Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/030,685

PROCESS FOR RACEMIZING AND ISOLATING ATROPISOMERS OF 7-CHLORO-6-FLUORO-1-(2-ISOPROPYL-4-METHYLPYRIDIN-3-YL)PYRIDO[2,3-D]PYRIMIDINE-2,4(1H,3H)-DIONE

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Apr 06, 2023
Examiner
RAHMANI, NILOOFAR
Art Unit
1691
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Amgen, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
871 granted / 1128 resolved
+17.2% vs TC avg
Minimal -3% lift
Without
With
+-2.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
12 currently pending
Career history
1140
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.2%
-37.8% vs TC avg
§103
12.6%
-27.4% vs TC avg
§102
25.2%
-14.8% vs TC avg
§112
35.8%
-4.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1128 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 19, 21-23, 25, 29, 35, 51, 53, 57, 65, 84-98 are pending in the instant application. Applicant’s election of group (I), claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 19, 21-22, 84-98 in the reply filed on 12/19/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 19, 21-22, 84-98 are examined. Claims 23, 25, 29, 35, 51, 53, 57, 65 are withdrawn per 37 CFR 1.142(b). 2. Claim Rejections - Obvious 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. See 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); and, In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 168 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130 (b). Effective January 1,1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 19, 21-22, 84-98 are provisional rejected under the judicially created doctrine obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims 1-15 of ap# 18/987,607. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current invention embraces the invention claimed in the above application. Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP §2141.01) Ap# ‘607 claimed analogues process in claims 1-15 as the instant claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 19, 21-22, 84-98. Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP §2141.02) The difference between the instant claims and the claims 1-15 of ap# ‘607 is the claims are not word for word identical but the scope of the two sets of claims overlaps significantly with each other. Finding of prima facia obviousness-rational and motivation (MPEP §2142.2143) All the elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. This is provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been issued. 3. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Niloofar Rahmani whose telephone number is 571-272-4329. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Renee Claytor, can be reached on 571-272-8394. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /NILOOFAR RAHMANI/ 01/06/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 06, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595249
ARYL ETHER-SUBSTITUTED HETEROCYCLIC COMPOUNDS AS GLP1R AGONISTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582718
INTEGRIN TARGETING LIGANDS AND USES THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577242
PYRROLOPYRIDINE AND IMIDAZOPYRIDINE ANTIVIRAL COMPOUNDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577245
SULFONYL BENZAMIDE DERIVATIVES AS BCL-2 INHIBITORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570655
CYSTEINE COVALENT MODIFIERS OF AKT1 AND USES 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (-2.9%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1128 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