Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/495,512

FIBROTIC TREATMENT

Final Rejection §102§DP
Filed
Oct 26, 2023
Examiner
HENLEY III, RAYMOND J
Art Unit
1629
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Monash University
OA Round
3 (Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
2y 0m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
1041 granted / 1248 resolved
+23.4% vs TC avg
Minimal +2% lift
Without
With
+2.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
1279
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.0%
-36.0% vs TC avg
§103
19.4%
-20.6% vs TC avg
§102
10.0%
-30.0% vs TC avg
§112
30.1%
-9.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1248 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §DP
CLAIMS 44-67 ARE PRESENTED FOR 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 . Applicant’s response/amendment filed August 22, 2025 has been received and entered into the application. Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 68-74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chai et al., (WO 2009/065169; already of record, see Applicant’s IDS dated 10/26/23). Chai teaches formulations comprising an inhibitor of IRAP activity, (pg. 24, line 24 – pg. 25, line 4) which may have a physiologically acceptable excipient present, (e.g., pg. 7, lines 24-26), and which may be presented in the various dosage form types as in present claims 69-70, (pg. 30, line 30 – pg. 31, line 15). The functional, i.e., intended use, language “for treating kidney fibrosis” in claim 67 does not impart a patentable distinction to the formulation of claim 67 because it does not serve to define a physical characteristic present in the claim 67 formulation not present in the formulation of Chai. Also, it is noted that 71-74 recite physiological activities of the active agent which are inherent to the active agent. Being necessarily present, such activities would also be in the formulations of Chai, whether recited therein or not, because the same active agent, i.e., an inhibitor of IRAP, is present. Double Patenting Non-Statutory Claims 44-68 and 71-74 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over (a) claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,834,663 or (b) claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,787,668 or (c) claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 10,100,311, (each cited by Applicant), each of record, for the reasons of record set forth in the previous Office action dated November 07, 2024, as applied to claims 44-67, which reasons are here incorporated by reference. Newly added claims 68 and 71-74 are properly rejected. Claim 68 corresponds to previously presented claim 67. The functional language “for treating kidney fibrosis” in claim 67 does not impart a patentable distinction to the formulation of claim 67 because it does not serve to define a physical characteristic present in the claim 67 formulation not present in the claim 68 formulation. Newly added claims 71-74 recite physiological activities of the active agent which are inherent to the active agent. Being necessarily present, such activities would also be in the formulation of claim 68, whether recited therein or not, because the same active agent, i.e., an inhibitor of IRAP, is present. Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, but fail to persuade the Examiner of error in his determination of nonstatutory double patenting. In particular, Applicant has argued that claim 67, directed not to a method but to a formulation, was not addressed in the Examiner’s rejection. In response, it is noted that the formulation claim was not specifically addressed by the Examiner. However, insofar as the claimed formulation is employed in the methods which were addressed by the Examiner, it is clear that one of ordinary skill in the art would have necessarily appreciated that the references also teach the formulation invention of present claim 67. As such, claim 67 was correctly included in the claim grouping subject to rejection, even if not expressly identified in the body of the Examiner’s rejection. Accordingly, for the above reasons, the claims are deemed to remain properly rejected and none are currently in condition for allowance. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RAYMOND J HENLEY III whose telephone number is (571)272-0575. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 6-2:30pm EST. 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, Jeffrey S Lundgren can be reached on 571-272-5541. 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. /RAYMOND J HENLEY III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1629 November 24, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 26, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 04, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §DP
Dec 09, 2024
Response Filed
Mar 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §DP
Aug 22, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 24, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599604
APPLICATION OF JAK INHIBITOR IN KIDNEY DISEASE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594278
METHOD FOR TREATMENT OF MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595269
BRIDGED RING COMPOUNDS AND THEIR THERAPEUTIC USE AS CNS AGENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589097
APILIMOD COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS OF USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582631
METHODS OF IMPROVING RENAL FUNCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+2.1%)
2y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1248 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