Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/297,546

8-(AZETIDIN-1-YL)-[1,2,4]TRIAZOLO[1,5-A]PYRIDINYL COMPOUNDS, COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Apr 07, 2023
Examiner
JARRELL, NOBLE E
Art Unit
1699
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Genentech Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
824 granted / 1014 resolved
+21.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+8.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
56 currently pending
Career history
1070
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
16.0%
-24.0% vs TC avg
§102
20.9%
-19.1% vs TC avg
§112
41.9%
+1.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1014 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 . Current Status of 18 / 297546 Pending claims 1-28 filed 7 April 2025 are examined on the merits. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7 April 2023 was submitted in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification is enabling for the alleviation of myelofibrosis, polycythemia vera, rheumatoid arthritis or psoriasis with a compound of formula (I) and non-enabling for the alleviation of the scope of disorders recited or the prevention of the scope of disorders claimed with a compound of formula (I). The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The factors to be considered in determining whether a disclosure meets the enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, have been described in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir., 1988). The court in Wands states, “Enablement is not precluded by the necessity for some experimentation, such as routine screening. However, experimentation needed to practice the invention must not be undue experimentation. The key word is ‘undue’, not ‘experimentation’” (Wands, 8 USPQ2sd 1404). Clearly, enablement of a claimed invention cannot be predicated on the basis of quantity of experimentation required to make or use the invention. “Whether undue experimentation is needed is not a single, simple factual determination, but rather is a conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations” (Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1404). Among these factors are: (1) the nature of the invention; (2) the breadth of the claims; (3) the state of the prior art; (4) the predictability or unpredictability of the art; (5) the relative skill of those in the art; (6) the amount of direction or guidance presented; (7) the presence or absence of working examples; and (8) the quantity of experimentation necessary. Consideration of the relevant factors sufficient to establish a prima facie case for lack of enablement is set forth herein below: The nature of the invention and (2) the breadth of the claims: The claims are drawn to treatment or prevention of JAK inhibited kinase disease with a compound of formula (I). Thus, the claims taken together with the specification imply a compound of formula (I) can treat or prevent a JAK inhibited kinase disease. The definition of treatment includes prevention (specification, page 21, third paragraph). PNG media_image1.png 270 370 media_image1.png Greyscale The state of the prior art and (4) the predictability or unpredictability of the art: DEANE (Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology, 2013, 27, 467-485, cited in IDS) describes that more research is needed to understand how rheumatoid arthritis can be prevented (page 434, second paragraph to page 477, second paragraph; page 480, paragraph two). MEYER (Clinical Cancer Research, 2014, 20(8), 2051-2059) describes the following ideas: JAK1 and JAK2 are linked to alleviation of myelofibrosis and polycythemia vera (page 2055, table 1); JAK2 is linked to alleviation of myelofibrosis (page 2055, table 1); JAK1 and JAK3 are linked to alleviation of rheumatoid arthritis or psoriasis (page 2055, table 1); and more research is needed to understand the therapeutic reach of JAK kinase inhibition. MANUYAKORN (Asian Pacific Journal of Allergy and Immunology, 2013, 31, 3-10) describes that more research is needed to understand the relationship of JAK inhibitors to asthma (page 8, column 1, paragraph 2). The relative skill of those in the art: Those of relative skill in the art are those with level of skill of the authors of the references cited to support the examiner’s position (MD’s, PhD’s, or those with advanced degrees and the requisite experience in the prevention or treatment of a JAK kinase inhibited disease). The amount of direction or guidance presented and the presence or absence of working examples: The specification has provided guidance for the alleviation of myelofibrosis, polycythemia vera, rheumatoid arthritis or psoriasis with a compound of formula (I). The specification does not provide guidance for the alleviation of the scope of disorders recited or the prevention of the scope of disorders claimed with a compound of formula (I). The quantity of experimentation necessary: Considering the state of the art as discussed by the references above, particularly with regards to the alleviation of the scope of disorders recited or the prevention of the scope of disorders claimed with a compound of formula (I) and the high unpredictability in the art as evidenced therein, and the lack of guidance provided in the specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would be burdened with undue experimentation to practice the invention commensurate in the scope of the claims. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-25 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: CHENG (WO 2016139212, published 9 September 2016) describes compound S (page 63). Compound S does not anticipate or render obvious a compound of examined formula (I) because examined variable A cannot be substituted by a methylene-triazole group. Examined variable R1a cannot include a heteroaryl group. PNG media_image2.png 350 736 media_image2.png Greyscale Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOBLE E JARRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9077. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. 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, Fereydoun Sajjadi can be reached on 571-272-3311. 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. /NOBLE E JARRELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1699
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 07, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Sep 25, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 19, 2025
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595235
PROCESS FOR PRODUCING 4,5-DIHYDRO-1H-PYRAZOLES AND INTERMEDIATES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595265
INHIBITORS OF ACTIVIN RECEPTOR-LIKE KINASE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588410
ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT MATERIAL AND METHOD PREPARING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12570660
PROCESS FOR THE PREPARATION OF A PYRIMIDINO-DIAZEPINE DERIVATIVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570626
DEGRADERS AND DEGRONS FOR TARGETED PROTEIN DEGRADATION
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
81%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+8.7%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1014 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