Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 25, 2026
Application No. 18/939,072

EGFR INHIBITORS

Non-Final OA §101§DOUBLEPATENT
Filed
Nov 06, 2024
Priority
Dec 23, 2019 — provisional 62/953,030 +2 more
Examiner
AULAKH, CHARANJIT
Art Unit
1621
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Blueprint Medicines Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1m
Est. Remaining
66%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allowance Rate
1444 granted / 1790 resolved
+20.7% vs TC avg
Minimal -14% lift
Without
With
+-14.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
56 currently pending
Career history
1839
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.4%
-36.6% vs TC avg
§103
14.8%
-25.2% vs TC avg
§102
20.5%
-19.5% vs TC avg
§112
43.6%
+3.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1790 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §DOUBLEPATENT
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 . Claims 1-26 are pending in the application. Claim Objections Claims 20 and 26 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in alternate only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Double Patenting A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957). A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 1-21 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-21 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,172,983, cited on applicant’s form 1449. This is a statutory double patenting rejection. 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-8 and 10-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,718,602, cited on applicant’s form 1449. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the compounds of the cited patent anticipate the instant claims when variables A1-A3 represent C, variable A represents piperidine and variable Z represents O in the instant compounds of formula (I). Claims 22-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,172,983, cited on applicant’s form 1449. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to treat cancer by the instant compounds in combination with other drugs in order to have synergistic effect with reasonable expectation of success. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARANJIT AULAKH whose telephone number is (571)272-0678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-3:30. 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, Clinton A Brooks can be reached at 571-270-7682. 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. /CHARANJIT AULAKH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1621
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 06, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101, §DOUBLEPATENT (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12747234
KINASE INHIBITORS FOR THE TREATMENT OF NEURODEGENERATIVE DISEASES
3y 5m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12747263
ORALLY ACTIVE LEUKEMIA INHIBITORY FACTOR (LIF) ANTAGONISTS FOR THE TREATMENT OF CANCER
3y 2m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12741948
BENZOTHIAZOLE AND QUINOLINE DERIVATIVES AND THEIR USE
3y 6m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12740987
SOLUBLE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITIONS COMPRISING SALTS OF DISUBSTITUTED 1, 2, 4-TRIAZINE COMPOUND
2y 8m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12735421
PLASMIN INHIBITOR, PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR, AND APPLICATION THEREOF
3y 1m to grant Granted Sep 15, 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
81%
Grant Probability
66%
With Interview (-14.5%)
2y 0m (~1m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1790 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