Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 04, 2026
Application No. 18/662,524

Isoquinoline Derivatives, Methods of Synthesis and Uses Thereof

Non-Final OA §102§DP
Filed
May 13, 2024
Priority
Jun 30, 2020 — provisional 63/046,219 +1 more
Examiner
SHTERENGARTS, SAMANTHA L
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Prosetta Biosciences Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allowance Rate
1350 granted / 1699 resolved
+19.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
58 currently pending
Career history
1727
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.6%
-36.4% vs TC avg
§103
14.8%
-25.2% vs TC avg
§102
24.7%
-15.3% vs TC avg
§112
34.7%
-5.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1699 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §DP
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 2. PNG media_image1.png 112 632 media_image1.png Greyscale Information Disclosure Statement 3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on May 13, 2024 and August 6, 2024 were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. The IDS documents were considered. A signed copy of each form 1449 is enclosed herewith. Election/Restrictions 4. In accordance with the MPEP 803.02, if upon examination of the elected species, no prior art is found that would anticipate or render obvious the instant invention based on the elected species, the search of the Markush-type claim will be extended (see MPEP 803.02). If prior art is then found that anticipates or renders obvious the non-elected species, the Markush-type claim will be rejected. It should be noted that the prior art search will not be extended unnecessarily to cover all non-elected species. Should Applicant overcome the rejection by amending the claim, the amended claim will be reexamined. Id. The prior art search will be extended to the extent necessary to determine patentability of the Markush-type claim. Id. In the event prior art is found during reexamination that renders obvious or anticipates the amended Markush-type claim, the claim will be rejected and the action made final. Id. 5. As per MPEP 803.02, the Examiner will determine whether the entire scope of the claims is patentable. Applicants' elected species PNG media_image2.png 199 180 media_image2.png Greyscale makes a contribution over the prior art of record. Therefore, according to MPEP 803.02: should the elected species appear allowable, the search of the Markush-type claim will be extended. The Markush-type claim shall be rejected and claims to the nonelected invention held withdrawn from further consideration. It has been determined that the entire scope claimed is not patentable. Status of Claims 6. Claims 1, 5, 6, and 21 are pending and under consideration in the instant application. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 7. 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 8. Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CAS Registry Number: RN 1543232-16-1. [Database Registry Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio, Accession No. RN 1543232-16-1, Entered STN: 13 Feb 2014]. PNG media_image3.png 340 452 media_image3.png Greyscale RN 1543232-16-1 anticipates compounds of formula (I) wherein R1 is H, R2 is H, R3 is F, R4 is H, R5 is H, R6 is H, R7 is H. R8 is H, X is CH2, R9 is substituted aryl. Registry number 1543232-16-1 is available as prior art as of 13 Feb 2014, the day it was indexed into the CAS database. See MPEP 2128: ELECTRONIC PUBLICATIONS AS PRIOR ART Status as a "Printed Publication" An electronic publication, including an on-line database or Internet publication, is considered to be a “printed publication” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (b) provided the publication was accessible to persons concerned with the art to which the document relates. See In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 227, 210 USPQ 790, 795 (CCPA 1981) Since this date represents the date that each compound entered the CAS database on STN, this represents the date that each compound was made accessible to the public. The aforementioned compounds anticipate the instantly claimed compounds: It is further noted that for the purposes of determining if a reference is a “printed publication” for the purposes of 102(b), MPEP 2128 states the following: PNG media_image4.png 181 880 media_image4.png Greyscale where “prior art disclosures…on an on-line database are considered to be publicly available as of the date the item was publicly posted.” Since each of the database entries above lists the date that each compound was entered into the on-line database, the compounds were made publicly available as of that date in each citation, and the claims are anticipated. Double Patenting 9. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. 10. Claims 1, 5, 6, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,024,521. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,024,521 anticipate and are fully encompassed by the instant claims, specifically the species of claims 3 and 7. Conclusion 11. No claims are allowed. 12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Samantha Shterengarts whose telephone number is (571)270-5316. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday 9-6pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. Adam Milligan can be reached on 571-270-7674. 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. /SAMANTHA L SHTERENGARTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1623
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 13, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12746288
IONIZABLE CATIONIC LIPID ANALOG MATERIAL AND USE THEREOF AS DRUG DELIVERY CARRIER
3y 1m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12747220
A METHOD FOR PREPARATION OF 1-(2-((2,4-DIMETHYLPHENYL)THIO)PHENYL) PIPERAZINE AND ITS SALTS
3y 2m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12747221
GLUN2B-SUBUNIT SELECTIVE ANTAGONISTS OF THE N-METHYL-D-ASPARTATE RECEPTORS WITH ENHANCED POTENCY AT ACIDIC PH
2y 7m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12741954
FUSED HETEROARYL HYDROXAMATES AS STING AGONISTS
3y 8m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12740561
HETEROCYCLIC COMPOUNDS FOR THE CONTROL OF INVERTEBRATE PESTS
2y 6m to grant Granted Sep 22, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+8.0%)
2y 1m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1699 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