Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/833,240

TREATMENT OF GENITOURINARY SYNDROME OF MENOPAUSE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jul 25, 2024
Priority
Jan 25, 2022 — provisional 63/302,668 +2 more
Examiner
KIFLE, BRUCK
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Michael Wempe
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allowance Rate
1369 granted / 1729 resolved
+19.2% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 10m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
1749
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.7%
-36.3% vs TC avg
§103
17.1%
-22.9% vs TC avg
§102
9.9%
-30.1% vs TC avg
§112
50.5%
+10.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1729 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12-16 and 31 are pending in this application. 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 3-7 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. The compound of claim 1 should be present in “an effective amount” in the pharmaceutical composition of claim 3 for the drug to work. Appropriate insertion of the phrase “an effective amount” following “comprising” is suggested. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kraemer et al. (US 4,713,465). The claims read on the compounds in Example 3 depicted below. RN 104567-72-8 CAPLUS CN 4H-1-Benzopyran-4-one, 2-(3,5-dibromo-4-hydroxyphenyl)-6-hydroxy-3- methyl- (CA INDEX NAME) PNG media_image1.png 185 395 media_image1.png Greyscale RN 104567-77-3 CAPLUS CN 4H-1-Benzopyran-4-one, 6-hydroxy-2-(4-hydroxy-3,5-diiodophenyl)-3- methyl- (CA INDEX NAME) PNG media_image2.png 185 395 media_image2.png Greyscale . Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De Meyer et al. (Journal of Medicinal Chemistry (1991), 34(2), 736-46). The claims read on the compound depicted below. See Abstract. RN 132020-48-5 CAPLUS CN 4H-1-Benzopyran-4-one, 6-hydroxy-2-(4-hydroxyphenyl)-3-methoxy- (CA INDEX NAME) PNG media_image3.png 210 395 media_image3.png Greyscale . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1-7 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraemer (US 4,713,465). The reference teaches a generic group of flavones which embraces applicants’ claimed compounds (See col. 1, compounds of formula (I) and definitions of the variables). The claims differ from the reference by reciting specific species and a more limited genus than the reference. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select any of the species of the genus taught by the reference, including those instantly claimed, because the skilled chemist would have the reasonable expectation that any of the species of the genus would have similar properties and, thus, the same use as taught for the genus as a whole. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the claimed compounds from the genus in the reference since such compounds would have been suggested by the reference as a whole. It has been held that a prior art disclosed genus of useful compounds is sufficient to render prima facie obvious a species falling within a genus. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423, 425 (CCPA 1971), followed by the Federal Circuit in Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 847 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ 2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Pharmaceutical compositions are formulated routinely in the art. Thus, one skilled in the art would be motivated to formulate the composition in any form including instantly claimed forms. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 9-16 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCK KIFLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0668. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 6 PM, M-F. 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. June 5, 2026 /BRUCK KIFLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1624
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 25, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12678505
LEAKAGE INHIBITING AGENT FOR LOCAL INJECTION PREPARATION, LOCAL INJECTION PREPARATION INCLUDING THE SAME, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING LOCAL INJECTION PREPARATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12673945
3-((8-((1H-PYRAZOL-4-YL)AMINO)IMIDAZO[1,2-A]PYRIDIN-3-YL)ETHINYL)-N-PHENYLBENZAMIDE DERIVATIVE, METHOD FOR PREPARING SAME, AND PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITION CONTAINING SAME AS ACTIVE INGREDIENT FOR PREVENTION OR TREATMENT OF CANCER
3y 10m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12667834
BIMETALLIC NANOALLOY COMPOSITE
3y 0m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12661358
PURINE DERIVATIVES AS DRUGS FOR THE TREATMENT OF NEONATAL HYPOXIA-ISCHEMIA BRAIN INJURY AND RELATED DISEASES
3y 8m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12655088
COMPOUND FOR TREATING ALZHEIMERS DISEASE
3y 11m to grant Granted Jun 16, 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
79%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+15.9%)
1y 10m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1729 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