Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/254,374

BENZENE RING DERIVATIVE, AND COMPOSITION AND PHARMACEUTICAL USE THEREOF

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
May 24, 2023
Examiner
VISHNYAKOVA, ELENA VLADIMIROVNA
Art Unit
1691
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Xizang Haisco Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
12 granted / 20 resolved
At TC average
Strong +73% interview lift
Without
With
+72.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
52
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
42.6%
+2.6% vs TC avg
§102
17.2%
-22.8% vs TC avg
§112
18.4%
-21.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 20 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to applicant’s filing dated November 13, 2025. 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 . Status of claims Claims 1 – 16 and 20 - 22 are pending in the instant application. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s amendments filed November 13, 2025. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1 - 16, drawn to a compound of general formula (I), B-L-K, where the bifunctional compound of formula (I) binds to both, targeted protein AR and E3 ubiquitin ligases, and acts as an androgen receptor (AR) degrader, in the reply filed on November 13, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 20 – 22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 13, 2025. Applicant’s election without traverse of compound 97 PNG media_image1.png 134 416 media_image1.png Greyscale and B ( PNG media_image2.png 118 229 media_image2.png Greyscale ), L ( PNG media_image3.png 108 180 media_image3.png Greyscale ), K ( PNG media_image4.png 105 153 media_image4.png Greyscale ) fragments of molecule B-L-K as single species in the reply filed on November 13, 2025 is acknowledged. Upon performing the search of prior art Examiner detected compounds related to non-elected species. Hence, the election of species has been withdrawn and examination will proceed to the full scope of claims 1 – 16, as claims related to the Group I invention. Claims under consideration in the instant office action are claims 1 -16. Priority The present application is a 371 of PCT/CN2021/132803, filed November 24, 2021, which claims the benefits of priority of CN Application No. 202011329463.4 filed November 25, 2020, CN Application No. 202110006143.3 filed January 11, 2021, CN Application No. 202110123667.0 filed January 29, 2021 and CN Application No. 202110403688.8 filed April 16, 2021. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/02/2023 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. Claim 11 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. The claim recites the term:”[…] “preferably” (line 19 and 29), which is equivalent to phrase “such as”, renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen et al (WO 2020/198711 A1, hereinafter Andersen). Instant claims are directed to a compound of general formula B-L-K, where the bifunctional compound of formula B-L-K binds to both, targeted protein AR and E3 ubiquitin ligases, and acts as an androgen receptor (AR) degrader. The compound of formula B-L-K has the following structural fragments: B is androgen receptor (AR) binding moiety having a structure e.g.: PNG media_image5.png 78 196 media_image5.png Greyscale , PNG media_image6.png 66 181 media_image6.png Greyscale , where Rb11 is halogen, CF3 or NC; and Rb12 is H, OCH3, OCH2CH3 or OCH2CH2Cl; such as PNG media_image7.png 137 199 media_image7.png Greyscale or PNG media_image8.png 106 189 media_image8.png Greyscale L is a linker of structure e.g.: PNG media_image9.png 22 216 media_image9.png Greyscale where Ak1, Ak2, Ak3 are each independently -CH2-, -OCH2-, - OCH2CH2-, PNG media_image10.png 17 33 media_image10.png Greyscale -C(=O)-, -NRL- (RL is H); Cy1, Cy2, Cy3 and Cy4 are each independently selected from a bond or PNG media_image11.png 41 80 media_image11.png Greyscale PNG media_image12.png 50 68 media_image12.png Greyscale , PNG media_image13.png 44 86 media_image13.png Greyscale , PNG media_image14.png 62 79 media_image14.png Greyscale , PNG media_image15.png 39 82 media_image15.png Greyscale . Such as L has a structure e.g.: PNG media_image16.png 49 187 media_image16.png Greyscale , PNG media_image17.png 40 144 media_image17.png Greyscale or PNG media_image18.png 51 120 media_image18.png Greyscale . K is a E3 ligase binding moiety of structure e.g.: PNG media_image19.png 77 149 media_image19.png Greyscale , PNG media_image20.png 73 172 media_image20.png Greyscale PNG media_image21.png 100 182 media_image21.png Greyscale or PNG media_image22.png 76 203 media_image22.png Greyscale . One of the exemplary compounds of formula B-L-K are: PNG media_image23.png 103 320 media_image23.png Greyscale , PNG media_image24.png 107 287 media_image24.png Greyscale , PNG media_image25.png 84 324 media_image25.png Greyscale , PNG media_image26.png 145 285 media_image26.png Greyscale , PNG media_image27.png 103 304 media_image27.png Greyscale . Instant claims are further drawn to a pharmaceutical composition comprising compound of formula B-L-K and pharmaceutically acceptable