Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/550,468

6-CARBAMATE SUBSTITUTED HETEROARYL RING DERIVATIVES

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Sep 14, 2023
Examiner
FETTEROLF, BRANDON J
Art Unit
1626
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Medshine Discovery Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
48%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 1m
To Grant
60%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 48% of resolved cases
48%
Career Allow Rate
84 granted / 177 resolved
-12.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 1m
Avg Prosecution
80 currently pending
Career history
257
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.4%
-37.6% vs TC avg
§103
28.5%
-11.5% vs TC avg
§102
19.6%
-20.4% vs TC avg
§112
28.4%
-11.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 177 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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Application Status The preliminary amendment filed on 9/14/2023 is acknowledged. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11-12, 15-17, 20-24, 26-29 and 31 are currently pending and under consideration. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed on 6/05/2024 has been considered except where lined through. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11-12, 15-17, 20-24, 26-29 and 31 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. Regarding claim 1, Claim 1 is drawn to a compound of formula (II): PNG media_image1.png 137 146 media_image1.png Greyscale ., wherein R4, R5 together with the carbon atom to which they are attached form PNG media_image2.png 46 38 media_image2.png Greyscale . Many of the dependent claims further limit the various “R” groups such as claim 4 which recites “…or, each Rc is independently selected from F, Cl, … and PNG media_image3.png 30 40 media_image3.png Greyscale ; ….”. In the instant case, it is unclear if the “---” represents a bond to a methyl group, a bond to an undefined radical that can be any group or represents a portion of the formula II. The plain meaning of “---”, indicates that it is reasonable to interpret it as a methyl group. This is because in standard shorthand nomenclature, hydrogens on carbon atoms are omitted. J. Brecher, Graphical Representation Standards for Chemical Structure Diagrams (IUPAC Recommendations 2008), 80 Pure Appl. Chem. 277-410 (2008) (“Brecher”) (see page 300 “GR-2.1.2 Labeling of carbon atoms”; see also Brecher at page 396 (“[w]hen a structural fragment is drawn with explicit bonds, the location of its attachment point should be shown explicitly. The attachment point should not be implied simply by the absence of a hydrogen atom on a drawn structure”)). However, the specification and claims appear to contradict interpreting “---” as a methyl group. For example, claim 15 recites “… the structural moiety PNG media_image4.png 65 232 media_image4.png Greyscale . As such, it would appear that “---” of PNG media_image2.png 46 38 media_image2.png Greyscale actually represents a portion of benzene ring of formula II and not a methyl. Because the meaning of the subject “---" within the claimed structures cannot be determined based on its plain meaning or in view of the speciation, and can have alternative exclusive interpretations, the claims are indefinite. Please note: claims 1, 4-6, 11-12 and 15-17 all contain a “---” bond. Conclusion Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11-12, 15-17, 20-24, 26-29 and 31 are free of the prior art. WO2018/115380A1 to Gmachi et al. (2018-06-28) (IDS) and Zhang et al. (US2010/0009958A1, 2010-01-14) are considered to be the closest prior art to the instant invention. Gmachi et al. teach benzylamino substituted quinazolines having the general structure PNG media_image5.png 133 130 media_image5.png Greyscale , wherein R1 is O-RA which are useful for treatment of diseases such as cancer. The compounds of Gmachi et al. differ from the instantly claimed compounds because RA of Gmachi et al. are either cycloalkyl or heterocyclyl vs. the carboxamide as claimed and there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to substitute one for the other. Zhang et al. teach quinazoline compounds having the formula PNG media_image6.png 142 181 media_image6.png Greyscale which are useful for treating cancer. In particular, Zhang et al. teach a compound having the structure PNG media_image7.png 175 353 media_image7.png Greyscale which differs from the instantly claimed compound by the -NC(O)N of the prior art vs. the -OC(O)N in the claimed compounds. There is no teaching or suggestion by the prior art that would have motivated one of skill to substitute -NC(O)N for -OC(O)N to arrive at the claimed invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON J FETTEROLF whose telephone number is (571)272-2919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM. 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 at 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 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. BRANDON J. FETTEROLF, PHD Primary Patent Examiner Art Unit 1626 /BRANDON J FETTEROLF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1626
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 14, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594274
METHOD FOR PREPARING A CRYSTALLINE FORM OF RABEXIMOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595245
INHIBITORS OF MET KINASE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577233
SOLID FORMS OF APOL1 INHIBITOR AND METHODS OF USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570640
2-AMINOQUINAZOLINES AS LRRK2 INHIBITORS, PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITIONS, AND USES THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570615
NEW QUINAZOLINONE DERIVATIVES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
48%
Grant Probability
60%
With Interview (+13.0%)
4y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 177 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