Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/034,439

PROCESS FOR THE PREPARATION OF HETEROARYL-SUBSTITUTED SULFUR(VI) COMPOUNDS

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Apr 28, 2023
Examiner
SEAMAN, D MARGARET M
Art Unit
1625
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
1063 granted / 1387 resolved
+16.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
1407
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.7%
-36.3% vs TC avg
§103
15.1%
-24.9% vs TC avg
§102
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
§112
33.9%
-6.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1387 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §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 This application was filed 04/28/2023 and is a 371 of PCT/US2021/057262 (10/29/2021) which has PRO 63/107016 (10/29/2020). Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9 and 11-23 are before the Examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9 and 11-22 are 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 a process wherein one of X=NR4 and the other X=O, does not reasonably provide enablement for both X=O or both X=NR4. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Specifically, the final product of the instantly claimed reaction has one X=O and the other X=NR4. By the delineated process, this can only be the product if the coordinating reactant is X=O and X=NR4 not both X=NR4 or both X=O. The specification supports the reaction when one X=NR4 and the other X=O. There is no support seen where both X=O or X=NR4. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foote. Foote teaches compounds such as compound 2 (page 9889), S/R-74, S-75 and R-75 (page 9892) and page 9896 compounds 2 and 33-36. These compounds anticipate claim 23. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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 1-3, 5-6, 8-9 and 11-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by US PGPub 20110053923 Foote. Foote teaches in paragraphs 0219 and 0227 PNG media_image1.png 284 318 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 436 332 media_image2.png Greyscale A reaction that is similar to the instantly claimed reaction. The difference being the reactant and product have both X=O. The instant process has X=O or NR4 as the reactant and the product having one X=O and the other X=NR4. The process is otherwise the same. The prior art does not specify the reaction conditions, solvents or bases. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the process taught by Foote with a different reactant to get the equivalent product (one X=O and one X=NR4). Rationale: It is within the skill of the ordinary artisan to use a known reaction to get a specific product by perfecting the known reaction. Conclusion No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to D MARGARET M SEAMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm Eastern. 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 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. /D MARGARET M SEAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1625
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 28, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599135
A COMPOSITION AND METHOD FOR PREPARING N-PHENYLPYRAZOLE-1-CARBOXAMIDES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595234
Bioactive Benzocycloheptene Analogues From Himachalenes and its Applications
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595239
SUBSTITUTED ISOXAZOLINE DERIVATIVES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590072
THYROMIMETICS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12577207
INDAZOLE DERIVATIVES AS CANNABINOID RECEPTOR PARTIAL AGONISTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
84%
With Interview (+7.9%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1387 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