Prosecution Insights
Last updated: September 24, 2026
Application No. 19/446,867

METHODS FOR THE TREATMENT OF ABNORMAL INVOLUNTARY MOVEMENT DISORDERS

Non-Final OA §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
3 (Non-Final)
48%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 7m
Est. Remaining
71%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 48% of resolved cases
48%
Career Allowance Rate
287 granted / 594 resolved
-11.7% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
645
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
57.0%
+17.0% vs TC avg
§102
7.7%
-32.3% vs TC avg
§112
21.2%
-18.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 594 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 1-19 and 26-42 are pending. Receipt and consideration of Applicants' amended claim set and remarks/arguments filed on 08/17/2026 are acknowledged. Claims under consideration in the instant office action are claims 1-30. Applicants' arguments, filed 08/17/2026, have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112 has been withdrawn regarding the term “clinically significant” due to Applicant’s amendments. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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 11-13 and 31-41 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 “strong” in claims 11-13, 32-35, and 38-41 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 to determine a strong CYP2D6 inhibitor. Response to Arguments Applicant argues that “With respect to the rejection of claims 11 and 12 concerning the phrase "strong CYP2D6 inhibitor", Applicant has presently resubmitted the documentary evidence that the phrase in question has a well-known meaning among those skilled in the art.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees since although Applicant’s submissions may provide examples of specific drugs that have been referred to as a "strong CYP2D6 inhibitor", page 19 of the reference “Clinical Drug Interaction Studies – Cytochrome P450 Enzyme- and Transporter-Mediated Drug Interactions Guidance for Industry” discloses that CYP inhibitors can be categorized by AUC levels for a typical investigational drug, which means such metrics can be changed over time. The reference also states that there is no standard classification system for such inhibitors (pg. 19). Thus, the prior art fails to provide the metes and bounds as to the determination of which drugs are classified as a “strong” CYP2D6 inhibitor. Conclusion Claims 11-13 and 31-41 are rejected. Claims 1-10, 14-19, 26-30, and 42 are allowed. 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
Aug 17, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 19, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12721857
BORATE COMPLEXES OF CHLOROGENIC ACID AND USES THEREOF
2y 4m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12692231
TRYPTAMINE DERIVATIVES
1y 9m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12685731
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
5y 10m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
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
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
71%
With Interview (+23.1%)
3y 3m (~2y 7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 594 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