Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/979,367

NEW GADOLINIUM CHELATE COMPOUNDS FOR USE IN MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Nov 02, 2022
Examiner
SAMALA, JAGADISHWAR RAO
Art Unit
1618
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
532 granted / 784 resolved
+7.9% vs TC avg
Strong +56% interview lift
Without
With
+56.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
808
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
47.4%
+7.4% vs TC avg
§102
19.9%
-20.1% vs TC avg
§112
15.7%
-24.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 784 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . 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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/03/2025 has been entered. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,478,696. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because there is an overlap of the subject matter claimed in the patent and the instant claimed invention and both sets of claims are directed to same art specific subject matter. The present invention is directed to pharmaceutical composition comprising a tetrameric gadolinium compound of structural formula: . PNG media_image1.png 344 617 media_image1.png Greyscale , wherein the tetrameric gadolinium compounds with relaxivity values in water. The claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,478,696 are directed to compounds of formula; PNG media_image2.png 413 418 media_image2.png Greyscale . The difference between the instant and issued patent claims is in scope only. The indiscriminate selection of "some" among "many" is prima facie obvious, In re Lemin, 141 USPQ 814 (C.C.P.A. 1964). The motivation to make the claimed compounds derives from the expectation that structurally similar compounds would possess similar activity (e.g., relaxivity values when dissolved in water). One skilled in the art would thus be motivated to prepare products embraced by the patent to arrive at the instant claimed products with the expectation of obtaining additional beneficial products with required relaxivity values. The instant claimed invention would have been suggested to one skilled in the art and therefore, the instant claimed invention would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 21-24 allowed. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAGADISHWAR RAO SAMALA whose telephone number is (571)272-9927. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm. 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, Hartley G Michael can be reached at 571 272 0616. 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. /J.R.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1618 /Michael G. Hartley/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1618
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 02, 2022
Application Filed
Sep 20, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Dec 12, 2024
Response Filed
Mar 20, 2025
Final Rejection — §DP
Jun 26, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 03, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 04, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603190
PURIFICATION PROCESS FOR THE PREPARATION OF NON-CARRIER ADDED COPPER-64
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12583881
DEVICE AND CASSETTE FOR PERFORMING A PLURALITY OF SYNTHESIS PROCESSES OF PREPARING A RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL IN SERIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576167
NOVEL GADOLINIUM-BASED COMPOUND, METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAME, AND MRI CONTRAST AGENT CONTAINING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576171
COMPOSITION OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE MICROPARTICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570674
BORON CARRYING AGENT FOR INTEGRATED TUMOR DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT, AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR AND USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
68%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+56.5%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 784 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