Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/169,326

OXAZINE DYES AND THEIR USE IN NUCLEIC ACID AMPLIFICATION REACTIONS

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Feb 15, 2023
Priority
Feb 16, 2022 — provisional 63/310,796
Examiner
WARD, PAUL V
Art Unit
1622
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Promega Corporation
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
71%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allowance Rate
1417 granted / 1704 resolved
+23.2% vs TC avg
Minimal -12% lift
Without
With
+-12.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
59 currently pending
Career history
1729
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.4%
-34.6% vs TC avg
§103
20.4%
-19.6% vs TC avg
§102
18.8%
-21.2% vs TC avg
§112
42.3%
+2.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1704 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §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 STATUS OF THE CLAIMS: Claims 1, 18-19, 42, 63-65, 68, 70 and 73-82 are pending in this application. Response to Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §§ 103 & 112, 2nd paragraph Applicant’s arguments, filed February 24, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 USC §§ 103 & 112, 2nd paragraph have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made herein below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, first paragraph 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, 18-19, 42, 63-65, 68, 70 and 73-82 (including claims dependent thereon and claims that relate back to independent claim 1 or dependent claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claims 1, 18-19, 42, 63-65, 68, 70 and 73-82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for specific compounds disclosed in the specification, does not reasonably provide enablement for tautomers of those compounds and composition containing same. 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 and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Claims 1, 18-19, 42, 63-65, 68, 70 and 73-82 are rejected because the claims recite specific compounds and tautomers of said compounds. However, the specification fails to teach the preparation or identity of tautomers. Therefore, the specification is not adequately enabled for making and/or using tautomer. Identifying a tautomer requires knowledge of in vivo regeneration pathways of instant compounds and short of extensive experimentation, would be the skilled artisan would need much more data to determine tautomers of the instant compounds and compositions. Applicants have not provided any clear guidance that would provide tautomers of the instant compounds that will regenerate in vivo to the instant compounds by one or more biological processes or methods for preparation. It is not the norm that one can predict with any accuracy whether a particular ester form of an active compound will be more soluble, more easily handled in formulations or more bioavailable without art recognized data to support same. The specification provides no guidance as to what type(s) of prodrugs are suitable for the instant compounds. Generally, tautomers themselves are not considered to be therapeutically active but only to provide the active compound in vivo. For rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, the following factors must be considered (In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (CAFC, 1988)): 1) Nature of invention. 2) State of prior art. 3) Quantity of experimentation needed 4) Level of predictability in the art. 5) Amount of direction and guidance provided by the inventor. 6) Existence of working examples. 7) Breadth of claims. 8) Level of ordinary skill in the art. Nature of the invention The nature of the invention is the preparation of compounds and compositions under the genus of a structural formula. As stated, however, tautomers are also intended. The nature of tautomer is not set forth nor is the manner in which it is to be prepared or the core compounds modified. State of the prior art The state of the prior art is that tautomer are known in the pharmaceutical industry. Tautomer in related compounds are not modified. Quantity of experimentation needed The quantity of experimentation needed is undue. The skilled artisan would need to regenerate in vivo the instant compounds by one or more biological processes. All of which require undue experimentation. Applicant has not postulated a metabolic pathway or mechanism, which facilitate conversion of the tautomer into an active agent. Level of predictability in the art The art pertaining to the preparation and use of tautomers are compound specific and not all tautomers have the ability to regenerate in vivo. (See “Wolff, M.E., “Burger’s Medicinal Chemistry”, pp. 975-977, and Banker et al., “Modern Pharmaceuticals”, p. 596). Amount of direction and guidance provided by the inventor There is no guidance provided as all the examples in the specification are drawn to the preparation of compounds disclosed in the specification and not to tautomer. The lack of guidance to prepare any tautomer is not provided by the inventor. Existence of working examples As discussed above, working examples are drawn to the preparation of compounds disclosed in the specification and not to tautomers. The lack of guidance to prepare any tautomer is telling. There is no direction or guidance provided by Applicant to prepare tautomer of the instant invention. Breadth of claims The breath of the recited compounds and compositions in the claims includes tautomer for which there have been provided no specific examples or procedural steps to prepare tautomers. Failure to teach how to make the instant compounds makes teaching how to use the compounds unduly difficult, if not impossible. Level of ordinary skill in the art The level of ordinary skill in the art is high due to the unpredictability in the chemical art. Hence, as discussed above, to practice the claimed invention herein, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have to engage in undue experimentation to test which tautomer can be used in the instant claim, with no assurance of success. Therefore, applicant must show that the specification teach the preparation of tautomers, or limit the claims accordingly. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1, 18-19, 42, 63-65, 68, 70 and 73-82 will be allowed if amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph for reciting tautomers. The prior art does not teach or suggest the methods, compositions and compounds substituted in the manner claimed by the Applicant. Therefore, these claims will be allowed, if amended to overcome objections and rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Conclusion Claims 1, 18-19, 42, 63-65, 68, 70 and 73-82 are pending. Claims 1, 18-19, 42, 63-65, 68, 70 and 73-82 are rejected. No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL V WARD whose telephone number is (571)272-2909. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm. 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, James Alstrum-Acevedo can be reached at 571-272-5548. 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. /PAUL V WARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1622
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 15, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103, §112
Feb 24, 2026
Response Filed
Jul 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12747205
SULFUR-CONTAINING LIPIDS
3y 2m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12734277
CONTROLLED-VISCOSITY POLYMERIC HYDROGEL AND METHOD FOR MAKING IT
4y 4m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12714718
TREATMENT OF 22Q11.2 DELETION SYNDROME WITH CANNABIDIOL
3y 11m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12714659
COSMETIC
3y 5m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12708609
METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR TREATING INFLAMMATION
2y 9m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
71%
With Interview (-12.2%)
2y 4m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1704 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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