Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/044,294

USE OF TRIAZOLE ANALOGUES FOR INHIBITION OF A TRIPARTITE VOR PROTEIN COMPLEX IN MULTICELLULAR ORGANISMS

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Mar 07, 2023
Examiner
KOSTURKO, GEORGE W
Art Unit
1621
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Gaspare Spedale
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allow Rate
379 granted / 699 resolved
-5.8% vs TC avg
Strong +49% interview lift
Without
With
+49.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
52 currently pending
Career history
751
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
40.3%
+0.3% vs TC avg
§102
17.6%
-22.4% vs TC avg
§112
21.7%
-18.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 699 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Claims 1, 3-15, 17-20, 22, 24-30 filed December 01, 2025 are currently pending. Claims 1 and 4 are independent. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election without traverse of a 1,2,4-triazole ring compound in the reply filed on 12/01/2025 is acknowledged. PNG media_image1.png 45 348 media_image1.png Greyscale Secondly, Applicant's election without specifying traverse of compound 5 (PRR851 on page 22 of the specification and in Figure 3A) as shown above in the reply to the telephonic election filed on 01/14/2026 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)). Claims 4-15, 17-20 and 22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species (regarding claims 4-5, L is N NOT NH in the elected species as shown in the structure above), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 25-27 and 29-30 are also withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species (regarding claims 25-27 and 29-30, the elected R group is alkyl (isobutyl)), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Species election A careful review of the prior art has indicated that the elected species (compound 5 or PRR851 is free of the prior art. A claim written in independent form directed to said compound would be allowable over the prior art. The examiner has moved on to alternative species embraced within Formula (I), such as 4-(4-bromo-2-fluorophenyly)-1-propyl-1H-1,2,4-triazol-5(4H)one and subsequent examination is based on this species expansion. Priority Acknowledgement is made of the national stage entry of PCT/IB2021/058131 filed 09/07/2021 which claims foreign priority to Application 2014012.5 filed 09/07/2020. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/07/2023, 10/17/2024 and 08/11/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 3, 24 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han (US2016/0068515 filed 03/10/2016). PNG media_image2.png 546 1484 media_image2.png Greyscale Han (US2016/0068515 filed 03/10/2016) teaches compounds of Formula (IIIa) as potent GPR119 inhibitors efficacious at treating diabetes in a subject in need (abstract), [0553]-[0554], Table 1, claim 12). Embraced within said compounds of Formula (IIIa) includes Example 2 4-(4-bromo-2-fluorophenyly)-1-propyl-1H-1,2,4-triazol-5(4H)one ([0171). As shown above, Example 2 of Han reads on the following claimed limitations of claims 1, 3, 24 and 28: A is CR1 wherein R1 is fluoro, C is CR1 wherein R1 is Br, B, D and E are each CR1 wherein R1 is independently H, X is O, R is an alkyl (propyl group). Regarding Example 2, said compound reads on the limitation of claim 24 wherein the alkyl group is propyl and claim 28 wherein R1 is a halogen group selected from the group consisting of bromo and fluorine ([0171]). Regarding the limitation wherein Example 2 of Han is capable of inhibiting a tripartite VAP-A, ORP3 and Rab7(VOR) protein complex in multicellular organisms by interfering with at least one mechanism of (a) intercellular communication, wherein the intercellular communication is mediated by receptor-ligand interaction and/or extracellular vesicles EVs; and (b) viral infection involving the transport of endocytosed biomaterials to the nucleus of recipient cells, such a limitation of the instant claims fails to patentably distinguish the instant claims over the cited prior art because such a limitation is an intended use of the composition (i.e., an intent to use the disclosed composition to interfere with mechanisms of viral infections), which does not impart any physical or material characteristics to the composition that is not already present in the cited prior art. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention's limitations, then the preamble of not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.2d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 378, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1554 and MPEP §2112.02(11). In the instant case, the cited prior art of Example 2 of Han meets each and every structural and physical limitation of the instantly claimed composition and, thus, would be reasonably expected to be capable of performing the intended use as instantly claimed, absent factual evidence to the contrary and further absent any apparent structural difference between the composition of the prior art and that of the instant claims. Claim(s) 1, 3, 24 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aurora Fine Chemicals as evidenced by CAS REGISTRY DATABASE. PNG media_image3.png 560 1350 media_image3.png Greyscale Aurora Fine Chemicals teaches compound PRR850 as shown above, which was indexed in the CAS Registry database as compound 2182410-63-3 on 03/01/2018. Compound PRR850 reads on the following claimed limitations of claims 1, 3, 24 and 28: A is CR1 wherein R1 is H, C is CR1 wherein R1 is Cl, B, D and E are each CR1 wherein R1 is independently H, X is O, R is an alkyl (propyl group). Said compound reads on the limitation of claim 24 wherein the alkyl group is propyl and claim 28 wherein R1 is a halogen group selected from the group consisting of chloro. Regarding the limitation wherein compound PRR850 of Aurora Fine Chemical is capable of inhibiting a tripartite VAP-A, ORP3 and Rab7(VOR) protein complex in multicellular organisms by interfering with at least one mechanism of (a) intercellular communication, wherein the intercellular communication is mediated by receptor-ligand interaction and/or extracellular vesicles EVs; and (b) viral infection involving the transport of endocytosed biomaterials to the nucleus of recipient cells, such a limitation of the instant claims fails to patentably distinguish the instant claims over the cited prior art because such a limitation is an intended use of the composition (i.e., an intent to use the disclosed composition to interfere with mechanisms of viral infections), which does not impart any physical or material characteristics to the composition that is not already present in the cited prior art. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention's limitations, then the preamble of not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.2d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 378, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1554 and MPEP §2112.02(11). In the instant case, the cited prior art of compound PRR850 of Aurora Fine Chemical meets each and every structural and physical limitation of the instantly claimed composition and, thus, would be reasonably expected to be capable of performing the intended use as instantly claimed, absent factual evidence to the contrary and further absent any apparent structural difference between the composition of the prior art and that of the instant claims. Conclusion In view of the rejections set forth above, no claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE W KOSTURKO whose telephone number is (571)270-5903. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30. 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, CLINTON A BROOKS can be reached at 571-270-7682. 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. /GEORGE W KOSTURKO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1621
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 07, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 14, 2026
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595237
LAMOTRIGINE HYDRATE CRYSTAL FORM, PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR, AND COMPOSITION CONTAINING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589094
CONCOMITANT ADMINISTRATION OF GLUCOCORTICOID RECEPTOR MODULATOR RELACORILANT AND PACLITAXEL, A DUAL SUBSTRATE OF CYP2C8 AND CYP3A4
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12577217
15-PGDH INHIBITOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576088
Methods for Enhancing Cytotoxic Cancer Therapy Through Inhibition of ATG4B
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570679
STAT3 PROTEIN DEGRADERS
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
54%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+49.1%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 699 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