was first patented or caused to be patented, or was the subject of an inventor’s certificate, by the applicant or his legal representatives or assigns in a foreign country prior to the date of the application for patent in this country on an application for patent or inventor’s certificate filed more than twelve months before the filing of the application in the United States. (e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over W. Doering et al., 72 Journal of the American Chemical Society, 143-147 (1950) (“Doering”) Claims 27 and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by W. Doering et al., 72 Journal of the American Chemical Society, 143-147 (1950) (“Doering”). Doering discloses methylethyl-pyridylacetic acid (I). PNG media_image2.png 200 400 media_image2.png Greyscale Doering at page 146, col. 1. Methylethyl-pyridylacetic acid meets each and every limitation of claims 27 and 59 when A7 is N; A8, A9 and A10 are C; PR8, PR9 and PR10 are H; and R6 and R6’ are C1-8 alkyl. Claims 27 and 59 are therefore anticipated. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Ting et al., US 5,182,289 (1993) (“Ting”) Claims 27 and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by P. Ting et al., US 5,182,289 (1993) (“Ting”). Ting discloses the following compound. PNG media_image3.png 200 400 media_image3.png Greyscale Ting at col. 32, line 25. Compound RN 127555-87-7 meets each and every limitation of claims 27 and 60 when A8 is N; A7, A9 and A10 are C; PR7 and PR10 are halogen; PR9 is H; and R6 and R6’ are C1-8 alkyl. Claims 27 and 60 are therefore anticipated. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over J. Ashley et al., 115 Journal of the American Chemical Society, 2515-2516 (1993) (“Ashley”) Claims 27 and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by J. Ashley et al., 115 Journal of the American Chemical Society, 2515-2516 (1993) (“Ashley”). Ashley discloses the following compound 5. PNG media_image4.png 200 400 media_image4.png Greyscale Ashley at page 2515, Table 1. Compound 5 meets each and every limitation of claims 27 and 61 when A9 is N; A7, A8 and A10 are C; PR7, PR9, and PR10 are H; and R6 and R6’ are C1-8 alkyl. Claims 27 and 61 are therefore anticipated. Conclusion 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 ALEXANDER R PAGANO whose telephone number is (571)270-3764. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM through 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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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. ALEXANDER R. PAGANO Examiner Art Unit 1692 /ALEXANDER R PAGANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 08, 2022
Application Filed
Feb 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Aug 26, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 07, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §112
Apr 07, 2026
Notice of Allowance

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600735
METHOD FOR PRODUCING POLYSULPHANE-SILANES BY MEANS OF PHASE TRANSFER CATALYSIS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600695
METHOD FOR REACTIVATING A PRECIOUS METAL IRON CATALYST AND PERFORMING A CHEMICAL REACTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600736
METHODS FOR SYNTHESIS OF HIERARCHICALLY ORDERED CRYSTALLINE MICROPOROUS MATERIALS WITH LONG-RANGE MESOPOROUS ORDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604659
ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT COMPOUND AND ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT DEVICE COMPRISING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595272
METHODS TO PRODUCE ORGANOTIN COMPOSITIONS WITH CONVENIENT LIGAND PROVIDING REACTANTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 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
79%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+4.1%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1049 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

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

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month