Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/273,476

SUBSTITUTED CYCLIC MODULATORS OF PROTEIN PHOSPHATASE 2A (PP2A) AND METHODS USING SAME

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jul 20, 2023
Examiner
SHAMEEM, GOLAM M
Art Unit
1621
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Rappta Therapeutics OY
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allow Rate
760 granted / 875 resolved
+26.9% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
895
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
4.9%
-35.1% vs TC avg
§102
19.8%
-20.2% vs TC avg
§112
23.3%
-16.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 875 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 Priority PNG media_image1.png 18 332 media_image1.png Greyscale , is acknowledged. Status of Claims Claims 1-16, 19-26, 28-32, and 34-36 are currently pending in the instant application. Receipt is acknowledged of amendment / response filed on September 29, 2025 and that has been entered. Information Disclosure Statement Receipt is acknowledged of Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), filed on 01/16/2025, which has been entered in the file. Response to Election/Restriction In response to the restriction requirement Applicants have elected Group I, which now includes claims 1-16, 19, 25-26, 29, and 34-36 drawn to a compound of formula (Ia), (Ib), (Ic), (Id), (Ie) or (If), or a salt thereof and the elected species as set forth and found to a compound 36, such as, PNG media_image2.png 124 560 media_image2.png Greyscale , is acknowledged. Because Applicants 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 § 818.03(a). Therefore, the requirement for restriction is still deemed proper made it final. Claims 20-24, 28, and 30-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 1.142 (b) as being drawn to a non-elected subject matter. Therefore, the requirement for restriction is still deemed proper and made it final. Applicants preserve their right to file a divisional on the non-elected subject matter. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970);and, In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b). Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Claims 1-16, 19, 25-26, 29, and 34-36 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting, as being unpatentable over claims 1-82 of co-pending application No. 18/993,421 (US ‘421). This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to the same art recognized subject matter. A reference anticipating one set of claims will render the other obvious and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since US ‘421 co-pending applications teaches the generic compounds, compositions and their method of uses, which are similar to the instantly claimed inventions. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully recited and covered in the claims of US ‘421 co-pending application. Therefore, the disclosure of US ‘421 co-pending applications that teaches many permutation and combinations, which would easily place Applicant’s invention in possession of the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The indiscriminate selection of “some'' among “many'' is prima facie obvious, In re Lemin, 141 USPQ 814 (1964). Therefore, in the instant case, one skilled in the chemical art would be motivated to choose to replace variable substitutions in permutation and combinations in core structure to obtain the desired compound of formula, in view of the known teaching of the art, such as, PNG media_image3.png 688 622 media_image3.png Greyscale (claim 1 of US ‘421 co-pending application). The claimed compounds and their compositions are so closely related structurally to the homologous and /or analogous compounds of the reference as to be structurally and methodically obvious, therefore in the absence of any un-obviousness or unexpected properties. Moreover, any other differences are but obvious structural and/or methodically modifications, which would be apparent to one skilled in the chemical art that can use similar substitutions, would expect to have the same or essentially the same results and therefore, is obvious, absent evidence to the contrary. Telephone Inquiry Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Golam Shameem, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571) 272-0706. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30 AM - 6:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Clinton Brooks, Ph.D. can be reached at (571) 270-7682. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the Group receptionist, whose telephone number is (571) 272-1600. /GOLAM M SHAMEEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1621
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 20, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Mar 27, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589087
ENANTIOMER SELECTIVE ACTION ON NEUROTRANSMISSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583851
HETEROARYL-SUBSTITUTED PYRAZINE DERIVATIVES AS PESTICIDES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583820
BROAD SPECTRUM ANTIVIRALS AGAINST CORONAVIRUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583830
SYNTHESIS METHOD FOR SYNTHESIZING OXETANE DERIVATIVE BY MICROREACTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583822
BENZYLAMINE DERIVATIVE, PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR AND USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
87%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+15.9%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 875 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