Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 25, 2026
Application No. 18/560,178

PALLADIUM VINYL AND BUTADIENYL COMPOUNDS AS CHEMOTHERAPEUTIC AGENTS

Final Rejection §102§112
Filed
Nov 10, 2023
Priority
May 11, 2021 — IT 102021000012107 +1 more
Examiner
HOWELL, THEODORE R
Art Unit
1628
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
UNIVERSITÀ CA' FOSCARI VENEZIA
OA Round
2 (Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allowance Rate
690 granted / 1031 resolved
+6.9% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+25.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
1092
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.7%
-37.3% vs TC avg
§103
36.9%
-3.1% vs TC avg
§102
18.5%
-21.5% vs TC avg
§112
15.7%
-24.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1031 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20, submitted on November 10, 2023, are pending in the application. Claims 12-19 are withdrawn, and claims 1-11 and 20 are rejected or objected to for the reasons set forth below. No claim is allowed. 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 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ), Public Law 112-29, 125 Stat. 284. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I, drawn to a compound of formula (A), formula (B), or formula (C), in the reply filed on April 14, 2026 is acknowledged. Upon reconsid-eration, claim 20, drawn to compounds (II) through (IX), is hereby rejoined with Group I. The traversal is on the grounds that the Groups “are so closely related that no serious burden exists.” See applicant’s remarks, submitted April 14, 2026, at p. 3. The examiner disagrees inasmuch as the references discussed hereinbelow to not appear to represent the closest prior art with respect to Group II. Further searching of the prior art will therefore be required to determine patentability of the subject matter of Group II, which presents a serious search or examination burden. Applicant is reminded, however, that Group II would be considered for rejoinder as discussed in MPEP 821.04. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 12-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction requirement. Upon reconsideration, the requirement for a species election in the communication mailed on February 24, 2026 is hereby withdrawn. Applicant’s election thereof in the response submitted on April 14, 2026 is therefore moot. Claim Objections Claims 1, 6, 10, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities. In claims 1 and 6, at least two different substituents are named “R.” They should be renamed (e.g., “R¹,” “Rˣ,” or something similar) to avoid confusion. In claims 10 and 20, two separate and distinct compounds are labelled “(II).” At least one of them should be renumbered or renamed. Appropriate correction is required. Applicant is reminded that amendment of the claims may necessitate a corresponding amendment to the written description of the specification for consistency. 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. Claims 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inven-tor regards as the invention. The substituent X’ is undefined. Claim Rejections – 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 1-4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tohda et al., J. Chem. Soc., Chem. Comm. 1975;2:54-55. Tohda discloses (see p. 55) trans-[(PEt₃)₂,PdI{C(CO₂Me)=C(CO₂Me)-(Me)}], which is a compound according to formula (A), wherein Y is iodide, each Z is COOMe, X is methyl, and L/L’ are monodentate phosphine ligands. The CCl₄ composition described in the reference appears to be within the meaning of instant claim 11 (or at least applicant’s specification does not include any definition of “pharmaceutically acceptable excipient” that would exclude such a composi-tion). The statement “for use as a medicament” appears to be an inherent property of the com-pound and is therefore not accorded patentable weight for the reasons discussed in MPEP 2112. The subject matter of claims 2-3 has not been accorded patentable weight for the same reasons. Claims 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Canovese et al., Dalton Trans. 2009;43:9475-85. See the compounds in Scheme 2 at p. 9477. Claims 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roe et al., JCS, Dalton Transactions: Inorganic Chemistry 1975;2:125-32. See Compound X at p. 128. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Canovese1 et al., Organometallics 2005;24:3297-308. See the compounds in Scheme 1 and Scheme 2 at p. 3298, as well as the compounds in Table 1 at p. 3299. The compound in Scheme 1 wherein the ligand is DPPE, X is chlorine, and Z is COOMe is the same as compound (X) in claim 10, and it meets the limitations of claims 4-9. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Theodore R. Howell whose telephone number is (571)270-5993. The exam-iner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:00 am - 7:00 pm (Eastern Time). 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. THEODORE R. HOWELL Primary Examiner Art Unit 1628 /THEODORE R. HOWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1628 May 14, 2026 1 Cited in applicant’s information disclosure statement submitted on November 10, 2023.
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 10, 2023
Application Filed
May 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §112
Aug 05, 2026
Response Filed
Oct 19, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12766153
METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR TREATING AND/OR PREVENTING HERNIAS
1y 10m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12753203
CYCLIN-DEPENDENT KINASE INHIBITORS AND METHODS OF USE
3y 5m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Patent 12740973
TREATMENT OF NEURODEGENERATIVE EYE DISEASE USING PRIDOPIDINE
4y 11m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12708612
COMPOSITIONS FOR DISRUPTING BIOFILM FORMATION AND FOR TREATING BIOFILM-RELATED DISORDERS
3y 11m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Patent 12637436
METABOTROPIC GLUTAMATE RECEPTOR NEGATIVE ALLOSTERIC MODULATORS (NAMS) AND USES THEREOF
3y 9m to grant Granted May 26, 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
67%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+25.1%)
2y 7m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1031 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