Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/031,632

TETRACYCLINE DERIVATIVES FOR TREATING NEURODEGENERATIVE OR NEUROINFLAMMATORY DISEASES

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Apr 13, 2023
Examiner
KENYON, JOHN S
Art Unit
1625
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Universite Paris-Saclay
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
737 granted / 921 resolved
+20.0% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
961
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.9%
-37.1% vs TC avg
§103
15.2%
-24.8% vs TC avg
§102
23.6%
-16.4% vs TC avg
§112
38.9%
-1.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 921 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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of “formula (I-H)” as species of “genus formula I” and “Parkinson’s disease” as “species of disease”, in the reply filed on 12 September 2025, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Examiner did not carry his burden by showing lack of unity of the invention (see Applicants’ traverse within pages 7-8 of the 12 September 2025 Reply). While the Examiner does not agree with Applicants’ traversal, he is nevertheless withdrawing the Election of Species Requirement of 6 August 2025, since all claims are free of the prior art. All claims have been examined on the merits. Current Status of 18/031,632 This Office Action is responsive to the amended claims of 12 September 2025. Previously presented claims 14-27 have been examined on the merits. Priority The effective filing date is 14 October 2020. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6 November 2024; and 13 April 2023, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. 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 23-27 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 23 recites the limitation "step (b)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is a missing step – “step (a)”. Claim 23 is an independent claim. Independent claims are supposed to be “self-contained”, which means that they should not have lack of antecedent basis issues. While Examiner understands that dependent claim 25 adds a “further comprising” and then proceeds to define step (a) within claim 25 as preceding step (b) of independent claim 23, the independent claim 23 is nevertheless interpreted to be lacking antecedent basis. When an independent claim begins with “step (b)”, it lacks antecedent basis because the artisan naturally wonders “where is step (a) within the independent claim?” Since claim 23 begins with “step (b)” without first defining its antecedent / preceding -- step (a) -- , this renders the metes and bounds of claim 23 undefined (hence rendering claim 23 indefinite). Claims 24-27 are similarly rejected as indefinite since these claims refer back to claim 23 but do not remedy the rationale underpinning the basis for rejecting claim 23. To resolve this rejection: Refer to “step (b)” as -- step (a) -- in claim 23 and then in claim 25, revise to: -- wherein said process further comprises, before step (a) of claim 23, a step of: [[(a)]] -- . Please note that all amendments must find explicit, inherent, or implicit support in the original disclosure to avoid future written description/new matter rejections. Conclusion Claims 23-27 are not presently allowable as written. Claims 14-22 are presently allowable as written. Furthermore, claim 23 is free of the prior art. There is no known prior art reference that either teaches or anticipates a compound of formula I (or I-H), a method of use thereof, or a method of preparation thereof, according to instant claims 14, 19, 21, and 23. The reference PARATEK (WO 2004/064728 A2, provided by Applicants-see IDS of 13 April 2023) discloses tetracycline compounds (see “Abstract”). However, PARATEK does not teach, suggest, or anticipate the compounds of genus formula I (or I-H), methods of preparation thereof, or methods of use, according to the instant claims. Moreover, the Examiner does not see any room for an obviousness rejection. There is no reason to use PARATEK as an obviousness reference since the instant Specification Example 2 and Figure 1 each show that the instantly claimed compounds of formula I and I-H show a surprisingly/unexpectedly higher efficacy toward reducing alpha-synuclein aggregation than the doxycycline and tetracycline compounds known in the art and exemplified by PARATEK (see page 23 of Specification). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S KENYON whose telephone number is (571)270-1567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10a-6p. 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, Andrew D Kosar can be reached at (571) 272-0913. 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. /JOHN S KENYON/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1625
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 13, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600713
Crystalline forms of 6-((6,7-dimethoxyquinazolin-4-yl)oxy)-N,2-dimethylbenzofuran-3-carboxamide
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595229
METHOD FOR PRODUCING DERIVATIVE OF ORGANIC SUBSTANCE AND METHOD FOR ANALYZING SAMPLE CONTAINING ORGANIC SUBSTANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594262
CAI NANOEMULSIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595260
STABLE HEAVY ISOTOPES IN AMIDE FUNCTIONAL GROUPS AND USES THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590108
BORACIC ACID COMPOUND
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
80%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+17.8%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 921 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