Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/279,796

PYRIDINE DERIVATIVES USEFUL AS HCN2 MODULATORS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Aug 31, 2023
Examiner
AULAKH, CHARANJIT
Art Unit
1621
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
King'S College London
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
65%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
1407 granted / 1741 resolved
+20.8% vs TC avg
Minimal -16% lift
Without
With
+-16.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
54 currently pending
Career history
1795
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.9%
-38.1% vs TC avg
§103
15.2%
-24.8% vs TC avg
§102
21.0%
-19.0% vs TC avg
§112
42.6%
+2.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1741 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Claims 1-30 are pending in the application. Claim Objections Claims 21, 23-26, 28 and 30 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in alternate only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 4. 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 29-30 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claim 29, there is no written description for using every known HCN 2 inhibitor in the art. The only written description is for using compounds of formula (I) as shown on page 8 of the specification. Also, there is no written description for well known utility of HCN 2 inhibitor for treating migraine in the art or efficacy of any HCN 2 inhibitor in animal model of migraine. 7. 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. Claims 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 19-22 and 24-30 are 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 19-21 and 27 recite the broad recitation for variables R8, R32, R33, R9, R4, R5, R6, L4 as well as pain and the claims also recite optional values which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. In claim 22, compounds in table 1 are mentioned. However, this table is not present in the claim. Claims 24-25 and 27-30 are directed to use of compounds as medicament or for treating various diseases. However, it is not clear who is being treated and furthermore, the steps of administration are also missing in the claims. In claims 25-26, specific disease conditions mediated by HCN 2, are not defined. 10. 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 24-25 and 27-30 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. Claims 24-25 and 27-30 mention intended use but do not provide additional weight to the claims. 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. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7, 11 and 13-18 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 1-3, 5 and 9 are allowed since the instant compounds of formula (I) are neither disclosed nor obvious over the prior art. In the prior art, Grove (WO 2011/003895 A1, cited on applicant’s form 1449) discloses compounds for treating pain which are closely related to instant compounds. However, the most closely related compound (see example 1 on page 29) differs from the instant compounds by having oxazole ring fused to phenyl ring instead of instant pyrazole ring fused to phenyl ring. Furthermore, there is no teaching, guidance or motivation in the prior art to modify the compounds of grove to prepare instant compounds. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARANJIT AULAKH whose telephone number is (571)272-0678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-3:30. 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, Clinton A Brooks can be reached at 571-270-7682. 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. /CHARANJIT AULAKH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1621
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 31, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594251
BENZALKONIUM CHLORIDE FORUSE IN TREATING CONJUNCTIVITIS AND/OR COVID-19
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583829
SALT OF BENZOTHIAZOLE COMPOUND, AND CRYSTAL FORM AND USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581852
COMPOUND, LUMINESCENT MATERIAL, DELAYED FLUORESCENT MATERIAL, AND ORGANIC OPTICAL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569479
BUPROPION AS A MODULATOR OF DRUG ACTIVITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564586
KAPPA OPIOD RECEPTOR ANTAGONISTS FOR TREATING PAIN-RELATED SLEEP DISORDERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
81%
Grant Probability
65%
With Interview (-16.0%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1741 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