Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/925,166

SUBSTITUTED PYRAZOLYL COMPOUNDS AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Nov 14, 2022
Examiner
SZNAIDMAN, MARCOS L
Art Unit
1628
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Novartis Pharma AG
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
37%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
53%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 37% of cases
37%
Career Allow Rate
461 granted / 1253 resolved
-23.2% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
56 currently pending
Career history
1309
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.8%
-38.2% vs TC avg
§103
38.8%
-1.2% vs TC avg
§102
17.2%
-22.8% vs TC avg
§112
26.7%
-13.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1253 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to applicant’s reply filed on August 13, 2025. Restrictions/Elections. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8 and 10) in the reply filed on August 13, 2025, is acknowledged. Applicant election of the following species: PNG media_image1.png 146 186 media_image1.png Greyscale is also acknowledged. Status of Claims Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-12 and 14-23 are currently pending and are the subject of this office action. Claims 11-12 and 14-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 13, 2025. Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 10 are further withdrawn since they do not encompass the elected species: NOTE: Applicant responded on 08/13/25 that the elected species reads on claim 10. However, claim 10 depends on claim 1, not from claim 8, as such it is not under examination. Claims 6 and 8 are presently under examination. Priority The present application is a 371 of PCT/IB2021/054224 filed on 05/17/2021 which claims priority to provisional application No. 63/026,373 filed on 05/18/2020. Claim Objections Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 depends from claims 1 to 7. However, claims 3 and 7 are cancelled. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 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. NOTE: in the response dated 08/13/2025 Applicant made the following election: PNG media_image2.png 136 370 media_image2.png Greyscale However, the first compound of claim 6 is: PNG media_image3.png 122 182 media_image3.png Greyscale So, for the purpose of prior art search it is going to be assume that the first compound of claim 6 is the compound Applicant elected. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maloney et. al. (US 2018/0273488). For claim 6, Maloney teaches the following compound: PNG media_image4.png 270 214 media_image4.png Greyscale Compound 415 on page 220. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maloney et. al. (US 2018/0273488). Maloney teaches all the structural limitations of claim 8 (See 102(a)(1) above, except for the compound being a solvate. However, making solvates of known compounds is routine experimentation for the skilled in the art, thus resulting in the practice of claim 8 with a reasonable expectation of success. Conclusion No claims are allowed. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS L SZNAIDMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3498. The examiner can normally be reached Flexing M-F 7 AM-7 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, Amy L. Clark can be reached on 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. /MARCOS L SZNAIDMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1628 August 14, 2025.
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 14, 2022
Application Filed
Oct 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594261
Use of Heterocyclic Derivatives with Cardiomyocyte Proliferation Activity for Treatment of Heart Diseases
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589089
PTGDR-1 AND/OR PTGDR-2 ANTAGONISTS FOR PREVENTING AND/OR TREATING SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12576057
ANTIBACTERIAL AND BIOFILM FORMATION-INHIBITING COMPOSITION CONTAINING MYRISTOLEIC ACID AS ACTIVE INGREDIENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570659
BICYCLIC HETEROARYL COMPOUNDS USEFUL AS IRAK4 INHIBITORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12558328
SOLID-FORMING TOPICAL FORMULATIONS FOR PAIN CONTROL
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
37%
Grant Probability
53%
With Interview (+16.1%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1253 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