Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 19/446,867

METHODS FOR THE TREATMENT OF ABNORMAL INVOLUNTARY MOVEMENT DISORDERS

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jan 12, 2026
Priority
Mar 06, 2015 — provisional 62/129,616 +7 more
Examiner
LEE, ANDREW P
Art Unit
1691
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Auspex Pharmaceuticals LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
48%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
Est. Remaining
72%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 48% of resolved cases
48%
Career Allowance Rate
284 granted / 585 resolved
-11.5% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
638
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
69.6%
+29.6% vs TC avg
§102
2.9%
-37.1% vs TC avg
§112
10.3%
-29.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 585 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Status of the Application Claims 1-30 are pending. Receipt and consideration of Applicants' amended claim set and remarks/arguments filed on 05/29/2026 are acknowledged. Claims under consideration in the instant office action are claims 1-30. Applicants' arguments, filed 05/29/2026, have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant 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 1-30 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 term “clinically significant” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “clinically significant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the threshold is for an adverse event to be clinically significant since the disclosure does not provide a metric for such a threshold. The term “strong” in claims 11-12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “strong” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the criteria is for a strong CYP2D6 inhibitor. Response to Arguments Applicant argues that “While the Applicant recognizes that relative terminology can in some circumstances render unclear the scope of a claim, in the present instance the terminology in question has been clearly defined in Applicant's specification (see, e.g., paragraphs [0308], [0485]), thereby satisfactorily apprising those of ordinary skill in the art regarding the metes and bounds of the claims in which the phrase appears.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees since the term “clinically significant” as broadly defined in Application’s specification (paragraphs 0308, 0485), is disclosed as “a) moderate or severe in intensity”, which are themselves relative terms of degree. Such a definition does not provide the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Omitting the term “clinically significant” and reciting only “adverse event” would overcome the indefiniteness issue, given that adverse event is clearly defined (see paragraphs 0300, 0301, 0307). Applicant also argues that “These documents therefore demonstrate that the phrase "strong CYP2D6 inhibitor" has a well-understood meaning among those skilled in the art, and therefore that Applicant's claims 11-12 containing the phrase are not unclear.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees since such documents have not been provided, and it is unclear if they demonstrate that the phrase "strong CYP2D6 inhibitor" has a well-understood meaning among those skilled in the art. Conclusion Claims 1-30 are rejected. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW P LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1016. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm. 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, Renee Claytor can be reached at (571)272-8394. 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. /ANDREW P LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1691 /RENEE CLAYTOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1691
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 12, 2026
Application Filed
Apr 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
May 29, 2026
Response Filed
Jun 25, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12655142
4-(IMIDAZO[1,2-A]PYRIDIN-3-YL)-PYRIMIDINE DERIVATIVES
4y 4m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12642856
DEGRADERS OF HEPATITIS C VIRUS NS3/4A PROTEIN
5y 2m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Patent 12642795
MRGPRX2 ANTAGONIST FOR THE TREATMENT OF PSEUDO ALLERGIC REACTIONS
5y 0m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Patent 12629371
COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR INHIBITING KINASES
7y 1m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12616683
COMBINATION THERAPY FOR THE TREATMENT OF GASTROINTESTINAL STROMAL TUMORS
2y 0m to grant Granted May 05, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
48%
Grant Probability
72%
With Interview (+23.5%)
3y 3m (~2y 9m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 585 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