Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 15, 2026
Application No. 18/926,544

Substituted 7-(Pyrimidin-4-yl)Quinolin-4(1H)-One Compounds as Cyclin Dependent Kinase Inhibitors

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Oct 25, 2024
Priority
Apr 29, 2022 — CN PCT/CN22/90343 +2 more
Examiner
KOSACK, JOSEPH R
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
BEIGENE, LTD.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
10m
Est. Remaining
69%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allowance Rate
967 granted / 1292 resolved
+14.8% vs TC avg
Minimal -6% lift
Without
With
+-5.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
1307
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.2%
-36.8% vs TC avg
§103
27.7%
-12.3% vs TC avg
§102
22.7%
-17.3% vs TC avg
§112
29.8%
-10.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1292 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20, 25, and 26 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 CON of PCT/CN23/91482 filed on April 28, 2023 is acknowledged in the present application. While the further claim to priority to PCT/CN22/90343 filed on April 29, 2022 is acknowledged, it cannot be granted as a certified copy has not been received and there is intervening art. 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. Claims 25 and 26 are 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 claims are drawn to a method of treating a disease or disorder associated with CDK4 in a patient by administering a compound of claim 1. The disease or disorder to be treated can be any disease or disorder as long as there is some association with CDK4. The present specification only provides description with respect to inhibiting CDK4 in order to treat diseases such as cancer. See Aspects 21-26, page 41 of the present specification as filed. There is no description as to how additional diseases and disorders that are associated with agonizing CDK4 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 or the treatment diseases or disorders associated with CDK4 in general 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 CDK4 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 disease or disorder associated with CDK4. Therefore, the claims lack written description and are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). 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, 3, 5, 7-18, 20, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Pham et al. (WO 2022/236256). Pham et al. teaches the following compound as a CDK4 inhibitor: PNG media_image1.png 126 262 media_image1.png Greyscale . This compound reads on the claims where m is 0, R6 and R8 are fluorine (halogen,) R4 is C3 alkyl, CyA is a 6-membered ring comprising 1 nitrogen atom, n is 1, R10 is heterocyclyl, and all other substituents are hydrogen. See compound 181, page 61. With respect to claims 12-14, the identity of the moiety PNG media_image2.png 54 60 media_image2.png Greyscale is met as m is 0. Therefore, any moiety would be anticipated as long as m is 0. With respect to claims 25 and 26, a method of treating CDK4 implicated cancers is taught. See paragraph 116, pages 89-90. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2, 4, 6, and 19 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. Conclusion Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-18, 20, 25, and 26 are rejected. Claims 2, 4, 6, and 19 are objected to. 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

Oct 25, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §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 (-5.6%)
2y 7m (~10m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1292 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