Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 16/510,259

AAV-MEDIATED GENE THERAPY FOR NPHP5 LCA-CILIOPATHY

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jul 12, 2019
Examiner
MARVICH, MARIA
Art Unit
1634
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC.
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
55%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
4y 2m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 55% of resolved cases
55%
Career Allow Rate
529 granted / 967 resolved
-5.3% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+26.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 2m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
1020
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.9%
-37.1% vs TC avg
§103
26.7%
-13.3% vs TC avg
§102
19.8%
-20.2% vs TC avg
§112
34.9%
-5.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 967 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION 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, 2, 6-12 and 16-18 are pending. This office action is in response to an amendment filed 9/16/2025. The instant application is a divisional of 15/445,776 filed 2/28/2017 now abandoned which claims priority to provisional application 62/301,266 filed 2/29/2016. Response to Amendments Amendments to place the case in condition for allowance were presented but a response was not received within the time allotted to act on this application. Claim Objections Claims 1, 9, 11 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: for streamlined recitation, in line 9, the phrasing should be –the regulatory sequence is a human G-protein-coupled receptor kinase 1 (GRK1) promoter--. The claim previously states the sequence is linked to a promoter. For consistency, claims 8 and 10 should recite –the amino acid sequence--. The sequences of claims 9 and 11 should be as in claims 8 and 10 –sequence of SEQ ID NO:--. For consistency, claim 17 should recite that the AAV2/8 capsid is AAV8(Y447F+Y733F+T494V). The Y is missing from the middle mutation. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, first paragraph 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. Claims 2 and 6 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a new rejection. Claim 2 recites use of rAAV that comprises specific mutations in the AAV capsid and include Y447. The disclosure only provides for Y447F. The mutation is critical for the function of the therapy and hence requires a specific modification. Claims 6 recites the NPHP5 protein is a human sequence. This provides for a large genus of sequences. However, the disclosure only recites that the NPHP5 protein is a human NPHP5 protein. The specification only teaches that full-length human NPHP5 is effective not just any human sequence. The claims thus are drawn to a large genus of peptides which are not sufficiently described in the specification. The written description requirement for genus claims may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, reduction to drawings, or by disclosure of relevant identifying characteristics, i.e. structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with known or disclosed correlations between function and structure, or by a combination of such characteristics sufficient to show that the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. To this end, the MPEP provides such guidance (emphasis added). If the application as filed does not disclose the complete structure (or acts of a process) of the claimed invention as a whole, determine whether the specification discloses other relevant identifying characteristics sufficient to describe the claimed invention in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms that a skilled artisan would recognize applicant was in possession of the claimed invention. For example, if the art has established a strong correlation between structure and function, one skilled in the art would be able to predict with a reasonable degree of confidence the structure of the claimed invention from a recitation of its function. Thus, the written description requirement may be satisfied through disclosure of function and minimal structure when there is a well-established correlation between structure and function. In contrast, without such a correlation, the capability to recognize or understand the structure from the mere recitation of function and minimal structure is highly unlikely. In this latter case, disclosure of function alone is little more than a wish for possession; it does not satisfy the written description requirement. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406 (written description requirement not satisfied by merely providing "a result that one might achieve if one made that invention"); In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1521, 222 USPQ 369, 372-73 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (affirming a rejection for lack of written description because the specification does "little more than outline goals appellants hope the claimed invention achieves and the problems the invention will hopefully ameliorate"). Compare Fonar, 107 F.3d at 1549, 41 USPQ2d at 1805 (disclosure of software function adequate in that art). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA MARVICH whose telephone number is (571)272-0774. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 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, Maria Leavitt can be reached on 571-272-1085. 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. /MARIA MARVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1631
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 12, 2019
Application Filed
Nov 05, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Feb 10, 2023
Response Filed
May 11, 2023
Final Rejection — §112
Oct 27, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 31, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 15, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Sep 20, 2024
Notice of Allowance
Mar 20, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 20, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 23, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 11, 2025
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Jun 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Sep 16, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600986
NUCLEIC ACID MOLECULES CONTAINING SPACERS AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590321
METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR GENETICALLY MODIFYING AND EXPANDING LYMPHOCYTES AND REGULATING THE ACTIVITY THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589151
T Cell Modification
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589128
ONCOLYTIC ADENOVIRUS COMPOSITIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12571002
GENE THERAPIES FOR LYSOSOMAL DISORDERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
55%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+26.9%)
4y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 967 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