Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/868,772

CRYSTALLINE FORMS OF SODIUM (5-(4-BROMOPHENYL)-6-(2-((5-BROMOPYRIMIDIN-2-YL)OXY)ETHOXY)PYRIMIDIN-4-YL)(SULFAMOYL)AMIDE

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Nov 24, 2024
Priority
May 25, 2022 — EU PCT/EP2022/064253 +1 more
Examiner
KOSACK, JOSEPH R
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Idorsia Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
9m
Est. Remaining
69%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allowance Rate
970 granted / 1296 resolved
+14.8% vs TC avg
Minimal -6% lift
Without
With
+-6.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
1307
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.1%
-36.9% vs TC avg
§103
27.4%
-12.6% vs TC avg
§102
22.8%
-17.2% vs TC avg
§112
29.9%
-10.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1296 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13-17 are pending in the present application. 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 The claim to priority as a 371 filing of PCT/EP2023/064065 filed on May 25, 2023, which claims benefit of PCT/EP2022/064253 filed on May 25, 2022 is acknowledged in the present application file. 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. Claim 15 is 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 present claim is drawn to a method of treating or preventing various diseases and disorders by administering a crystalline compound of claim 1. The list of diseases including “a connective tissue disease, a diabetic complication, a complication of vascular or cardiac surgery or after organ transplantation, a complication of cyclosporin treatment.” The present specification only provides description with respect to inhibiting endothelin receptors. See page 1, lines 11-17 of the present specification as filed. There is no description as to how additional diseases and disorders that are not associated with inhibiting endothelin receptors can be treated the presently claimed compounds. The Applicant is reminded of the written description guidelines set out by the USPTO in MPEP 2163: The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice (see i)(A) above), reduction to drawings (see i)(B) above), or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see i)(C) above). See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. The genus of the treatment of diseases including “a connective tissue disease, a diabetic complication, a complication of vascular or cardiac surgery or after organ transplantation, a complication of cyclosporin treatment” is not sufficiently detailed to show that the Applicant was in possession of the full scope of the claimed invention at the time of filing. Namely, that the definitions described above, while not being indefinite, are not sufficiently detailed in order to stand on their own as being adequately described. Therefore, the “representative number of species” standard is used to determine whether the claims are adequately described. MPEP 2163 goes on to describe what a "representative number of species" is: Satisfactory disclosure of a "representative number" depends on whether one of skill in the art would recognize that the applicant was in possession of the necessary common attributes or features possessed by the members of the genus in view of the species disclosed. For inventions in an unpredictable art, adequate written description of a genus which embraces widely variant species cannot be achieved by disclosing only one species within the genus. See, e.g., Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. Instead, the disclosure must adequately reflect the structural diversity of the claimed genus, either through the disclosure of sufficient species that are "representative of the full variety or scope of the genus," or by the establishment of "a reasonable structure-function correlation." Such correlations may be established "by the inventor as described in the specification," or they may be "known in the art at the time of the filing date." See AbbVie, 759 F.3d at 1300-01, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790-91 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Holding that claims to all human antibodies that bind IL-12 with a particular binding affinity rate constant (i.e., koff) were not adequately supported by a specification describing only a single type of human antibody having the claimed features because the disclosed antibody was not representative of other types of antibodies in the claimed genus, as demonstrated by the fact that other disclosed antibodies had different types of heavy and light chains, and shared only a 50% sequence similarity in their variable regions with the disclosed antibodies.). Description of a representative number of species does not require the description to be of such specificity that it would provide individual support for each species that the genus embraces. For example, in the molecular biology arts, if an applicant disclosed an amino acid sequence, it would be unnecessary to provide an explicit disclosure of nucleic acid sequences that encoded the amino acid sequence. Since the genetic code is widely known, a disclosure of an amino acid sequence would provide sufficient information such that one would accept that an applicant was in possession of the full genus of nucleic acids encoding a given amino acid sequence, but not necessarily any particular species. Cf. In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 785, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 382, 29 USPQ2d 1550, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1994). If a representative number of adequately described species are not disclosed for a genus, the claim to that genus must be rejected as lacking adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. The specie of the inhibition of endothelin receptors in order to treat disease in the specification does not cover the entire genus such that it is a representative sample of the genus as the species only describes an extremely small portion of the claimed genus or treatment of diseases including “a connective tissue disease, a diabetic complication, a complication of vascular or cardiac surgery or after organ transplantation, a complication of cyclosporin treatment.” Therefore, the claim lacks written description and are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). 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 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13-17 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. Claim 1 refers to a crystalline form of a compound wherein form 1, form 2, and form 3 are characterized in certain ways. However, the claim does not specifically state whether the crystalline form is selected from forms 1, 2, or 3, or if any crystalline form is claimed as long as forms 1, 2, and 3 have the characteristics present in the claim. Claims 2-5 are of a similar format as claim 1. Claims 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13-17 are dependent on claim 1. Therefore, the claims are indefinite. For art purposes, the claims have been interpreted as only claiming forms 1, 2, and 3. Conclusion Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13-17 are rejected. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph Kosack whose telephone number is (571)272-5575. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30. 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, Patricia Engle can be reached at 571-272-6660. 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. /JOSEPH R KOSACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3991
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 24, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12649804
Polymeric Compound, Electroluminescent Device Material, Electroluminescent Device, and Electronic Device
3y 5m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Patent RE50878
PYRAZOLO PYRIDINE DERIVATIVES AS NADPH OXIDASE INHIBITORS
3y 1m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent RE50800
PRO-FRAGRANCE COMPOUNDS
3y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent RE50725
Thickener Composition, Thickened Nutritive Products, Methods For Preparing Thickened Nutritive Products, And Methods For Providing Nutrition
2y 1m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent RE50703
POLYMER COMPOSITION
2y 7m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
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
75%
Grant Probability
69%
With Interview (-6.2%)
2y 7m (~9m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1296 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