Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/347,192

METHODS OF TREATING CYSTIC FIBROSIS USING WITH-NO-LYSINE (WNK) KINASE PATHWAY INHIBITORS

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jul 05, 2023
Examiner
SHIAO, REI TSANG
Art Unit
1691
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA RESEARCH FOUNDATION
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
45%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
1612 granted / 2019 resolved
+19.8% vs TC avg
Minimal -35% lift
Without
With
+-35.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
2072
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
29.1%
-10.9% vs TC avg
§102
8.1%
-31.9% vs TC avg
§112
29.6%
-10.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 2019 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
0Notice 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 and Status of Claims 1. This application claims benefit of the provisional application: 63/358,411 with a filing date 07/05/2022. 2. Applicant’s remarks filed on 11/20/2025 are acknowledged. Claims 2-4, 6-8, 11-12, 14-23, 26 and 31 are pending in the application. Responses to Election/Restriction 3. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 2-4, 6-8, 11-12 and 14-17 in the reply filed on November 20, 2025 is acknowledged. Election of a compound WNK 463 as a single species is also acknowledged. Claims 2-4, 6-8, 11-12, 14-23, 26 and 31 are pending in the application. Claims 2-4, 6-8, 11-12 and 14-17 drawn to methods of use, and are prosecuted in the case. Claims 18-23, 26 and 31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention. The requirement is still deemed proper and therefore is made FINAL. 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. Claims 2-4, 6-8, 11-12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph (pre- AIA ), because the specification does not reasonably provide enablement of the instant “WNK kinase pathway inhibitor” without limitation (i.e., no named compounds or formula). 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 the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. ln In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (1988), factors to be considered in determining whether a disclosure meets the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, have been described. They are: 1. the nature of the invention, 2. the state of the prior art, 3. the predictability or Iack thereof in the art, 4. the amount of direction or guidance present, 5. the presence or absence of working examples, 6. the breadth of the claims, 7. the quantity of experimentation needed, and 8. the level of the skill in the art. In the instant case: The nature of the invention The nature of the invention is a method of use using “WNK kinase pathway inhibitor” without limitation (i.e., no named compounds or formula), see claim 2. The state of the prior art and the predictability or Iack thereof in the art The state of the prior art is He et al. CAS: 172: 194396, 2019, it discloses a compound of formula (I) as a WNK kinase pathway inhibitor. The amount of direction or guidance present and the presence or absence of working examples The only direction or guidance present in the instant specification is the description of a number of “WNK kinase pathway inhibitor or formula” on pages 14-16 of the specification. There is no data present in the instant specification for the “WNK kinase pathway inhibitor” without limitation (i.e., no named compound or formula). The breadth of the claims The instant breadth of the rejected claims is broader than the disclosure, specifically, the instant “WNK kinase pathway inhibitor” are without limitation (i.e., no named compound or formula). The quantity or experimentation needed and the Ievel of skill in the art While the level of the skill in the chemical arts is high, it would require undue experimentation of one of ordinary skill in the art to resolve any “WNK kinase pathway inhibitor” without limitation. There is no guidance or working examples present for constitutional any “WNK kinase pathway inhibitor” without limitation for the instant invention. Incorporation of the limitation of “WNK kinase pathway inhibitor” supported by specification (i.e., the compounds with formulae on pages 14-16 of specification) into claim 2 would overcome this rejection. 5. 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. Claim 15 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 15, line 2, recites the limitation “comprises” is ambiguous and indefinite. A compound claim cannot use open-ended language when defining the parameters of the gene or compound, see M.P.E.P. 2111.03. Replacement of the limitation “comprises” with a limitation “is” would overcome this rejection. 6. 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 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Claims 2, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over Yang et al. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communication, 2007, 353(3): 535- 540, and He et al. CN 110585205. Applicants claim a method of treating one or more signs or symptoms of cystic fibrosis in a subject in need thereof, the method comprising: administering to the subject an effective amount of a WNK kinase pathway inhibitor to the subject to treat the one or more signs or symptoms of cystic fibrosis, see claim 2. Dependent claims 11 and 15 further limit the scope of methods, i.e., the inhibitor is WNK 1 or WNK 463. Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP §2141.01) Yang et al. disclose that WMK1 and WNK 4 kinase are widely expressed modulator cystic fibrosis. Therefore WMK1 and WNK 4 kinase inhibitors can be used for treating cystic fibrosis. He et al. ‘205 discloses a WNK kinase inhibitor or a pharmaceutical composition comprising a WNK kinase inhibitor in the preparation of a product for the prevention and/or treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension and its complications (e.g. cystic fibrosis), wherein the WNK kinase inhibitor has the structure of general formula (I), PNG media_image1.png 470 314 media_image1.png Greyscale , ad a specific WNK kinase inhibitor is WNK 463, see claim 1 and 5 on pages 2-3. Determination of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP §2141.02) The difference between instant claims and Yang et al. and He et al. ‘205 is that the instant claims are embraced within the scope of Yang et al. He et al. ‘205. Yang et al. He et al. ‘205 read on the instant claims 2, 11 ad 15. It is noted that the instant claim is silent the scope of WNK kinase pathway inhibitor. Finding of prima facie obviousness-rational and motivation (MPEP §2142-2143) One having ordinary skill in the art would find the claims 2, 11 and 15 prima facie obvious because one would be motivated to employ the methods of use of Yang et al. and He et al. ‘205 to obtain instant invention. The motivation to make the claimed methods of use derived from the known methods of use of Yang et al. and He et al. ‘205 would possess similar activity to that which is claimed in the reference. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REI TSANG SHIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-0707. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-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, Renee Claytor can be reached on 571-272-8394. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /REI TSANG SHIAO/ Rei-tsang Shiao, Ph.D.Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1691 January 12, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 05, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599580
COMPOSITION COMPRISING A LIPID COMPOUND, A TRIGLYCERIDE, AND A SURFACTANT, AND METHODS OF USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600719
SALT INDUCIBLE KINASE INHIBITORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599579
COMPOSITIONS AND COMPOUNDS CONTAINNG KETONE BODIES AND/OR KETONE BODY PRECURSORS AND ONE OR MORE AMINO ACIDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595556
MOLYBDENUM IMIDO ALKYL/ALLYL COMPLEXES FOR DEPOSITION OF MOLYBDENUM-CONTAINING FILMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594254
INTRANASAL ADMINISTRATION OF N-ACETYLCYSTEINE AND USES THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 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
80%
Grant Probability
45%
With Interview (-35.0%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 2019 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