Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/033,292

FUSED RING-CONTAINING COMPOUND, APPLICATION THEREOF, AND COMPOSITION CONTAINING SAME

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Apr 21, 2023
Examiner
GONZALEZ, LUISALBERTO
Art Unit
1624
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Generos Biopharma Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
84 granted / 135 resolved
+2.2% vs TC avg
Strong +48% interview lift
Without
With
+48.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
55 currently pending
Career history
190
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.8%
-37.2% vs TC avg
§103
37.0%
-3.0% vs TC avg
§102
12.5%
-27.5% vs TC avg
§112
29.6%
-10.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 135 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Detailed Action Filing Receipt and Priority The filing receipt mailed 08/22/2024 states that the instant application is a 371 of PCT/CN2021/125660, filed 10/22/2021. The filing receipt also states that the instant application may have benefit of foreign application CHINA 20211145113.2, filed 10/23/2020. The instant claims are supported by the foreign application. Therefore the effective filing date is 10/23/2020. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement submitted 04/21/2023 has been considered. Species Election Applicant’s election of the following species in the reply dated 02/27/2026 is acknowledged. The elected species are: -GEN1-284 salt (form below), -arthritis. PNG media_image1.png 348 396 media_image1.png Greyscale Applicant has not submitted arguments against the species elections. Therefore, the election is treated as an election without traverse. At examiner’s discretion, search and examination has been broaden to include the full scope of compound of formula II, shown below, and all STAT5-associated diseases. Claims 10-12 are withdrawn. Claim Objections Claims 1, 4 state “however, the fused ring-containing compound represented by formula II is not the following…”. Examiner suggests amending to state “with the proviso that” instead. Claims 5-7 use the following claim language: “when the R3 is C1-C3 alkyl….”. This claim language is not indefinite and does not have antecedent basis issues. However, language regarding substituents on a compound typically are worded to state that a variable substituent is a specific substituent. As an example, the claims should state “when R3 is…”. Claims 5 states “ the ‘more’ means 2 or 3”. The instant specification on p. 17 states “The term ‘more’ or ‘multiple’ means 2, 3, 4, or 5.” Therefore, applicant may amend the claim to state “R3 is C1-C3 alkyl substituted with 1-3 halogens...”. Claim 4 is objected to for the use of schemes 1-4. Within the chemical arts, “schemes” are understood to be steps of reactions in a synthetic route. Here applicant is using the term “scheme” to mean “structure”. See example below. PNG media_image2.png 208 606 media_image2.png Greyscale Claim 5 is objected to. Claim 5 regarding R3 states “when R3 is C1-C3 alkyl, the C1-C3 alkyl is methyl, ethyl, n-propyl or isopropyl.” Methyl, ethyl, n-propyl, and isopropyl are the only C1-C3 alkyl groups. Including the specification that “C1-C3 alkyl is methyl, ethyl, n-propyl or isopropyl” is redundant. Applicant can state “R3 is C1-C3 alkyl” or “R3 is methyl, ethyl, n-propyl or isopropyl.” Similar language is used regarding R4-2, R4-3, R4-1, R4-4, and R4-5. Rejections Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Scope of Enablement Claims 13-14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for arthritis, atherosclerosis, and psoriasis, does not reasonably provide enablement for all STAT5-associated diseases. Additionally, while the specification is enabling for treating, the specification does not reasonably provide for enablement for prevention. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The following Wands Factors have been considered if not explicitly discussed: (A) The breadth of the claims, (B) The nature of the invention, (C) The state of the prior art, (D) The level of one of ordinary skill, (E) The level of predictability in the art, (F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor, (G) The existence of working examples; and (H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. Breadth of the Claims Claim 13 states “A method for treating and/or preventing a STAT5-associated disease, arthritis, atherosclerosis, or psoriasis, comprising administering to a patient a therapeutically effective amount of a substance Y, wherein the substance Y is the fused ring-containing compound represented by formula II, the pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, the solvate thereof or the solvate of the pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof according to claim 1.” The term “STAT5-associated disease” is not explicitly defined in the instant disclosure. The instant specification contemplates arthritis, atherosclerosis, and psoriasis as STAT5-assoicated diseases. However, without an explicit definition, the broadest reasonable interpretation includes all STAT5-associated diseases. The instant disclosure defines “preventing” as “reduction in risk of acquiring or developing a disease or disorder.” Nature of the Invention The invention is drawn to a clinical method to be practiced by one of ordinary skill in the art. The claimed method does not include any method to determine risk of developing arthritis, atherosclerosis, or psoriasis or any STAT5 associated disease. State of the art The use of the exact compound of claim 1 is not reported in any treatments for arthritis, atherosclerosis, or psoriasis. Regarding STAT5-associated diseases, Rani (Journal of Interferon & Cytokine Research, Vol. 36, No. 4, 2016), in its abstract connects STAT5 to immune function and anti-tumor immunity. Rani states “…consistently activated STAT5 is associated with a suppression in antitumor immunity and an increase in proliferation, invasion and survival of tumor cells. Thus, therapeutic targeting of STAT5 is promising in cancer.” Guidance provided and Working examples The instant disclosure details a STAT5 Y694 phosphorylation assay (p. 93). The instant disclosure on p. 2-3 discusses the role of STAT5 in signaling pathways. The specification also states “Genetic experiments also show that knocking out the STAT5 gene can significantly reduce inflammation of the nervous system and arthritis in mice with multiple sclerosis…”. The instant disclosure starting p. 104 discusses results of administering compounds of the instant claims to treat arthritis (p. 106), sclerosis (p. 119), and psoriasis (p. 128). There is no evidence or discussion of other diseases. The instant specification on p. 109 discusses administration of the claimed compounds to prevent arthritis. However, the specification states “The positive control tofacitinib treatment group began to significantly inhibit the score of arthritis on day 34. The compound GEN1-284s at doses of 50 mg/kg and 