Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/502,780

NOVEL PRMT5 INHIBITORS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Nov 06, 2023
Priority
Dec 16, 2020 — provisional 63/126,416 +1 more
Examiner
COLEMAN, BRENDA LIBBY
Art Unit
1624
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Amgen, Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allowance Rate
1208 granted / 1617 resolved
+14.7% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
1656
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.8%
-37.2% vs TC avg
§103
9.5%
-30.5% vs TC avg
§102
12.3%
-27.7% vs TC avg
§112
49.8%
+9.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1617 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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Claims 1-3, 5, 11-13, 15, 32-40 and 45-64 are pending in the application. This action is in response to applicants' amendment dated October 28, 2025. Claims 1, 51-56, 58-62 and 64 have been amended. Response to Amendment Applicant's arguments filed October 28, 2025 have been fully considered with the following effect: With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph rejection, labeled paragraph 4) in the last office action, the applicant’s amendments and remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicants stated that Claims 1 and 56 have each been amended to specify that the MTAP-null cancer is ovarian cancer, lung cancer, esophageal cancer, glioblastoma, melanoma, bile duct cancer, pancreatic cancer, bladder cancer, gallbladder cancer, kidney cancer, “gastrointestinal cancer”, mesothelioma, neuroendocrine cancer or salivary gland cancer. However, independent claim 39 has not been amended to specify the MTAP-null cancer as was done in independent claims 1 and 56, thus the rejection is herein maintained with respect to claim 39 and claims dependent thereof. Claims 39, 40 and 45-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for ovarian cancer, lung cancer, esophageal cancer, glioblastoma melanoma, bile duct cancer, pancreatic cancer, bladder cancer, gallbladder cancer, kidney cancer, mesothelioma, neuroendocrine cancer, or salivary gland cancer, does not reasonably provide enablement for MTAP-null cancer. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims, for reasons of record and stated above. The applicant's amendments and arguments are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejections, labeled paragraph 5d) and f) in the last office action, which are hereby withdrawn. However, with regards to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejections, labeled paragraph 5a), b), c) and e) of the last office action, the applicant’s amendments and remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. a) The applicants’ failed to comment on the lack of antecedent basis of the species in claim 45 from which claim 46 depends. Claim 46 is 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 applicant regards as the invention, for reasons of record and stated above. b) The applicants’ failed to comment on the lack of antecedent basis of the species in claim 45 from which claim 47 depends. Claim 47 is 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 applicant regards as the invention, for reasons of record and stated above. c) The applicants’ failed to comment on the lack of antecedent basis of the species in claim 45 from which claim 48 depends. Claim 48 is 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 applicant regards as the invention, for reasons of record and stated above. e) The applicants’ failed to comment on the lack of antecedent basis of the species in claim 45 from which claim 50 depends. Claim 50 is 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 applicant regards as the invention, for reasons of record and stated above. In view of the amendment dated October 28, 2025, the following new grounds of rejection apply: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-3, 5, 11-13, 15, 32-38, 56 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The amendment to claims 1 and 56 where the list of MTAP-null cancers included “gastrointestinal cancer” is not described in the specification with respect to the compounds of Formula I. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office action. Claim Objections Claims 51-55 and 58-62 are 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. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 63 and 64 are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDA L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0665. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6 (flex). 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 H. Murray can be reached at 571-272-9023. 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. /BRENDA L COLEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1624
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 06, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 11, 2024
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Mar 10, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 29, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Oct 28, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 29, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12637463
TRICYCLIC KINASE INHIBITORS AND USES THEREOF
4y 1m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12637429
NOVEL OXIDIZED LAPPACONITINE DERIVATIVE AND USE THEREOF
3y 8m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12636310
THERAPEUTIC AGENT FOR SHORT TEAR BREAKUP TIME-TYPE DRY EYE AND EYE DROPS CONTAINING SAME
3y 0m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12630565
DNA-DEPENDENT PROTEIN KINASE INHIBITOR
4y 5m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12629359
STRUCTURAL ANALOGUES OF METHYLPHENIDATE AS PARKINSON'S DISEASE-MODIFYING AGENTS
3y 3m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+15.7%)
2y 4m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1617 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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