Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/006,908

FUNCTIONALIZED ISONITRILES AND PRODUCTS, PREPARATION AND USES THEREOF

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jan 26, 2023
Examiner
REILLY, SOPHIA JANE
Art Unit
1627
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
UNIVERSIDADE DE SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA
OA Round
2 (Final)
57%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 57% of resolved cases
57%
Career Allow Rate
31 granted / 54 resolved
-2.6% vs TC avg
Strong +51% interview lift
Without
With
+51.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
90
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.7%
-37.3% vs TC avg
§103
33.2%
-6.8% vs TC avg
§102
15.4%
-24.6% vs TC avg
§112
26.1%
-13.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 54 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Priority The instant application is a 371 National Stage Entry of PCT/EP2021/071332 filed on July 29, 2021 which claims priority to foreign application No. EP20382684.7 filed on July 29, 2020. Status of Claims Acknowledgement is made of previously presented (3-9, 10, 13, 20, 23, 21-22, 41-44, 46), amended (1, 48), cancelled (2, 11-12, 14-19, 24-40, 45, 47) claims filed February 18, 2026. Claims 1, 3-9, 10, 13, 20-23, 41-44, 46, 48 are pending. Claims 10, 21-22, 41-42, 46 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 3-9, 13, 20, 23, 43-44, 48 are presently examined. Claim Interpretation Claim 44 is understood to read as intended use and the structural limitations of the claim are met by a compound of Formula Ia. Election/Restrictions Claims 41-42, 46 stand withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected invention; claims 10, 21-22 stand withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected species. The elected species is understood as follows: PNG media_image1.png 117 312 media_image1.png Greyscale Following extensive search and examination, the originally elected species has been deemed free of the prior art. Per MPEP § 803.02(III): If the examiner determines that the elected species is allowable over the prior art, the examination of the Markush claim will be extended. If prior art is then found that anticipates or renders obvious the Markush claim with respect to a nonelected species, the Markush claim shall be rejected; claims to the nonelected species would still be held withdrawn from further consideration. The prior art search will not be extended unnecessarily to cover all nonelected species. Accordingly, Examination was extended to a non-elected species. Following extensive search and examination, the non-elected species was deemed anticipated and/or obvious in view of the prior art as applied below. Per MPEP § 803.02(III), claims directed to other nonelected species have been withdrawn. Claims 1, 3-9, 13, 20, 23, 43-44, 48 are presently examined. Response to Arguments Acknowledgement is made of amendments filed February 18, 2026. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the following: the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 48, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 48, and the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claim(s) 1, 5-9, 22, 44, 48 are rejected under over STN1 and evidenced by Carbone et. al.2 The above have been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments filed February 18, 2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The Examiner appreciates Applicant’s explanations addressing the uncertainty of claim wording. However, as the claims stand, that uncertainty is still present. The Examiner suggests amending claim 1 as follows (wording taken from Applicant’s explanations, see highlighted underlined limitations) in order to resolve the issues of indefiniteness and scope: Claim 1. A compound … G is independently selected from a moiety of formula (II) or (III), … wherein F is linked to G through any of the R1, R1’, R2, R2’, R3, R3’, R4, R5, or E positions, wherein each occurrence of, R1, R1’ … L, when present, … and wherein, c + e is at least 1 L is present when d is not 0 and R8 is formula V, when c + e is 0 and d is 1, then Z … Maintained/Modified Rejections Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 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. Claims 1, 3-9, 13, 20, 23, 43-44, 48 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. Claim 1 is rejected as failing to distinctly claim the subject matter because the G moiety is defined as PNG media_image2.png 104 338 media_image2.png Greyscale , which clearly shows connection to the S’ moiety of Formula Ia PNG media_image3.png 63 110 media_image3.png Greyscale , but the E fragment is defined as “independently selected from R6 or F”. Is the F moiety of Formula Ia even required if E can be R6? If E is R6 and F is present how does F connect? If E is F does that mean there are two F’s present and if so how do they connect? Formula Ia also shows S’ potentially connected to L. However S’ is defined as PNG media_image4.png 103 294 media_image4.png Greyscale which has only two points of attachment. It is unclear where L would connect if present because S’ is understood to connect to G and NC. Claim 1 states R1-R4 may be F. It is unclear if, for example, when R1 is F, if it is the same F depicted in Formula Ia or an additional F, and if an additional F, where does the F of Formula Ia connect? Dependent claims 3-9, 13, 20, 23, 43-44, 48 do not resolve these issues of indefiniteness and are thus incorporated in instant rejection. Claim 23 defines further instances of G such as G1 PNG media_image5.png 82 84 media_image5.png Greyscale which indicates connectivity to S’. However it is unclear if the F present in the subgenus G such as G1 is in addition to the F in Formula Ia, and if so how does the Formula Ia F connect? Or is G1 defining where the F in Formula Ia is connecting? Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claims 5-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 5-9 state the phrase “at least one F moiety” (claims 5-9) and “at least one biologically active moiety” (claims 7-8), but claim 1 does not appear to clearly indicate more than one F in Formula Ia (see above 112b Rejection). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Allowable Subject Matter Once the 35 U.S.C. 112 issues are resolved, the presently examined claims would appear to be free of the prior art. The closest prior art appears to be Vishwanatha et. al.3 or STN4. Vishwanatha teaches isonitrile structures such as CAS Registry No. 1095038-52-0 (see Vishwanatha at pp. 1097-1098 Table 1 “Isonitrile 2” column). CAS# 1095038-52-0 Instant Formula Ia PNG media_image6.png 88 138 media_image6.png Greyscale PNG media_image7.png 76 136 media_image7.png Greyscale The compounds of Vishwanatha partially correspond with Formula Ia; they contain an isonitirle end group (instant NC), a linear spacer (such as instant S’), a linear amide moiety (such as instant G formula II), and a biologically active moiety Fmoc or phenyl (such as instant F). Likewise, STN teaches CAS Registry No. 1056895-42-1, which partially corresponds with instant Formula Ia; it contains an isonitirle end group (instant NC), a linear spacer (such as instant S’), a linear amide moiety (such as instant G formula II), and a biologically active moiety indole or substituted phenyls (such as instant F). CAS# 1056895-42-1 Formula Ia PNG media_image8.png 220 324 media_image8.png Greyscale PNG media_image7.png 76 136 media_image7.png Greyscale The prior art differs from the instant claims as follows: While Vishwanatha and STN’s structures partially correspond to instant Formula Ia, they notably differ at instant S’. Instant S’ requires the presence of an ether, PEG-like moiety or the presence of the Z-R8 moiety. The teachings of Vishwanatha and STN include short or long alkyl “spacers”, but no ether linkages or Z-R8 moieties. No suggestion or motivation was found in the prior art to modify the compounds of Vishwanatha or STN to contain an S’ moiety to arrive at a compound of instant Formula Ia. Conclusion Claims 1, 3-9, 13, 20, 23, 43-44, 48 are rejected. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SOPHIA J REILLY whose telephone number is (703)756-5669. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST M-F. 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, KORTNEY KLINKEL can be reached at 571-270-5239. 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. /S.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1627 /JENNIFER A BERRIOS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613 1 CAS# 1056895-42-1 CAS Registry File Accessed November 10, 2025 from STN, entered into STN October 3, 2008. Cited in previous Office Action. 2 Carbone et. al. "Structure-based discovery of human l-xylulose reductase inhibitors from database screening and molecular docking" Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry 2005, 13, 2, 301-312. DOI: 10.1016/j.bmc.2004.10.030 Cited in previous Office Action. 3 Vishwanatha et. al. "Cyanogen Bromide as Dehydrosulfurizing Agent for the Synthesis of Nb-Fmoc Amino Alkyl Isonitriles from Nb-Fmoc-Amino Alkyl Thioformamides" Synlett, 2010, 7, 1096-1100. DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1219583. Hereinafter Vishwanatha. 4 CAS 1056895-42-1. CAS Registry File Accessed April 3, 2026 from STN, entered into STN October 3, 2008. Hereinafter STN.
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 26, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Feb 18, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 07, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600714
NEW PYRAZINE COMPOUND
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589091
TOPICAL FORMULATION COMPRISING SIROLIMUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12570631
SUBSTITUTED N-(4-(PYRIMIDIN AND PYRIDIN-4-YL)BENZYLCARBOXAMIDES AND ITS USE FOR TREATING DISORDERS RESPONSIVE TO INHIBITION OF BTK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570638
Fused Imidazole Derivatives as AHR Antagonists
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12569495
INHIBITORS OF PORCINE REPRODUCTIVE AND RESPIRATORY SYNDROME VIRUS
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
57%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+51.1%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 54 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