150 mg/kg began to consistently and significantly inhibit the score of arthritis on day 32 and day 34 respectively.” This evidence does not support prevention of arthritis. Amount of Experimentation Considering the above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have an undue burden of experimentation should they attempt to practice the claimed method in efforts to prevent arthritis, sclerosis, or psoriasis and in efforts to treat any other STAT5-associated disease. As claim 14 is dependent on claim 13, it is also rejected. Written Description – Impossible compound structures Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, and 13-14 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 claims a compound of the following structure with the variable substituents shown below. Claim 1 compound PNG media_image3.png 182 112 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 248 606 media_image4.png Greyscale The limitation “m is 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4” is not possible within the full scope of the claim. The bicyclic ring system containing an m amount of R4-4 groups cannot support 4 R4-4 groups. The ring system only has space for 3 R4-4 groups. Similarly, the A-ring system is a 5-6 membered heteroaryl ring. Claim 1 claims a t amount of R4-5 groups on this heteroaryl system. “t” ranges from 0-4 total. However, “t” can be only, at most, 3. The compounds are therefore not possible and one of ordinary skill would recognize that applicant does not have possession of an impossible compound. 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. Indefinite Term Claim 13 is 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 13 states “A method for treating and/or preventing a STAT5-associated disease…”. The term “STAT5-associated disease is not explicitly defined within the instant specification. The instant disclosure contemplates arthritis, atherosclerosis or psoriasis as STAT5-associated diseases, but there is not a clear listing or method of determining which diseases are STAT5-associated or not. The instant disclosure also discloses a STAT5 Y694 phosphorylation assay (p. 93) but does not disclose any diseases which may benefit from the use of this assay. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the metes of bounds of the claims from the use of “STAT5-associated disease”. Contradictory Limitations Claim 2 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 2 states PNG media_image5.png 60 116 media_image5.png Greyscale in l. 4 of said claim. Claim 2 in the last line of the claim also states “and/or when R1 is hydrogen…”. Applicant’s use of “and/or” includes situations where R1 is the phosphate moiety above and where R1 is hydrogen. In the scenario that R1 is the phosphate moiety, the claim cannot also claim “and when R1 is hydrogen.” Claim 2 states “…and/or n is 0, and/or R4 is [moiety omitted]…”. “n” is not included within the claimed R4 moiety. The claim cannot have both R4 as the following moiety and “n”, even if “n” is denoted as zero. Redundant Limitation Claim 8 is 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 8 states “The fused ring-containing compound represented by formula II, the pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, the solvate thereof or the solvate of the pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof according to claim 1, wherein the fused ring-containing compound represented by formula II is any one of the following compounds:”. A table of compounds within the claim includes the following compound GEN1-284 salt. PNG media_image6.png 276 326 media_image6.png Greyscale The claim then states “and/or the pharmaceutically acceptable salt of the fused ring-containing compound represented by formula II is PNG media_image7.png 258 148 media_image7.png Greyscale ” The second iteration of the pharmaceutically acceptable salt is redundant. Additionally, the use of “and/or” within the claim language implies an impossible scenario where “the pharmaceutically acceptable salt” is one of the compounds listed and where the same pharmaceutically acceptable salt is the salt above. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the metes and bounds of the claim because of this contradiction. Indefinite Claim Language Claim 14 is 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 14 states “The method according to claim 13, wherein the method satisfies one or more of the following conditions: (1) the STAT5-associated disease is arthritis or psoriasis; (2) the arthritis is rheumatoid arthritis, adjuvant arthritis, or collagen-induced arthritis; and (3) the psoriasis is imiquimod-induced psoriasis.” The conditions 1-3, as currently claim, cannot be separated as implied by the use of “one of more”. If the only condition “selected” is condition (2) or (3), then condition (1) is already satisfied. The claim should be amended to state “The method according to claim 13, wherein the STAT5-associated disease is arthritis, atherosclerosis or psoriasis; wherein the arthritis is rheumatoid arthritis, adjuvant arthritis or collagen-induced arthritis; and wherein the psoriasis is imiquimod-induced psoriasis.” Further, claim 14 depends from claim 13 which states “A method for treating and/or preventing a STAT5-associated disease, arthritis, atherosclerosis or psoriasis….”. The claim language of claim 13 implies that the “arthritis, atherosclerosis or psoriasis” are distinct conditions from “a STAT5-associated disease”. This is contradicted by the claim language of claim 14 which states that the STAT5-associated disease is arthritis, atherosclerosis or psoriasis. One of ordinary skill in the art would not know the metes and bounds of the claims from this contradiction. Conclusion No claims allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUISALBERTO GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30. 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, Jeffrey Murray can be reached at (571) 272-9023. 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. /L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1624 /SUSANNA MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1624
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 21, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595261
P2X3 AND/OR P2X2/3 RECEPTOR ANTAGONIST, PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITION CONTAINING SAME, AND USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590062
PD-1/PD-L1 INHIBITORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590110
AMORPHOUS (A-POLYMORPHIC) PSILOCYBIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583869
SALT FORM AND CRYSTAL FORM OF A2A RECEPTOR ANTAGONIST AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583838
ANALOGS FOR THE TREATMENT OF DISEASE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
62%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+48.2%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 135 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