Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 14/281,212

SAMPLE MULTIPLEXING

Final Rejection §112
Filed
May 19, 2014
Examiner
LU, FRANK WEI MIN
Art Unit
1683
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
BIO-RAD LABORATORIES, INC.
OA Round
25 (Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
26-27
OA Rounds
4y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
430 granted / 684 resolved
+2.9% vs TC avg
Strong +67% interview lift
Without
With
+67.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 2m
Avg Prosecution
70 currently pending
Career history
754
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.6%
-38.4% vs TC avg
§103
24.8%
-15.2% vs TC avg
§102
14.3%
-25.7% vs TC avg
§112
49.5%
+9.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 684 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION Response to Amendment Applicant’s response to the office action filed on October 29, 2025 has been entered. The claims pending in this application are claims 47, 48, 55, 57-59, 61, 62, 64-67, and 69-72. Rejections not reiterated from the previous office action are hereby withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment filed on October 29, 2025. Claims 47, 48, 55, 57-59, 61, 62, 64-67, and 69-72 will be examined. Claim Objections Claim 47 is objected to because of the following informality: “conducting a second amplification reaction with second primers that anneal to the duplex portion of the adaptors and the 5' tail” should be “conducting a second amplification reaction with second primers that anneal to the duplex portion of the adaptors and the 5’ tail in the presence of the tailed amplicons”. Appropriate correction is required. 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. New Matter Claims 47, 48, 55, 57-59, 61, 62, 64-67, and 69-72 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. Newly amended independent claim 47 contains a limitation “wherein each of the adaptors comprises a duplex portion that includes a sample barcode unique for the sample and a single-stranded segment that includes a universal primer site”, newly amended dependent claim 48 contains a limitation “the second primers are bound to the surface of a flow cell and the method includes capturing the tailed amplicons to the flow cell by the second primers”, newly amended independent claim 65 contains a limitation “wherein the adaptors comprises a duplex portion and a single stranded segment comprising a universal site”, and newly amended independent claim 66 contains a limitation “attaching barcodes and copies of a partially duplex adaptor to nucleic acid fragments, wherein a single-stranded segment of the partially duplex adaptor comprises a universal site, to yield adaptor-ligated fragments”. Although the adaptors in claim 47 and 65 or copies of a partially duplex adaptor in claim 66 can be read as adaptors or adaptor which comprise/ comprises a duplex portion and only one single-stranded segment having a universal primer site, page 1, line 21-page 2, line 27, page 4, lines 4-9, page 17, lines 26-29, page 21, lines 14-15, page 22, lines 4-11 and Figures 3-5 the specification suggested by applicant do not describe such adaptors recited in claim 47 and 65 and such copies of a partially duplex adaptor recited in in claim 66 since Figure 3 of specification only describes a Y shaped adaptor comprising a duplex portion. Furthermore, nowhere in the specification describes that the second primers are bound to the surface of a flow cell and the tailed amplicons are captured to the flow cell by the second primers as recited in claim 48. MPEP 2163.06 notes “If new matter is added to the claims, the examiner should reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph - written description requirement. In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).” MPEP 2163.02 teaches that “Whenever the issue arises, the fundamental factual inquiry is whether a claim defines an invention that is clearly conveyed to those skilled in the art at the time the application was filed...If a claim is amended to include subject matter, limitations, or terminology not present in the application as filed, involving a departure from, addition to, or deletion from the disclosure of the application as filed, the examiner should conclude that the claimed subject matter is not described in that application.” MPEP 2163.06 further notes “When an amendment is filed in reply to an objection or rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, a study of the entire application is often necessary to determine whether or not “new matter” is involved. Applicant should therefore specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure” (emphasis added). Conclusion No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank Lu, Ph. D., whose telephone number is (571)272-0746. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM. 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, Anne Gussow, Ph.D., can be reached at 571-272-6047. 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. /FRANK W LU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1683 February 2, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 19, 2014
Application Filed
May 19, 2014
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 06, 2014
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Nov 05, 2014
Response Filed
Dec 02, 2014
Final Rejection — §112
Jun 05, 2015
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 08, 2015
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 02, 2015
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Mar 08, 2016
Response Filed
Apr 08, 2016
Final Rejection — §112
Jul 28, 2016
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 12, 2016
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 22, 2016
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 24, 2016
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 30, 2016
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Apr 03, 2017
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 05, 2017
Response Filed
May 09, 2017
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Aug 10, 2017
Response Filed
Sep 06, 2017
Final Rejection — §112
Dec 08, 2017
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 11, 2017
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 23, 2018
Final Rejection — §112
Apr 26, 2018
Request for Continued Examination
May 01, 2018
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 19, 2018
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Sep 18, 2018
Response Filed
Oct 24, 2018
Final Rejection — §112
Jan 25, 2019
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 28, 2019
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 09, 2019
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jul 11, 2019
Response Filed
Sep 09, 2019
Final Rejection — §112
Jan 13, 2020
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 14, 2020
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 10, 2020
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jun 12, 2020
Response Filed
Aug 12, 2020
Final Rejection — §112
Nov 12, 2020
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 17, 2020
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 18, 2021
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Apr 20, 2021
Response Filed
Jun 21, 2021
Final Rejection — §112
Sep 27, 2021
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 28, 2021
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 25, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jul 01, 2022
Response Filed
Sep 16, 2022
Final Rejection — §112
Dec 20, 2022
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 29, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
May 02, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Aug 04, 2023
Response Filed
Oct 16, 2023
Final Rejection — §112
Jan 19, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 24, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 01, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Sep 04, 2024
Response Filed
Nov 07, 2024
Final Rejection — §112
Feb 12, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 13, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
May 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
May 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Oct 29, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 02, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595476
ASSEMBLY AND ERROR REDUCTION OF SYNTHETIC GENES FROM OLIGONUCLEOTIDES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577609
METHODS FOR CELL-TYPE SPECIFIC PROFILING TO IDENTIFY DRUG TARGETS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12516368
METHOD FOR THE DETECTION OF LIVING MICROORGANISMS AND A FLUIDIC CHANNEL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12497647
Methods of Depleting a Target Molecule from an Initial Collection of Nucleic Acids, and Compositions and Kits for Practicing the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Patent 12467086
Sequencing by Structure Assembly
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 11, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

26-27
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+67.3%)
4y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 684 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow 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