Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 16/104,037

Composition and Method for Therapeutic Agent Delivery During Pregnancy

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Aug 16, 2018
Examiner
NIEBAUER, RONALD T
Art Unit
1658
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
University of Mississippi Medical Center
OA Round
8 (Non-Final)
41%
Grant Probability
Moderate
8-9
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
75%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 41% of resolved cases
41%
Career Allow Rate
294 granted / 712 resolved
-18.7% vs TC avg
Strong +33% interview lift
Without
With
+33.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
76 currently pending
Career history
788
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.8%
-33.2% vs TC avg
§103
28.2%
-11.8% vs TC avg
§102
19.2%
-20.8% vs TC avg
§112
28.1%
-11.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 712 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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/10/25 has been entered. Election/Restrictions and Claim Status Applicants’ amendments and arguments filed 8/11/25 are acknowledged. Any rejection or objection from the 4/10/25 office action that is not addressed below is withdrawn based on the amendments. Previously, Group 2 and the species of SEQ ID NO:10 (as the ELP) and SEQ ID NO:17 (as the therapeutic agent) were elected. A telephone call and voice message with left with applicants representative on 12/12/25 in which the examiner proposed amendments to get the application in condition for allowance. Since the telephone message was not returned after more than 120 hours this office action was prepared. Claims 2, 9-10 and 12-25 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3-8 and 11 are being examined. Priority This application is a CON of 14/917,460 03/08/2016 PAT 10081667 which is a 371 of PCT/US14/58640 10/01/2014 which claims benefit of 61/885,300 10/01/2013. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The rejections below are new rejections. 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, 3-8 and 11 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. Claims 1 and 4 recite ‘cell penetrating peptide chosen from penetratin, Tat, SynB1, Bac, polyArg, MTS, Transportan, pVEC’. It is unclear if this is a closed or open list. There is no word ‘or’ in between the last options so it is unclear if additional peptides are possible. Claim 1 line 4 and claim 4 line 4 previously recite ‘consisting of’ so it should be clear what can or cannot be included within the scope of the claim. None of the dependent claims clarify the claim scope. Claim 4 recites NF-kappaB inhibitory peptide selected from the group of amino acid sequences consisting of SEQ ID NO:15 and an NADPH oxidase inhibitory peptide consisting of SEQ ID NO:16. The claim language is confusing and unclear for numerous reasons. First, the claim recites ‘NF-kappaB inhibitory peptide’ selected from the group but then only recites a single option for NF-kappaB inhibitory peptide (SEQ ID NO:15). A group is to include more than one option. Further, the claim language ‘consisting of SEQ ID NO:15’ and ‘consisting of SEQ ID NO:16’ suggest closed language but the claim goes on to recite additional possible components. If the peptide consists of a particular sequence than it would not contain additional sequences. In addition, SEQ ID NO:15 is 840 amino acids long and the sequence listing describes it as ‘Synthetic SynB1-ELP-p50 sequence’ and SEQ ID NO:16 is 839 amino acids long and the sequence listing describes it as ‘synthetic SynB1-ELP-NOX sequence’. Thus the therapeutic agent appears to consist of more than just an NF-kappaB inhibitory peptide or an NADPH oxidase inhibitory peptide. It is unclear if 2 ELP sequences are required. Claim 4 line 5 recites an ELP drug carrier and each of SEQ ID NO:15 and SEQ ID NO:16 include an ELP. Claim 7 refers to Table 1. MPEP 2173.05(s) recites: ‘claims are to be complete in themselves. Incorporation by reference to a specific figure or table "is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim’. There is no indication that the instant case is an exceptional circumstance. Further, it appears that Table 1 includes trademarks. MPEP 2173.05(u) states ‘If the trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). See also Eli Lilly & Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 837 Fed. Appx. 780, 784-85, 2020 USPQ2d 11531 (Fed. Cir. 2020)’. Claim 8 recites ‘regarded as harmful’. The term “regarded as harmful” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “regarded as harmful” 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 has been amended to recite that the therapeutic agent is a VEGF therapeutic agent. Claims 5-8 refer to categories or descriptions that are broader than VEGF therapeutic agent. Further, there is not adequate evidence on the record that any known VEGF therapeutic agent would fit into the multiple categories as in claims 5-8. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD T NIEBAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-3059. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 6:30 - 2:30 EST. 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, Melissa Fisher can be reached at 571-270-7430. 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. RONALD T. NIEBAUER Primary Examiner Art Unit 1658 /RONALD T NIEBAUER/Examiner, Art Unit 1658
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 16, 2018
Application Filed
Aug 06, 2019
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 01, 2019
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 26, 2019
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Apr 02, 2020
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 02, 2020
Response Filed
May 27, 2020
Final Rejection — §112
Sep 02, 2020
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 02, 2020
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 08, 2020
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 19, 2021
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jan 24, 2022
Notice of Allowance
Aug 24, 2022
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 30, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 13, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Aug 15, 2023
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 15, 2023
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 17, 2023
Response Filed
Oct 03, 2023
Final Rejection — §112
Apr 08, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 11, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 30, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Feb 03, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 07, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Aug 11, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 11, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 02, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12576143
TELEOST INVARIANT CHAIN CANCER VACCINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12559522
CELL PENETRATING PEPTIDE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12552848
HYDROCHLORIDE SALTS OF C5A RECEPTOR AGONIST PEPTIDES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12533442
COLLAGEN-BASED MENISCUS IMPLANTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12527746
PEPTIDE/PARTICLE DELIVERY SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
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

8-9
Expected OA Rounds
41%
Grant Probability
75%
With Interview (+33.3%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 712 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