Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/983,829

PRODRUGS OF ALPHA-KETOGLUTARATE, ALPHA-KETOBUTYRATE, ALPHA-KETOISOVALERATE, AND ALPHA-KETOISOHEXANOATE, AND USES THEREOF

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Nov 09, 2022
Examiner
DOLETSKI, BLAINE G
Art Unit
1692
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
The Regents of the University of California
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
415 granted / 548 resolved
+15.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
574
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
41.1%
+1.1% vs TC avg
§102
15.7%
-24.3% vs TC avg
§112
26.3%
-13.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 548 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/21/2025 has been entered. A suspension of action was not requested. Claim Status Claims 70-72, 74-76 and 79-92 are pending. Claims 85-89 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made with traverse in the reply filed on 09/18/2024. Accordingly, claims 70-72, 74-76, 79-84 and 90-92 are under examination. Claims 70-71, 74 and 79 are rejected. Claims 72, 75-76, 80-84 and 90-92 are objected to. No claims allowed. Specie Election Applicant's election without traverse of the immediately below specie in the reply filed on 09/18/2024 is acknowledged. The elected specie reads on claims 70-72, 74-76, 79-84 and 90-92. The elected specie was found to be free of the art. PNG media_image1.png 230 154 media_image1.png Greyscale The specie election has been withdrawn. Filing Receipt PNG media_image2.png 99 995 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 72 994 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 127 999 media_image4.png Greyscale Note: An approved power of attorney is not of record per the above filing receipt. Response to Amendments/Arguments Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 07/21/2025 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. The Examiner has re-weighed all the evidence of record. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below in original or modified form is herein withdrawn. The 102 rejection of claims 70-72, 74 and 79 as anticipated by STN (STN 16 Nov 1984, 1 page, Published 11-1984) in the final mailed 04/22/2025 is withdrawn. The claim amendments have overcome the rejection. The 102 rejection of claims 70-72, 74, 79 and 84 as anticipated by Lianquan et al. (CN1201789, Published 12-1998) in the final mailed 04/22/2025 is withdrawn. The claim amendments have overcome the rejection. The 102 rejection of claims 70-72, 74 and 79 as anticipated by Schoellkopf et al. (CAPLUS Abstract of Angewandte Chemie (1979), 91(4), 329-30) in the final mailed 04/22/2025 is withdrawn. The claim amendments have overcome the rejection. The 103 rejection of claims 70-72, 74, 79, 84 and 90-92 over Lianquan et al. (CN1201789, Published 12-1998. Translation attached) and Kahn et al. (Novel Carbopol-based transfersomal gel of 5-fluoroutacil for skin cancer treatment: in vitro characterization and in vivo study, Drug Delivery, 22(6), pp. 795-802, Published 2015) in the final mailed 04/22/2025 is withdrawn. The 103 rejection of claims 70-72, 74-76, 79-84 and 90-92 over Huang et al. (US2017/0128395, Published 05-2017) in view of Larsen, I. K., Design and Application of Prodrugs, Drug Design and Development (Krogsgaard-Larsen et al., eds., Harwood Academic Publishers, 1991, pages 114-191) and Andersson (US20120065179) in the final mailed 04/22/2025 was withdrawn per the advisory action mailed 08/14/2025. The following newly applied 102 rejections constitutes the complete set of rejections and/or objections presently being applied to the instant application. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 07/21/2025 have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 70-72, 74-76, 79-84 and 90-92 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim(s) 70-71 and 74 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wen et al. (Synthesis of Aminocyclopentitols from Chromium Carbene Complex Derived Aminocyclobutanones, J. Org. Chem., 65, pp. 2096-2103, Published 2000). Wen et al. disclose the immediately below compound 13 (p. 2097, right column). PNG media_image5.png 152 138 media_image5.png Greyscale Variables R1 and R2 form a polycyclic 6-membered heterocycle containing 1 O and the polycyclic 6-membered heterocycle is substituted with a monocyclic heterocycle (Heterocycles are defined on page 57 of the current specification and include substitutions). Variable R3 is methyl (current claim 74) (unsubstituted alkyl), R4 is a C3 alkyl. This anticipates the claims. Claim(s) 70-71, 74 and 79 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hegedus et al. (Synthesis and Exchange Reactions of 1,4,8,11 -Tetraazacyclotetradeca-7(E), 14(E)-diene-5,12-diones, J. Org. Chem. 59, pp. 7779-7784, Published 1994). Hegedus et al. disclose the below compound 1a-g wherein variables R1 and R2 PNG media_image6.png 318 490 media_image6.png Greyscale form a polycyclic 7-membered heterocycle containing 2 N and the polycyclic 7-membered heterocycle is substituted with two methyl groups (alkyl). Variable R3 is ethyl (current claim 74) (unsubstituted alkyl), R4 is a linear/branched unsubstituted alkyl. This anticipates the claims. