Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/287,136

A TRIFLUOROMETHYL THIANTHRENIUM COMPOUND, PROCESS FOR PREPARING THE SAME AND THE USE THEREOF

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Oct 16, 2023
Examiner
BERRY, LAYLA D
Art Unit
1693
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Studiengesellschaft Kohle gGmbH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
939 granted / 1427 resolved
+5.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+8.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
1471
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.7%
-37.3% vs TC avg
§103
34.8%
-5.2% vs TC avg
§102
20.0%
-20.0% vs TC avg
§112
23.3%
-16.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1427 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §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 . CONTINUING DATA This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2022/059801 04/12/2022 FOREIGN APPLICATIONS EP 21169034.2 04/17/2021 Claims 1-10 are pending. 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. Claims 8-10 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. Claim 8 is drawn to a method of using a compound of Formula (I), but does not recite any active steps. Attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. MPEP 2173.05(q). Claims 9 and 10 depend from claim 8 and also do not recite any active steps. 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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Jia (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2021, 143, 7623-7628, published May 14, 2021, and supporting information). Jia teaches the following compound on page 7623: PNG media_image1.png 116 134 media_image1.png Greyscale This is a compound of formula (I) where R1-R8 are all H and X- is triflate. The compound was prepared by reacting formula (II) withj a trifluoromethyl group transfer agent which is triflkic acid anhydride. See page 7624. PNG media_image2.png 87 580 media_image2.png Greyscale Compound 1 was reacted with an anion exchange reagent NaBF4 to obtain a compound wherein X- is BF4-. Page S11. PNG media_image3.png 182 607 media_image3.png Greyscale Formula I was reacted with an aliphatic hydrocarbon or aromatic hydrocarbon or heteroaromatic hydrocarbon in Scheme 4. PNG media_image4.png 226 983 media_image4.png Greyscale 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. 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. Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unemoto (EP0382206A1, 1990, cited on IDS) in view of Ritter (EP3650446A1, 2020, cited on IDS), Liu (J. Phys. Org. Chem. 2001; 14: 81-89, cited on IDS) and Yus (Tetrahedron 59 (2003) 2083-2092). Unemoto teaches the following compound in Example 15: PNG media_image5.png 144 274 media_image5.png Greyscale The compound is used for introducing a perfluoroalkyl group into an organic compound (claim 9). Organic compounds into which the perfluoroalkyl group can be introduced include aromatic compounds (page 7, lines 44-46) or compounds containing C=O groups (Table 2). The compound is prepared as in Examples 4, 8, and 15: PNG media_image6.png 210 487 media_image6.png Greyscale PNG media_image7.png 215 449 media_image7.png Greyscale PNG media_image8.png 211 674 media_image8.png Greyscale Unemoto’s compound contains an oxygen and a sulfur atom, not two sulfur atoms as in the current claims. Liu teaches the following thianthrenium triflates for reacting with hydrocarbon nucleophiles (page 82 and Table 1): PNG media_image9.png 230 360 media_image9.png Greyscale Compound 3a was prepared by reaction of Th with methyl formate and triflic acid (page 82, right column). Ritter teaches the following compound for direct C-H functionalization (see abstract): PNG media_image10.png 179 187 media_image10.png Greyscale The resulting compound was then used to transfer the aromatic group to a methyl group (page 45) or an aromatic group (page 46). In one example, the triflate salt was converted to the PF6- salt [0106]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to replace the oxygen in Unemoto’s compound with a sulfur in order to obtain a compound useful for transferring a trifluoromethyl group to an organic compound. Simple substitution of S for O would have resulted in the claimed invention, and the results would have been predictable because both Unemoto’s compound and the thianthrene compounds taught by Ritter or Liu are used for C-H functionalization. The skilled artisan would have prepared the thianthrene analog as Unemoto’s compound was prepared, using a thioether analog of the ether starting material. The thioether starting material was known at the art before the application was filed, as illustrated by Yus on page 2084 (compound 14), so the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in preparing the compound. Alternatively, the skilled artisan would have prepared the compound using the same methods used for preparing Liu’s compounds, which would imply the use of trifluoromethyl formate instead of methyl formate. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unemoto (EP0382206A1, 1990, cited on IDS) in view of Ritter (EP3650446A1, 2020, cited on IDS), Liu (J. Phys. Org. Chem. 2001; 14: 81-89, cited on IDS) and Wang (CCS Chem. 2010, 2, 1710-1717). Unemoto, Ritter, and Liu teach as set forth above, and Liu teaches preparing the thianthrenium compounds using alkyl formates. Liu does not teach preparing the thianthrenium compound using triflic acid anhydride as the trifluoromethyl group transfer agent. Wang teaches trifluoromethylation reagents on page 1710, including triflic acid anhydride. PNG media_image11.png 134 599 media_image11.png Greyscale It would have been obvious too one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to prepare the claimed compounds as set forth in the rejection above, and to prepare the compound using triflic acid anhydride. Liu teaches the use of alkyl formates for preparing the compounds, which implies the use of trifluoromethyl formate. An alternative trifluoromethylation agent is triflic acid anhydride, as taught by Wang. Simple substitution of one trifluoromethylation agent for another would have resulted in the claimed invention, and the results would have been predictable because both agents are used for trifluoromethylation. Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAYLA D BERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-9572. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00-3:00 CST, M-F. 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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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. /LAYLA D BERRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1693
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 16, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594289
POTENTIATION OF ANTIBIOTIC EFFECT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595508
NUCLEOTIDE CLEAVABLE LINKERS AND USES THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589110
CARBONATED AEROSOL EXTERNAL PREPARATION FOR SKIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583883
ASYMMETRIC AUXILIARY GROUP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577269
CONTINUOUS PROCESS FOR PREPARING THE CRYSTALLINE FORM II OF SOTAGLIFLOZIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
66%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (+8.6%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1427 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