Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 16/818,563

OLIGONUCLEOTIDES FOR TISSUE SPECIFIC APOE MODULATION

Final Rejection §DP
Filed
Mar 13, 2020
Examiner
POLIAKOVA-GEORGAN, EKATERINA
Art Unit
1637
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS
OA Round
8 (Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
9-10
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allow Rate
434 granted / 668 resolved
+5.0% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
55 currently pending
Career history
723
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.4%
-34.6% vs TC avg
§103
28.6%
-11.4% vs TC avg
§102
22.8%
-17.2% vs TC avg
§112
24.2%
-15.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 668 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 46, 55, 56, 68-70, 72, 89, 122, 125-128, 131-134 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,037,585 in view of Khvorova et al (US 2017/0312367, November 2017, of record). Claims from '585 recite divalent siRNAs targeting SEQ ID NO: 1, such sequence comprises instant SEQ ID NO: 5, therefore such siRNAs include instantly claimed siRNAs targeting instant SEQ ID NO: 5. Khvorova et al teach branched oligonucleotides exhibiting improvement in distribution and in vivo efficacy (see paragraph [0006]), comprising two or more nucleic acids 15-20 nucleotides long with complementarity to a target connected to each other by linker, spacer or branching point (see paragraphs [0007-0010]). Such nucleic acid can be double-stranded and can comprise sense and antisense strands with 5' and 3' ends each, which can comprise alternating 2'-methoxy and 2'-fluoro nucleotides and phosphorothioate modifications at positions 1-2 of 5' end and positions 1-7 of 3' end (see paragraphs [0012-0013]). Further Khvorova et al teach a compound of formula (1), identical to instant compound of formula (1), which can further comprise branch point B, a polyvalent organic species, and spacer S, which can be ethylene glycol chain (see paragraph [0016]), and compounds (I-1) and (I-2), identical to instant compounds (I-1) and (I-2) (see paragraph [0017]), wherein L can be of structure L1 (see paragraph [0026]), identical to instant structure L1 and the antisense strand can comprise terminal group such as R3 (see paragraph [0018]), identical to instant R3 structure, with a preferred embodiment where is L1, R is R3, n=2 (see paragraph [0026]). Khvorova et al teach compound of formula (II) (see paragraph [0019]), identical to instant formula (II). Khvorova et al teach that compounds of the invention can be included in compositions for therapeutic purposes (see paragraph [0083]), therefore inherently teaching pharmaceutical compositions. It would have been obvious to create divalent siRNAs targeting instant SEQ ID NO: 5, which is a portion of SEQ ID NO: 1 based on teachings of '585 and further modify and/or connect such siRNAs based on teachings of Khvorova et al with improved distribution and efficacy. Limitations of dependent claims 131- 134 do not need to be taught in the prior art, because they relate to the second option of complementarity to SEQ ID NO: 6 in independent claims 46, 55 and 69, while instant rejection is based on the first option of the independent claims of complementarity to SEQ ID NO: 5. Claims 46, 55, 56, 68-70, 72, 89, 122, 125-128, 131-134 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17-35, 37, 60-62 of copending Application No. 18/675,023 in view of Khvorova et al, above. Claims from '023 recite siRNAs targeting SEQ ID NO: 1, such sequence comprises instant SEQ ID NO: 5, therefore such siRNAs include instantly claimed siRNAs targeting instant SEQ ID NO: 5. Teachings of Khvorova et al are discussed above. It would have been obvious to create siRNAs targeting instant SEQ ID NO: 5, which is a portion of SEQ ID NO: 1 based on teachings of '023 and further modify and/or connect such siRNAs based on teachings of Khvorova et al with improved distribution and efficacy, arriving at instantly claimed branched oligonucleotides. Limitations of dependent claims 131- 134 do not need to be taught in the prior art, because they relate to the second option of complementarity to SEQ ID NO: 6 in independent claims 46, 55 and 69, while instant rejection is based on the first option of the independent claims of complementarity to SEQ ID NOs: 5. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Previous 103 rejections and double patenting rejections based on U.S. Patent No. 11,279,930 and 11,492,619 are withdrawn in view of new amendments, arguments are moot. Concerning double patenting rejection based on U.S. Patent No. 12,037,585 Applicant argues that ‘585 has a later patent term filing date. In response there is nothing in MPEP 1504.06 concerning prevention of double patenting rejection over US Patent with later filing date. Rejection is maintained. Concerning double patenting rejection based on Application No. 18/675,023 Applicant argues that the rejection is the only one left, therefore it has to be withdrawn. In response there is still one double patenting rejection based on U.S. Patent No. 12,037,585 left, therefore rejection based on Application No. 18/675,023 is maintained. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 EKATERINA POLIAKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-5257. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5. 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, Jennifer Dunston can be reached at (571)272-2916. 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. /EKATERINA POLIAKOVA-GEORGANTAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1637
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 13, 2020
Application Filed
Mar 09, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Jul 14, 2022
Response Filed
Aug 15, 2022
Final Rejection — §DP
Nov 18, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 02, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 18, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 26, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 08, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Jul 07, 2023
Response Filed
Oct 13, 2023
Final Rejection — §DP
Jan 29, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 20, 2024
Notice of Allowance
Apr 19, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 24, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 20, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Nov 26, 2024
Response Filed
Dec 21, 2024
Final Rejection — §DP
Mar 31, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 30, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 03, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Dec 10, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 20, 2026
Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600964
Compound for treatment of heart failure
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595477
COMPLEMENT FACTOR B-MODULATING COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584130
ANGIOTENSINOGEN (AGT) iRNA COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576030
COMPOSITIONS FOR DELIVERY OF CODON-OPTIMIZED MRNA
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570977
NOVEL MRNA COMPOSITION AND PRODUCTION METHOD FOR USE IN ANTI-VIRAL AND ANTI-CANCER VACCINES
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

9-10
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+16.2%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 668 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