carrier. Andersen teaches PROTAC compounds of formula : PLM-LI-PTC, where PLM is E3 ligase binding group, LI is a linker and PTC is androgen receptor binding group (page 6, [18] – [22]). Andersen teaches compounds where PTC has a structure: PNG media_image28.png 110 395 media_image28.png Greyscale (page 126, A109), PNG media_image29.png 93 309 media_image29.png Greyscale (page 139, A214), PNG media_image30.png 103 336 media_image30.png Greyscale (page 139, A213), PNG media_image31.png 100 361 media_image31.png Greyscale (page 131, A145) or PNG media_image32.png 100 344 media_image32.png Greyscale (page 128, A121). LI has a structure of -LI-LII(q)-, where LI and LII is a bond or group, covalently bounded to PLM or PTC, and q >0 (page 45, [219]), such as -LI-LII(q)- is a polyethylene glycol chain from 1 to 12 polyethylene glycol units, -CH2-, -O-(CH2)i-, -(CH2)i-N-(CH2)i-, CO, C=C, C3-11 heterocyclyl, aryl, where i is 1 – 10. The exemplary linkers are: PNG media_image33.png 52 187 media_image33.png Greyscale , PNG media_image34.png 53 166 media_image34.png Greyscale , PNG media_image35.png 67 129 media_image35.png Greyscale , PNG media_image36.png 51 131 media_image36.png Greyscale (pages 48 – 50, Table 2). PLM has a sturucture e.g.: PNG media_image37.png 149 189 media_image37.png Greyscale , PNG media_image38.png 155 251 media_image38.png Greyscale (page 216), PNG media_image39.png 91 168 media_image39.png Greyscale PNG media_image40.png 86 184 media_image40.png Greyscale , where R is an atom, covalently joined to a LI and n is 1 – 4 (pages 221 – 222). One of the exemplary compounds of fromula PLM-LI-PTC, taught by Andersen is PNG media_image41.png 143 444 media_image41.png Greyscale (page 296, example 53). Andersen is also teaching a pharmaceutical composition comprising compound of formula PLM-LI-PTC and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier (page 14, [98]). Thus, Andersen teaches bifunctional compounds, PROTACs, selectively degrading androgen receptor (AR) protein, where the compound consists of ligands binding AR and E3 ligase, connected via bivalent linker, where the structure of all the fragments is equivalent to the corresponding fragments of instantly claimed compounds. MPEP 2143.B states: it could be possible to view a claimed compound as consisting of two known compounds attached via a chemical linker. The claimed compound might properly be found to have been obvious if there would have been a reason to link the two, if one of ordinary skill would have known how to do so, and if the resulting compound would have been the predictable result of the linkage procedure. Thus, Office personnel should recognize that in certain situations, it may be proper to reject a claimed chemical compound as obvious even without identifying a single lead compound. Thus, since prior art teaches compounds, whose chemical structure includes all the structural elements of instantly claimed compounds, and where the compounds taught by prior art are useful for the same purpose (targeted AR degradation), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine the structural elements known in the art (E3 ligase binding ligand, AR binding ligand and appropriate linker), by known methods, with no change in their respective functions to yield heterobifunctional compound with predictable properties. The one of ordinary skills would be motivated to do so in search of an agent applicable for targeted AR degradation with improved desired properties, with the reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, taking all together, taught by prior art, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Conclusion Claims 1 -16 are rejected. No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELENA V VISHNYAKOVA whose telephone number is (571)272-3781. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5pm ET. 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, DEIRDRE (RENEE) Claytor can be reached at (571)272-8394. 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. /E.V.V./ Examiner, Art Unit 1691 /SAVITHA M RAO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1691
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 24, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12582672
VANADIUM COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR TREATMENT OF CANCER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12570680
COMPOSITIONS OF MECHANICALLY INTERLOCKED, TOPOLOGICALLY COMPLEX CROSSLINKERS AND POLYMERS AND METHODS OF MAKING AND USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564589
METHODS FOR TREATING CANCER, REDUCING SIDE EFFECTS OF CANCER TREATMENT, AND PREVENTING THE RECURRENCE OF CANCER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12552789
1H-PYRROLO[2,3-C]PYRIDINE COMPOUNDS AND APPLICATION THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12466801
Cannabichromene Derivatives And Use Thereof
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 11, 2025
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
60%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+72.7%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 20 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