Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/010,245

FORMULATION COMPRISING DAPRODUSTAT

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Dec 14, 2022
Examiner
TRAN, SUSAN T
Art Unit
1615
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Glaxosmithkline Intellectual Property (No 2) Limited
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
632 granted / 1009 resolved
+2.6% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+35.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
52 currently pending
Career history
1061
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
39.1%
-0.9% vs TC avg
§102
22.7%
-17.3% vs TC avg
§112
21.5%
-18.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1009 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/12/2026 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 2, 4 and 8-15 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. Claims 2, 4 and 8-15 fail to further limit the subject matters recited in claim 1 for the following reasons: Claim 2 recited a subject matter that is the same as the last wherein clause in claim 1; Claim 4 recited the limitation “the intragranular components including” in line 2, which broaden the scope of the intragranular in view of the transitional language “including”. Note: claim 1 recited “intragranular components consisting of”; Claim 8 recited the exact same subject matter as recited in claim 7; Claim 9 recited the limitation “wherein the tablet contains” in lines 1-2, which broaden the scope of the claim in view of the transitional language “contains”. Note: claim 8 recited “tablet consists of”; and Claims 12 and 13 recited the limitation “wherein the tablet comprises” in lines 1-2, which broaden the scope of the claim in view of the transitional language “comprises”. Note: claim 11 depends from claim 8 that recited “tablet consists of”. In view of the above reasons, and for examining purpose, the claims are interpreted to recite tablet comprising, an intragranular comprising, and an extragranular comprising. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claims 1-4, 7-15, 28-40 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samec et al. WO 2020/102302 A1, in view of Holdstock et al. J Am Soc Nephrol 27:1234-1244 and Shyam et al. CA 3015399 C Samec teaches a crystalline form of non-solvated daprodustat (Crystalline Form 1) having an X-ray powder diffraction falling within the claimed range. See abstract, pages 3-7, and Figs. Samec further teaches combining the crystalline form of daprodustat with at least one pharmaceutically acceptable excipient to obtain tablet dosage form. See pages 12-16. Method for treating a subject suffering from anemia is found in page 3. Samec does not teach tablet comprising dosing amount of daprodustat. Holdstock teaches a method for treating anemia comprising orally administering solid composition comprising HIF-PH inhibitor GSK1278863 in a dosing amount 0.5 mg, 2 mg, or 2mg for 4 weeks. See abstract. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to, by routine experimentation select a dosing amount of daprodustat that falls within the claimed range in view of the teaching of Holdstock. This is because Holdstock teaches orally administering daprodustat in the claimed dosing amount for the same treatment desired by the present inventor is known in the art, namely, orally administering 0.5 mg, 2 mg or 5 mg GSK1278863 showed effective alternative for managing anemia. See Holdstock pages 1234-1241. Samec further does not teach tablet comprising the intra and extra granular compositions recited in the claims. Shyam teaches a pharmaceutical composition/formulation for improving or preventing progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) caused due to inflammation and/or Klotho under expression. See Abstract. The pharmaceutical composition can be formulated in the form of tablets, capsules, granules, powder, sachets, suspension, solution, modified release formulations, topical formulations, etc. The formulations of the present invention comprise suitable excipients such as diluents, disintegrants. binders, solubilizing agent, lubricants, glidants, solvents etc. In a preferred embodiment, the pharmaceutical composition/formulation according to the present invention can be formulated for oral administration. For oral administration, the solid pharmaceutical compositions can be in the form of, but not limited to, tablets, capsules, pills, hard capsules filled with liquids or solids, soft capsules, powders or granules, sachet, etc. The compositions may further comprise pharmaceutically acceptable excipients. See page 15. The intragranular and extragranular of the present claims can be found in the Examples. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to, by routine experimentation select a tableting method in view of Shyam with the expectation to obtain a tablet dosage form useful for oral delivery of active agents useful for the treatment of conditions related to chronic kidney disease. This is because Shyamn teaches a tableting process useful for a wide variety of active agents including drugs useful for the treatment of kidney disease, this is because Shyam teaches tableting method using intragranular and extragranular similar to that of the present invention is known known in the art to have tensile strength useful for the delivery of a wide variety of active agents, and this is because Samec teaches the use of tablet and solid tablet excipients known in the art. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed 03/12/2026 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. Allowable Claims Claim 41 is 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. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUSAN T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 am-5:30 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, ROBERT A. WAX can be reached at 571-272-0623. 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. /SUSAN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 14, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Sep 30, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 13, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jan 27, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 29, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 03, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 12, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 17, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599598
OSMOTIC DOSAGE FORMS COMPRISING DEUTETRABENAZINE AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600718
METHOD FOR PREPARING COMPOUND AS PI3K INHIBITOR AND INTERMEDIATE COMPOUND FOR PREPARING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599697
Liquid Embolic Compositions with Controlled Release of Radiopaque and Therapeutic Compounds and Methods of Using the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589075
OSMOTIC DOSAGE FORMS COMPRISING DEUTETRABENAZINE AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12568965
ANTIMICROBIAL COMPOSITION COMPRISING AN ALKYLDIMETHYLBENZYLAMMONIUM COMPOUND
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
63%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+35.9%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1009 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