Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 16/990,572

DNA METHYLATION BIOMARKERS OF POST-PARTUM DEPRESSION RISK

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Aug 11, 2020
Examiner
SITTON, JEHANNE SOUAYA
Art Unit
1682
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, BALTIMORE
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
53%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 53% of resolved cases
53%
Career Allow Rate
348 granted / 660 resolved
-7.3% vs TC avg
Strong +48% interview lift
Without
With
+47.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
711
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
24.7%
-15.3% vs TC avg
§103
22.6%
-17.4% vs TC avg
§102
14.5%
-25.5% vs TC avg
§112
29.2%
-10.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 660 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 . Amendment The finality of the previous office action is withdrawn in view of the obviousness type double patenting rejections set forth herein. The amendment filed 1/7/2026 has been entered. Status of Claims Currently, claims 51-52, 54-55, 58-59, 61-68, 70-72, 78-79, 82-86, 102-106, and 109-110 are pending in the instant application. This action is NON-FINAL. The rejections made in the office action dated 10/17/2025 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims. 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 78-79, 82-86, and 109-110 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,865,446. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to detecting methylation of the same genomic loci with the same primers to determine risk of developing PPD. Claims 51-52, 54-55, 58-59, 61-68, 70-72, and 102-106 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 10/865,446 in view of Epperson (Epperson, C. Neill; Am. Fam. Physician. Vol 59, pages 2247-2254, 1999). The claims of the ‘446 patent teach detecting methylation of the same genomic loci with the same primers to determine risk of developing PPD, as those of the instant claims. The claims of the ‘446 patent do not teach treatment of PPD, however Epperson teaches that PPD can be treated with antidepressant therapy (see abstract). Epperson also teaches the importance of early detection as well as identifying those at risk (see page 1 and 3 of document). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have identified patients at risk of PPD, as taught by the claims of the ‘446 patent, and to have treated patients at risk of PPD as taught by Epperson, because Epperson teaches that early intervention is important for the mother as well as the infant’s social, emotional, and cognitive development. Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner Jehanne Sitton whose telephone number is (571) 272-0752. The examiner is a hoteling examiner and can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays from 8:00 AM to 2:00 PM Eastern Time Zone. 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, Winston Shen, can be reached on (571) 272-3157. The fax phone number for 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. /JEHANNE S SITTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1682
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 11, 2020
Application Filed
Jan 05, 2013
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 26, 2021
Response after Non-Final Action
May 17, 2021
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 04, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Mar 11, 2024
Response Filed
Mar 13, 2024
Interview Requested
Mar 14, 2024
Interview Requested
Jun 23, 2024
Final Rejection — §DP
Oct 24, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 28, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 20, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 30, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Jul 30, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 15, 2025
Final Rejection — §DP
Jan 07, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 28, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595469
TREATMENT OF RETINITIS PIGMENTOSA USING IMPROVED ENGINEERED MEGANUCLEASES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577569
APTAMERS FOR THE REVERSIBLE INHIBITION OF DNA POLYMERASES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571050
METHOD OF PREDICTING RESPONSE TO THERAPY BY ASSESSING TUMOR GENETIC HETEROGENEITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571030
LAMC2-NR6A1 Splicing Variant and Translation Product Thereof
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12545948
IDENTIFICATION OF NOVEL LOCI IN ASTHMA AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF FOR THE DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF ASTHMA
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
53%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+47.6%)
3y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 660 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