Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/464,519

METHODS OF TREATING GASTROINTESTINAL STROMAL TUMORS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 11, 2023
Examiner
VALENROD, YEVGENY
Art Unit
1628
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Deciphera Pharmaceuticals LLC
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
727 granted / 1000 resolved
+12.7% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
1040
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
36.8%
-3.2% vs TC avg
§102
18.0%
-22.0% vs TC avg
§112
21.5%
-18.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1000 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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/21/26 has been entered. Maintained rejection Rejection of claim 6 under 35 USC 103 over Medscape is maintained. Reply to applicants’ remarks follows the repeated text of the rejection of record. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medscape (ripretinib Rx https://web.archive.org/web/20200614140745/https://reference.medscape.com/drug/qinlock-ripretinib-4000074; publication online 6/13/2020). Scope of prior art On page 1, Medscape discloses that ripretinib is indicated for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor at a dose of 150mg/day. On page 2, with regards to Hepatic impairment, Medscape discloses that no dose adjustment is necessary for mild hepatic impairment. Regarding moderate or severe hepatic impairment, Medscape states that the recommended dosage has not been established. Ascertaining the difference Claims limit the subject population to individuals with pre-existing Child-Pugh class C severe hepatic impairment. While Med scape teaches 150mg dose for mild hepatic impairment (no dose adjustment is necessary), it teaches that the proper dose adjustment for treatment of subjects with severe hepatic impairment has not been established. Obviousness At issue is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to determine a proper dose for treatment of subjects GIST with pre-existing severe hepatic impairment. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious treat an individual with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor in a subject in need thereof by administering to said subject 150mg/day of ripretinib. Medscape teaches that 150mg dose is sufficient for treatment of the stromal tumor and that mild hepatic impairment does not affect the recommended dosage. While no dose recommendation for moderate to severe hepatic impairment is provided, a skilled practitioner would have found it obvious to determine the proper dose. It would have been obvious to start with 150mg daily dose suggested for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor and to adjust the dose if needed. For dose modification Medscape teaches starting with 150mg/day and reducing to 100mg/day if the dose is not well tolerated. According to Medscape guidance the currently claimed 150mg/day dose is the dose a skilled practitioner would start with in an effort to optimize the dose for a given subject. Administration of a 150mg dose to a subject with pre-existing Child-Pugh class C severe hepatic impairment is therefore obvious. While Medscape recites “severe hepatic impairment” not “Child-Pugh class C severe hepatic impairment”, both recitations are directed to advanced liver disfunction. Reply to applicants’ arguments Remarks filed on 1/21/26 have been fully considered and found to be not convincing. On page 1 of the remarks applicants argue that examiner used an obvious to try rational that requires selection from a finite number of identified, predictable solution, with a reasonable expectation of success. This statement is not correct. No argument directed to selection of parameters from a finite number of possibilities has been presented in the rejection of record. Applicant argue that Medscape does not recommend a 150mg once daily dose for treatment of advanced gastrointestinal stomal tumor for a Child Pugh Class C patient. Applicants are correct. Medscape teaches 150mg once daily oral dose for treatment of gastrointestinal stomal tumors including for patients with mild hepatic impairment, but no dose recommendation for severe hepatic impairment. Applicants further argue that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to select the claimed 150mg once daily dose for treatment of advanced gastrointestinal stomal tumor for a Child Pugh Class C patient. Examiner disagrees with the applicant. The disease to be treated is advanced gastrointestinal stomal tumor. For treatment of said disease Medscape recommends 150mg/day oral dose. In order to determine if modification in dose or frequency is required for Child Pugh Class C patient, it would have been obvious to administer the once daily dose recommended for treatment of gastrointestinal stomal tumors and see if the recommended dose is well tolerated. The 150mg/day dose is not a random treatment regiment selected from numerous other possibilities, as argued by applicant. It is the recommended dose for treatment of advanced gastrointestinal stomal tumor. For these reasons applicants arguments are not found to be convincing and the rejection of record is maintained. Conclusion Claim 6 is pending Claims 6 is rejected Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEVGENY VALENROD whose telephone number is (571)272-9049. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-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. /YEVGENY VALENROD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1628
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 11, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 18, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 21, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 04, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jun 06, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 10, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 16, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 16, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 21, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 27, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590100
TETRAHYDRO-SPIROINDOLINE-PYRROLOPYRROLE-TRIONES INHIBITORS OF THE NRF2-BETA-TRCP INTERACTION FOR USE IN THE TREATMENT OF FATTY LIVER DISEASE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12576070
MEDICINE FOR IMPROVING STATE OF PREGNANCY, AND USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576044
TREATMENT OF ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576065
ENHANCING AUTOPHAGY OR INCREASING LONGEVITY BY ADMINISTRATION OF UROLITHINS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12558352
Use of Malic Enzyme 1 (ME1) in Preparation of Drug for Preventing and Treating Pulmonary Hypertension (PH)
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+25.8%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1000 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