Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/289,490

BIOMARKER PANEL FOR DETERMINING MOLECULAR SUBTYPE OF LUNG CANCER, AND USE THEREOF

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Apr 28, 2021
Examiner
WOOLWINE, SAMUEL C
Art Unit
1681
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Samsung Electronics
OA Round
6 (Final)
61%
Grant Probability
Moderate
7-8
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 61% of resolved cases
61%
Career Allow Rate
515 granted / 843 resolved
+1.1% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+19.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
54 currently pending
Career history
897
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.3%
-34.7% vs TC avg
§103
36.1%
-3.9% vs TC avg
§102
17.4%
-22.6% vs TC avg
§112
28.2%
-11.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 843 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Response to Amendment Applicant’s amendment and reply of 01/13/2026 is acknowledged. Regarding the Office action mailed 10/16/2025, the rejection of claim 18 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) over Ahuja (US 2017/0009303) is withdrawn in view of the amendment; Ahuja does not disclose TMSB10 or CLDN3. The rejection of claims 18-20 over Meister is maintained. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed following the rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meister (Journal of Bioinformatics Research Studies 1(1):1, 2014), as evidenced by https://artyomovlab.wustl.edu/phantasus/. Meister obtained samples from lung cancer patients, extracted RNA, and analyzed gene expression my microarray analysis; see Abstract and sections 2.1-2.3 of Materials and Methods. The data were deposited in the GEO database under accession number GSE33532; see section 2.4 of Materials and Methods. This data set constitutes a biomarker expression signature based on the detected expression levels of all biomarkers analyzed, including those specifically recited in the claims. As evidenced by the online analysis tool at https://artyomovlab.wustl.edu/phantasus/, the data generated by Meister included expression data for TMSB10, ISG15, CLDN3 and IFI27: PNG media_image1.png 86 374 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 98 380 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 96 382 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 74 376 media_image4.png Greyscale The data also included expression data for MDK: PNG media_image5.png 88 376 media_image5.png Greyscale The data also included expression data for CSTB: PNG media_image6.png 112 372 media_image6.png Greyscale The data also included all remaining biomarkers recited in new claim 21, with ONE exception: PNG media_image7.png 78 478 media_image7.png Greyscale PNG media_image8.png 76 452 media_image8.png Greyscale PNG media_image9.png 98 434 media_image9.png Greyscale PNG media_image10.png 86 442 media_image10.png Greyscale PNG media_image11.png 96 432 media_image11.png Greyscale PNG media_image12.png 100 436 media_image12.png Greyscale PNG media_image13.png 84 438 media_image13.png Greyscale PNG media_image14.png 116 430 media_image14.png Greyscale PNG media_image15.png 108 434 media_image15.png Greyscale PNG media_image16.png 88 426 media_image16.png Greyscale PNG media_image17.png 96 438 media_image17.png Greyscale PNG media_image18.png 104 434 media_image18.png Greyscale PNG media_image19.png 82 434 media_image19.png Greyscale PNG media_image20.png 86 434 media_image20.png Greyscale PNG media_image21.png 98 434 media_image21.png Greyscale PNG media_image22.png 90 438 media_image22.png Greyscale PNG media_image23.png 114 434 media_image23.png Greyscale PNG media_image24.png 96 434 media_image24.png Greyscale PNG media_image25.png 98 452 media_image25.png Greyscale PNG media_image26.png 114 436 media_image26.png Greyscale PNG media_image27.png 102 434 media_image27.png Greyscale PNG media_image28.png 98 436 media_image28.png Greyscale The last gene listed in claim 21, TAGLN2, is not listed in the data of Meister. While the examiner was able to find evidence that an updated annotation of the HG-U133 Plus 2.0 array1 used by Meister does include at least one probe for this gene: PNG media_image29.png 92 1628 media_image29.png Greyscale neither the gene name TAGLN2, nor the probe ID 200916_at, is present in Meister’s data file. Therefore, the data file of Meister, which represents the generated “signature”, does not include TAGLN2. Consequently, claim 21 is NOT subject to this rejection. Claim(s) 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kadara (J Natl Cancer Inst 2014 Mar; 106(3):dju004.) as evidenced by https://artyomovlab.wustl.edu/phantasus/. Kadara obtained samples from lung cancer patients, extracted RNA, and analyzed gene expression my microarray analysis; see Abstract and first two sections of Materials and Methods. The data were deposited in the GEO database under accession number GSE44077; see second section of Materials and Methods. This data set constitutes a biomarker expression signature based on the detected expression levels of all biomarkers analyzed, including those specifically recited in the claims. As evidenced by the online analysis tool at https://artyomovlab.wustl.edu/phantasus/, the data generated by Kadara included expression data for all the genes recited in the claims: PNG media_image30.png 80 308 