Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/462,235

METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR DELIVERING MYCOPHENOLIC ACID ACTIVE AGENTS TO NON-HUMAN MAMMALS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 06, 2023
Examiner
YOUNG, MICAH PAUL
Art Unit
1618
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Okava Pharmaceuticals Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
55%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 55% of resolved cases
55%
Career Allow Rate
531 granted / 965 resolved
-5.0% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+30.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
1018
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
55.3%
+15.3% vs TC avg
§102
20.0%
-20.0% vs TC avg
§112
9.7%
-30.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 965 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 nonobviousness. Claim(s) 95 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker et al (US 2007/0036857 hereafter Becker) in view of Jain (US 9,642,808 hereafter Jain). Becker discloses a pharmaceutical formulation comprising a plurality of particulate subunits comprising a core having a diameter less than 3 mm, 0.2 to 2 mm [0017, 0018]. The active layer is disposed over a portion of the core and comprises mycophenolic acid, such as sodium mycophenolate [0051], a controlled-release layer disposed over the core and an protective enteric layer disposed over the controlled release layer [0045, 0054, Example]. These disclosures meet the limitation of claim 95, i-iv. The reference, while disclosing a pharmaceutical formulation comprising a plurality of particulate subunits comprising core having less than 3 mm, an active layer disposed on the core, a controlled-release layer and a protective layer comprising methacrylate disposed over the protective layer. The reference does not however disclose the plasma concentration of the dosage form. These release kinetics are known in the art as seen in the Jain patent. Jain disclose an extended release formulation for mycophenolate sodium (abstract). Jain discloses a formulation comprising a plurality of subunit particles that measure about 390 microns, which is less than 3 mm (col. 16, lin. 42-53). The particles are coated with a drug layer, followed by a protective layer and a methacrylate layer (col. 20, lin. 15-20; col. 20, lin. 25-30, Example 19). These dosage forms are administered orally and over an 8 hour period, achieves an average plasma of about 1600 ng/ml (col. 22, lin. 45-col. 23, lin. 45). The formulation is useful in reducing gastrointestinal events including diarrhea, and emesis in patients upon administration that are normally associated with mycophenolate sodium (Table 1). It would have been obvious apply the formulations into an extended release formulations as they solve the same problem as Becker. Regarding the reduction of lymphocyte proliferation in blood samples, and gastrointestinal effects, it is the position of the Examiner that the combination of the prior art would meet these limitations as well. The claims are drawn to a pharmaceutical formulation comprising a plurality of cores, drug layers, a controlled release layer and a protective methacrylate layer, where the formulation achieves an average plasma of 1600, between the 250-3000 ng/ml over the same period of time. The remaining features would naturally fall from the administration of the formulations as they fall from the compositional features of the formulation. These reductions in lymphocytes in whole blood as measured by a monoclonal antibody Ki-67, and reduction in GI events are properties that result from the combination of compositional components that form the product. They are the properties of the pharmaceutical product and as such cannot be separated from the product. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). For these reasons, it would have been obvious to combine the prior part with an expected result of an oral formulation useful in treating immunosuppressant indicated diseases. It would have been obvious that the formulation of Becker would have a plasma concentration as seen in Jain as they have similar structure and function. Jain establishes the level of skill in the art regarding the kinetics of these formulation and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to follow these teachings and apply them to the formulation Becker as they solve a similar problem. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art with an expected result of a stable pharmaceutical formulation useful in treating immunosuppressant conditions. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICAH PAUL YOUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-0608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 am to 5:30 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, Michael Hartley can be reached at 5712720616. 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. /MICAH PAUL YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1618
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 06, 2023
Application Filed
Apr 22, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594364
BONE VOID FILLER PREPARATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594250
PREVENTION OF ACCUMULATED TOLERANCE TO STIMULANT MEDICATION FOR THE TREATMENT OF ADHD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12569557
TARGETING moDC TO ENHANCE VACCINE EFFICACY ON MUCOSAL SURFACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564587
BUPROPION DOSAGE FORMS WITH REDUCED FOOD AND ALCOHOL DOSING EFFECTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12551486
NOVEL RIVAROXABAN FORMULATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
55%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+30.1%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 965 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