Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/381,943

Tricyclic Urea Compounds As JAK2 V617F Inhibitors

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Oct 19, 2023
Examiner
ISMAIL, REHANA
Art Unit
1625
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Incyte Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
56 granted / 71 resolved
+18.9% vs TC avg
Strong +29% interview lift
Without
With
+29.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
112
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.0%
-36.0% vs TC avg
§103
27.3%
-12.7% vs TC avg
§102
20.0%
-20.0% vs TC avg
§112
25.5%
-14.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 71 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 . 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. Current Status of 18/381,943 This Office Action is in response to the amended claims of 02/24/2026. Claims 1-2 currently amended; claims 17,38-40, and 42 are original; and claims 3-16, 18-37, 41 and 43 are previously presented. Claims 1-43 are examined in this office action. Examiner has withdrawn claim objections on record. Examiner is maintaining 112 rejection over claims 21 and 23. Examiner have withdrawn 112 rejections over claims 3-4,7,14,19-20, 24-28 and 30-34. Priority The effective filing date is 10/21/2022 Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/18/2025, 11/20/2025 and 02/24/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Response to Argument Examiner acknowledges the receipt of applicant’s claim amendment and remarks of 02/24/2026. Examiner have reviewed these remarks and amendments. Regarding claim objection, applicant amended claim 40 by deleting the parentheticals. Regarding 112 rejections, applicant amended claims 1 and 2 by adding the limitation “wherein each hydrogen atom is optionally replaced by deuterium”, rendering moot 112 rejections. Therefore 112 rejection is withdrawn. Regarding 112 rejections over claim 21, applicant did amend the claims to over come the rejection. Therefore 112 rejection over claim 21 is maintained. Regarding 112 rejections over claim 23, applicant did amend the claims to overcome the rejection. Therefore 112 rejection over claim 23is maintained. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (maintained for claim 21 and 23) 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 21 and 23 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 21 recites the limitation of formula I in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for formula I in claim 1. Claim 1 does not contain the limitation “formula I”. As drafted, “formula I” in claim 21 renders the metes and bounds of claim 21 undefined. Hence renders claim 21 indefinite, since artisan does not know where “formula I” is in claim 1. Claim 1 does contain -- formula Ia -- . Revising claim 21 to cite -- … wherein the compound of formula Ia is a compound of formula II -- will render moot this rejection. For comparison, see claim 22, which contains proper antecedent basis. Claim 23 recites the limitation formula III in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for formula III in claim 23. Claim 23 does not contain the limitation “formula III”. As drafted, “formula III” in claim 23 renders the metes and bounds of claim 23 undefined. Hence renders claim 23 indefinite, since artisan does not know where “formula III” is in claim 23. 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 21 and 23 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. Dependent claim 21, refers to “formula I” and fails to properly further limit base claim 1, since claim 1 has no limitations drawn to formula I. Thus claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) Revising claim 21 to cite -- … wherein the compound of formula Ia is a compound of formula II -- will render moot this rejection. For comparison, see claim 22, which further limits claim 1 properly. Dependent claim 23, refers to “formula III” and fails to properly further limit base claim 22, since claim 22 has no limitations drawn to formula III Thus claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) Revising claim 23 to cite -- … wherein the compound of formula V is a compound of formula Va -- will render moot this rejection. For comparison, see claim 22, which further limits claim 1 properly. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). Conclusion Claims 21 and 23 are rejected. Claims 1-20, 22, and 24-43 are allowable as written. Close art of Darius et.al (US-20240376124-A1) discloses compound PNG media_image1.png 223 245 media_image1.png Greyscale (page 48, paragraph [0601]) where the circled area is not present in compound of formula Ia or formula I of instant claim 1 or 2. Artisan skilled in the art would not be able to envision any obvious modification or rationale to make these changes in structure. Moreover, publication date of Darius is November 14th 2024 which is after the prior date of the instant claims. Therefore, Darius et.al. is a close art not a prior art. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rehana Ismail whose telephone number is (703)756-4776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm. 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, Andrew D Kosar can be reached at (571)272-913. 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. /R.I./Examiner, Art Unit 1625 /JOHN S KENYON/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1625
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 19, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Feb 24, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 21, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599613
COMPOSITION COMPRISING DUTASTERIDE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599555
FORMULATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593844
METHOD AND COMPOUNDS TO INDUCE PLANT TOLERANCE AGAINST ARTHROPOD PESTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595246
CRYSTALLINE AND AMORPHOUS FORMS OF N-(5-((4-ETHYLPIPERAZIN-1-YL)METHYL)PYRIDINE-2-YL)-5-FLUORO-4-(3-ISOPROPYL-2-METHYL-2H-INDAZOL-5-YL)PYRIMIDIN-2-AMINE AND ITS SALTS, AND PREPARATION METHODS AND THERAPEUTIC USES THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577196
QUATERNARY AMINE COMPOUNDS WITH ISOPROPYLMETHYLPHENOL ESTER MOIETIES AS ANTIVIRALS, ANTIBACTERIALS AND ANTIMYCOTICS
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+29.4%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 71 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