media_image30.png Greyscale PNG media_image31.png 74 308 media_image31.png Greyscale PNG media_image32.png 82 306 media_image32.png Greyscale PNG media_image33.png 88 302 media_image33.png Greyscale PNG media_image34.png 76 312 media_image34.png Greyscale PNG media_image35.png 80 308 media_image35.png Greyscale PNG media_image36.png 80 302 media_image36.png Greyscale PNG media_image37.png 78 308 media_image37.png Greyscale PNG media_image38.png 82 308 media_image38.png Greyscale PNG media_image39.png 82 308 media_image39.png Greyscale PNG media_image40.png 62 310 media_image40.png Greyscale PNG media_image41.png 64 312 media_image41.png Greyscale PNG media_image42.png 76 312 media_image42.png Greyscale PNG media_image43.png 84 306 media_image43.png Greyscale PNG media_image44.png 78 310 media_image44.png Greyscale PNG media_image45.png 90 308 media_image45.png Greyscale PNG media_image46.png 88 308 media_image46.png Greyscale PNG media_image47.png 90 304 media_image47.png Greyscale PNG media_image48.png 84 316 media_image48.png Greyscale PNG media_image49.png 84 314 media_image49.png Greyscale PNG media_image50.png 80 310 media_image50.png Greyscale PNG media_image51.png 76 306 media_image51.png Greyscale PNG media_image52.png 106 306 media_image52.png Greyscale PNG media_image53.png 80 310 media_image53.png Greyscale PNG media_image54.png 86 308 media_image54.png Greyscale PNG media_image55.png 88 316 media_image55.png Greyscale PNG media_image56.png 112 308 media_image56.png Greyscale PNG media_image57.png 96 308 media_image57.png Greyscale A representative data for TAGLN2 for one of the tumor samples is shown here: PNG media_image58.png 648 1454 media_image58.png Greyscale Note that Kadara used a different microarray (Affymetrix Human Gene 1.0 ST) than Meister (HG-U133 Plus 2.0), which explains why Kadara’s data included TAGLN2, while Meister’s did not. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 01/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Meister does not “describe or suggest the claimed specific set of genes as a State 2 biomarker set and generating, as a technical output, a single biomarker expression signature from expression values of the plurality of genes belonging to the set.” This argument is not persuasive because Meister’s data set, as shown in the rejection, includes expression data for all genes except for TAGLN2. This data therefore represents a signature meeting the limitations of claims 18-20. That Meister did not “name” the data a “State 2 biomarker expression signature” is irrelevant. As claim 21 requires the full list of genes, and TAGLN2 is not found in Meister’s data, Meister does not anticipate claim 21. Furthermore, the claims are not limited to a signature containing ONLY the recited genes. Therefore, while Meister’s data does include “comprehensively measuring expression of thousands of genes across the transcriptome”, this claim is not limited to a certain maximum number of genes in the recited “signature”. The claims only require that certain genes be present in the “signature”. For the same reasons, the new grounds of rejection over Kadara (whose data do include all genes recited in the claims) applies. 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 SAMUEL C WOOLWINE whose telephone number is (571)272-1144. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5:30pm. 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, GARY BENZION can be reached at 571-272-0782. 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. /SAMUEL C WOOLWINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1681 1 Available at https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/life-science/microarray-analysis/microarray-data-analysis/genechip-array-annotation-files.html
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 28, 2021
Application Filed
Feb 10, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102
May 13, 2024
Response Filed
Jul 27, 2024
Final Rejection — §102
Sep 30, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 13, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 30, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 04, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Apr 04, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 24, 2025
Final Rejection — §102
Aug 26, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 24, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 03, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Jan 13, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 25, 2026
Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595462
HIGH THROUGHPUT GENETIC BARCODING AND ANALYSIS METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584167
METHOD FOR AMPLIFYING NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE AND SEQUENCE DETERMINATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12545951
SIMPLIFIED POLYNUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE DETECTION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12534569
FLOW CELLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12529097
DIGITAL ANALYTE ANALYSIS
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

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
61%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+19.8%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 843 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