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 72, 75-76, 80-84 and 90-92 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art to claims 72, 75-76, 80-84 and 90-92 is Xavier Creary (Reaction of Organometallic Reagents with Ethyl Trifluoroacetate and Diethyl Oxalate. Formation of Trifluoromethyl Ketones and alpha-Keto Esters via Stable Tetrahedral Adducts, J. Org. Chem., Vol. 52, No. 22, pp. 5026-5030, Published 1987). Xavier Creary disclose compound 15 as seen immediately below. PNG media_image7.png 176 148 media_image7.png Greyscale R1 is -O(C=O)methyl, R2 is an ethoxy/alkoxy, R4 is H, and R3 is ethyl. Concerning R4, it would not have been obvious to have modified compound 15 of the prior art to arrive at the current invention. There being no motivation to do so. Compound 15 is not disclosed to have a utility and is only prepared for proof of concept for stabilization of a tetrahedral adduct (p. 5028, right column). MPEP 2144.09 VI. If the prior art does not teach any specific or significant utility for the disclosed compounds, then the prior art is unlikely to render structurally similar claims prima facie obvious in the absence of any reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to make the reference compounds or any structurally related compounds. In re Stemniski, 444 F.2d 581, 170 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1971). Similarly, if the prior art merely discloses compounds as intermediates in the production of a final product, one of ordinary skill in the art would not ordinarily stop the reference synthesis and investigate the intermediate compounds with an expectation of arriving at claimed compounds which have different uses. In re Lalu, 747 F.2d 703, 223 USPQ 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Moreover, selecting compound 15 as a lead compound having no utility would not have been obvious nor the modification needed to obtain the inventive compound without a specific teaching. Yes, substituting a hydrogen for a methyl group may be simple. However, simplicity alone does not render the current compound obvious over the prior art. This simplistic alteration/substitution is considered hindsight reconstruction without a specific teaching. The question becomes, why select the compound taught by Xavier Creary and why remove the hydrogen and replace it with a methyl to achieve the claimed R4 variable and the invention. The reason, the current application says so. The following art is made of record. Aronovich et al. (Conjugated halogenation of unsaturated compounds. XI. Direction of addition to α-substituted acrylates, Zhurnal Organicheskoi Khimii, 11(4), pp. 695-702, Published 1975). Aronovich et al. disclose the immediately below compound as an intermediate without a utility (p.696 middle left as compound III). PNG media_image8.png 177 258 media_image8.png Greyscale R1 is -O(C=O)methyl, R2 is an methoxy/alkoxy, R4 is Cl, and R3 is methyl. Concerning R4, it would not have been obvious to have modified compound III of the prior art to arrive at the current invention. There being no motivation to do so. Concerning the pharmaceutical compositions and claims 84 and 90-92, the art presently being applied does not disclose or fairly suggest pharmaceutical compositions of the claimed compounds. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAINE G DOLETSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4 EST. 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. /B.G.D/Examiner, Art Unit 1692 /MEDHANIT W BAHTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 09, 2022
Application Filed
Dec 27, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Apr 01, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 17, 2025
Final Rejection — §102
Jul 21, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 21, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 22, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600836
PROCESS FOR RECYCLING POLYETHYLENE TEREPHTHALATE USING A GRADIENT IN IMPURITY CONCENTRATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590005
PROCESS AND REACTOR FOR PRODUCING PHOSGENE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12545635
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING DIESTER-BASED COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12509412
POLYMERIZABLE RAW MATERIAL COMPRISING RECYCLED BIS(2-HYDROXYETHYL) TEREPHTHALATE AND METHOD FOR PREPARING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12503431
METHOD FOR REDUCING THE CONCENTRATION OF SO3 IN A REACTION MIXTURE COMPRISING METHANE SULFONIC ACID AND SO3
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
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
76%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+7.2%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 548 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