Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/255,402

METHOD OF PREPARING PRALSETINIB

Final Rejection §102§112
Filed
Jun 01, 2023
Examiner
FETTEROLF, BRANDON J
Art Unit
1626
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Rigel Pharmaceuticals Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
48%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
4y 1m
To Grant
60%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 48% of resolved cases
48%
Career Allow Rate
84 granted / 177 resolved
-12.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 1m
Avg Prosecution
80 currently pending
Career history
257
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.4%
-37.6% vs TC avg
§103
28.5%
-11.5% vs TC avg
§102
19.6%
-20.4% vs TC avg
§112
28.4%
-11.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 177 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Application Status The amendment filed on 1/02/2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action of 10/02/2025 is acknowledged and has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 15-17, 19-21, 23-25, 27, 29-30 and 54 are currently pending and under consideration. Rejections Withdrawn in view of Amendments: The rejection of Claims 19, 21 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn in view of Applicants arguments. Rejections Maintained, amended in view of amendments 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 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Blueprint Medicines Corporation (WO2017/079140A1, 2017-11-05, IDS) referred to herein as Blueprint. Blueprint teaches the synthesis of a compound referred to as compound 130, wherein two diastereomers were isolated from the mixture having the structures PNG media_image1.png 170 506 media_image1.png Greyscale in 10% and 46% yield respectfully (page 52). With the synthesis of a compound 130, Blueprint teaches the following intermediates PNG media_image2.png 138 273 media_image2.png Greyscale wherein the chloro compound would read on an activated R group (page 51). While the prior art does not specifically teach the specific diastereomers of PNG media_image3.png 128 88 media_image3.png Greyscale , the claimed limitation would appear to be present in the generic teachings of the racemate since the compound is chiral and therefore, all enantiomers would necessarily exist in the racemate. In response to the rejection, Applicants contend that while the ‘140 publication discloses on page 50, the following compound PNG media_image3.png 128 88 media_image3.png Greyscale , the ‘140 publication does not disclose the isomers PNG media_image4.png 159 276 media_image4.png Greyscale . Moreover, Applicants contend that contrary to the PTO’s allegation in the office Action that “the claimed limitation would appear to be present in the generic teachings of the racemate since the compound is chiral and therefore, all enantiomers would necessarily exist in the racemate”, the Federal Circuit ruled that claims to a single enantiomer pharmaceutical compound were not anticipated. See Forest Labs., Inc. v. Ivax Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 501 F.3d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2007). These arguments have been carefully considered, but are not found persuasive. In the instant case, the Examiner does not dispute that a single enantiomer pharmaceutical compound were not anticipated. However, the Examiner recognizes that this ruling was for pharmaceutical compounds wherein Forest presented evidence demonstrating the difficulty in separating the enantiomers and the unexpected properties of (+)-citalopram. In the instant case, no evidence has been submitted discussing the difficulties in separating these enantiomers and further, the instant compounds is an intermediate and no biological activity exists on record. Thus, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained. New Rejections Necessitated by the amendment Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 15, which depends from claim 1, recites “… wherein the compound is a compound of formula (V): PNG media_image5.png 200 166 media_image5.png Greyscale ”. However, compound V was amended out of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Conclusion Claims 2-3, 5-6 and 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 19-21, 23-25, 27, 29-30 and 54 appear to be in condition for allowance. The closest prior art was discussed in the prior office action. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON J FETTEROLF whose telephone number is (571)272-2919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM. 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 S Lundgren can be reached at 571-272-5541. 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. /BRANDON J FETTEROLF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1626
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 01, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Jan 02, 2026
Response Filed
Jan 30, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594274
METHOD FOR PREPARING A CRYSTALLINE FORM OF RABEXIMOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595245
INHIBITORS OF MET KINASE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577233
SOLID FORMS OF APOL1 INHIBITOR AND METHODS OF USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570640
2-AMINOQUINAZOLINES AS LRRK2 INHIBITORS, PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITIONS, AND USES THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570615
NEW QUINAZOLINONE DERIVATIVES
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
48%
Grant Probability
60%
With Interview (+13.0%)
4y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 177 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