Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/362,034

PIPERIDINYLPYRIDINYLCARBONITRILE DERIVATIVES AS INHIBITORS OF GLUTAMINYL-PEPTIDE CYCLOTRANSFERASE AND GLUTAMINYL-PEPTIDE CYCLOTRANSFERASE LIKE PROTEIN

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jul 31, 2023
Examiner
MOTEVALLI, OROD
Art Unit
1628
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 0% of cases
0%
Career Allow Rate
0 granted / 0 resolved
-60.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
16
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.1%
-35.9% vs TC avg
§103
40.5%
+0.5% vs TC avg
§102
8.1%
-31.9% vs TC avg
§112
32.4%
-7.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 0 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-5, 8-12 are rejected to and under examination. Claim 7 is objected to and under examination. 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 . Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). A certified copy was received on 11/21/2023. Status of the Claims Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14 are pending. Claim 14 is withdrawn. Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are examined. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 7 is 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. 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. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); 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); 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) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-5, 8-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the following claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/789,814 (referred to as co-pending ‘814): 1,2,9, and 10-13 (for present claims 1-5, 8-12). Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from one another because the claims of the copending application are also drawn to the same structures of the instant application, with comparable limitations such as formulation modifications using the claimed compound. The copending claims 1,2,9, and 10-13 are all drawn to the same compounds and formulations thereof as taught in Applicant’s claims 1-5, and 8-14. Applicant’s claim 7 shows a structure with the nitrogen in an alternative position, which is not taught by the copending 18/789,814. It would have been prima facie obvious to one skilled in the art to arrive at the Applicant’s instant claims, in view of the claims of copending application 18/789,814. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-5, 8-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the following claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/789,815 (referred to as co-pending ‘815): 1-14 (for present claims 1-5, 8-12). Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from one another because the claims of the copending application are also drawn to the same structures of the instant application, with comparable limitations such as formulation modifications using the claimed compound. The copending claims 1-14 are all drawn to the same compounds and formulations thereof as taught in Applicant’s claims 1-5, and 8-14. Applicant’s claim 7 shows a structure with the nitrogen in an alternative position, which is not taught by the copending 18/789,815. It would have been prima facie obvious to one skilled in the art to arrive at the Applicant’s instant claims, in view of the claims of copending application 18/789,815. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-5, 8-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the following claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/789,818 (referred to as co-pending ‘818): 1, 6, and 9-13 (for present claims 1-5, 8-12). Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from one another because the claims of the copending application are also drawn to the same structures of the instant application, with comparable limitations such as formulation modifications using the claimed compound. The copending claims 1, 6, and 9-13 are all drawn to the same compounds and formulations thereof as taught in Applicant’s claims 1-5, and 8-14, differing by only minor halogen or methyl side groups that are not patentably distinct, as seen in Applicant’s claim 8, and copending claim 6. Applicant’s claim 7 shows a structure with the nitrogen in an alternative position, which is not taught by the copending 18/789,818. It would have been prima facie obvious to one skilled in the art to arrive at the Applicant’s instant claims, in view of the claims of copending application 18/789,818. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OROD MOTEVALLI whose telephone number is (571)272-6026. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM - 5PM. 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, Amy L Clark can be reached at (571) 272-1310. 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. /OROD MOTEVALLI/Examiner, Art Unit 1628 /JARED BARSKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1628
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 31, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

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
Grant Probability
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 0 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