Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/258,224

TUBERCULATIN ANALOGS AS ANTIVIRAL AGENTS

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Jun 19, 2023
Priority
Dec 21, 2020 — provisional 63/199,329 +1 more
Examiner
CHENG, KAREN
Art Unit
1623
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Hong Kong Baptist University
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allowance Rate
518 granted / 679 resolved
+16.3% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
59 currently pending
Career history
727
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
38.1%
-1.9% vs TC avg
§102
19.9%
-20.1% vs TC avg
§112
12.5%
-27.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 679 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
DETAILED ACTION Claims 3-33 are currently pending in the instant application. 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 . Response to Amendments/Arguments Applicant’s amendments and arguments in a response filed 03/30/2026 have been fully considered and entered into the application. Applicant has overcome The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 10 in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claim. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 3-4, 8-10 and 12 over Lu et al in view of Applicant’s arguments. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 3 and 11 over Lu et al in view of Applicant’s arguments. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, drawn to compounds and pharmaceutical compositions PNG media_image1.png 172 120 media_image1.png Greyscale in the reply filed on 11/24/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that the common structure, Formula II, constitutes a structurally distinctive compounds over the cited art of WO 2013/019662. However, the common structure of Formula II is not a significant structural element as prior art has been applied as discussed below. Thus, claims 13-32 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/24/2025. In accordance with the MPEP, if upon examination of the elected species, no prior art is found that would anticipate or render obvious the instant invention based on the elected species and the claims drawn to the elected species are allowable, the search of the Markush-type claim will be extended (see MPEP 803.02). If prior art is then found that anticipates or renders obvious the non-elected species, the Markush-type claim will be rejected. It should be noted that the prior art search will not be extended unnecessarily to cover all non-elected species. Should Applicant overcome the rejection by amending the claim, the amended claim will be reexamined. Id. The prior art search will be extended to the extent necessary to determine patentability of the Markush-type claim. Id. In the event prior art is found during reexamination that renders obvious or anticipates the amended Markush-type claim, the claim will be rejected and the action made final. Id. Applicant's elected species appears allowable over the prior art of record. Therefore, the search of the Markush-type claim has been extended to the non-elected species PNG media_image2.png 428 624 media_image2.png Greyscale . As prior art has been found which anticipates the above identified nonelected species, the Markush-type claims are rejected as follows and the subject matter of the claims drawn to nonelected species held withdrawn from consideration. Claims 3-12 have been examined to the extent that they are readable on the elected embodiment and the above identified nonelected species. Since art was found on the nonelected species, subject matter not embraced by the elected embodiment or the above identified nonelected species is therefore withdrawn from further consideration. The remaining subject matter of claim 33 that are not drawn to the above elected invention stand withdrawn under 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being non-elected subject matter. The remaining compounds which are not within the elected invention are independent and distinct from the elected invention as they differ in structure and composition. Therefore the compounds, which are withdrawn, have been restricted as the withdrawn subject matter is patentably distinct from the elected subject matter as it differs in structure and element and would require separate search considerations. In addition, a reference, which anticipates one group, would not render obvious the other. Thus all claims containing compounds falling outside the search strategy of the elected compound and structure shown above are heretofore directed to non-elected subject matter and are withdrawn from consideration under 35 U.S.C. § 121 and 37 C.FR. § 1.142(b). A complete reply to the non-final rejection must include cancellation of non-elected claims include cancellation of non-elected claims or other appropriate action (37 CFR 1.144). See MPEP § 821.01. Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be amended in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(b). If one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. Any amendment of inventorship must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and by the fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i). 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. Claims 3-4, 8-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CA Reg No. 1054646-22-8, entered into STN on 09/29/2008. CA Reg No. 1054646-22-8 corresponds to compound PNG media_image2.png 428 624 media_image2.png Greyscale . This corresponds to a compound of Formula II wherein R1, R4, R5, R6 , R9 are H, R10 and R11 taken together form oxo, R2 and R3 are -OR26 and R26 is hydrocarbyl, R7 and R8 taken together with the carbon atoms to which they are attached to form a cyclic group comprising 1 to 30 plural valence atoms selected from carbon and oxygen (specifically a 5-membered heterocyclyl – methylenedioxy group), R19 is optionally substituted monosaccharide, R21 is OR25 wherein R25 is H and R29 is OR26 and R26 is heterocyclyl substituted with hydroxy. Regarding the composition of claim 12, comprising the anticipatory compound and an excipient, the Registry entry for Registry no. 1054646-22-8 discloses a mass solubility of 0 g/L, in unbuffered water at pH 7.00. This teaching of water anticipates the claimed composition, wherein the compounds are present with an excipient (i.e., water). See MPEP 2128: ELECTRONIC PUBLICATIONS AS PRIOR ART Status as a "Printed Publication" An electronic publication, including an on-line database or Internet publication, is considered to be a “printed publication” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (b) provided the publication was accessible to persons concerned with the art to which the document relates. See In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 227, 210 USPQ 790, 795 (CCPA 1981) Since this date represents the date that each compound entered the CAPlus database on STN, this represents the date that each compound was made accessible to the public. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-7 and 11 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN CHENG whose telephone number is (703)756-4699. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9AM-6PM PST. 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, Adam Milligan can be reached at 571-270-7674. 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. /KAREN CHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1623 /ADAM C MILLIGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1623
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 19, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 19, 2025
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102
Mar 30, 2026
Response Filed
May 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection (signed) — §102
Jun 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12673039
METHODS OF INDUCING AUTOPHAGY USING COUMARIN DERIVATIVES AND RELATED COMPOUNDS
4y 11m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12662499
PHOSPHORUS COMPOUNDS AND METHODS THEREOF
3y 0m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12649762
SYNTHESIS OF CHOLESTEROL AND VITAMIN D3 FROM PHYTOSTEROLS
4y 5m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Patent 12643851
IMPROVED, COST EFFECTIVE PROCESS FOR SYNTHESIS OF VITAMIN D3 AND ITS ANALOGUE CALCIFEDIOL FROM ERGOSTEROL
4y 5m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Patent 12643895
HETEROARYL-SUBSTITUTED PYRAZOLO-PYRIDINE PROTEIN KINASE INHIBITORS FOR PROMOTING LIVER REGENERATION OR REDUCING OR PREVENTING HEPATOCYTE DEATH
4y 4m to grant Granted Jun 02, 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
76%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+27.4%)
2y 1m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 679 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