Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 17/333,795

NEUTRALIZING ANTIBODIES AGAINST SARS-RELATED CORONAVIRUS

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
May 28, 2021
Examiner
HOLTZMAN, KATHERINE ANN
Art Unit
1646
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Philipps-Universität Marburg
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
4-5
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
35 granted / 55 resolved
+3.6% vs TC avg
Strong +62% interview lift
Without
With
+62.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
89
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.6%
-34.4% vs TC avg
§103
27.0%
-13.0% vs TC avg
§102
11.6%
-28.4% vs TC avg
§112
28.9%
-11.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 55 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-15, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a product of nature without significantly more. The claims recite an antibody which binds the receptor-binding domain of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 and comprises the CDRs of SEQ ID NOs: 59-64 or 119-124, a kit or a pharmaceutical composition comprising the antibody, nucleic acids encoding the antibody, or a host cell comprising the nucleic acid. The anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody, as recited in claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-12, 33, and 34, is taught in the Specification as being obtained from blood samples of patients with naturally acquired infections of SARS-CoV-2; see Example 1. Human SARS-CoV-2 spike protein-specific IgG-positive B cells were isolated by FACS; see Example 5. Initially, Examiner misunderstood the phrase “minor modifications” on pages 52 and 53 to indicate modifications made to the sequences of the antibodies. However, upon further evaluation Examiner understands “minor modifications” refers to modifications of the procedures referenced by citation. Thus, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies as claimed are indistinguishable from the naturally occurring human antibodies following naturally acquired infection. Moreover, claims 5, 6, and 8, being drawn to inherent properties of the human anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies do not distinguish from the product of nature. Claims 13 and 14 recite a pharmaceutical composition comprising the antibody and a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient or a pharmaceutical composition which is a vaccination composition for a human and/or animal subject. There is no limiting definition of excipient in the Specification, but one of ordinary skill in the art would understand excipient to be a vehicle for the antibody. This encompasses the antibody found in sera, which is a product of nature. The Specification defines a vaccination composition as “a pharmaceutical composition comprising at least one antibody or antigen-binding portion thereof of the present invention which is capable of providing active and/or passive immunity.” Again, an antibody in sera would be capable of providing immunity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional structures nor steps which apply the product of nature into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because while claim 15 does recite a kit, which while lacking a definition in the Specification, may comprise vials and/or syringes, this is routine and conventional; see the ‘How Supplied’ sections of the Prescribing Information for Humira (Published: August 2018), the Prescribing Information for Zenapax (Published: September 2010), and the Prescribing Information for Rituxan (Published: February 2020). Thus, claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-15, 33, and 34 are drawn to a product of nature without significantly more Allowable Subject Matter Claims 29-32 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Although the antibody appears to be a product of nature and, thus, not a statutory category of invention, the prior art does not teach an antibody comprising the CDRs of SEQ ID NOs: 59-64 or 119-124. The closest prior art is Shi et al. (Nature. 584: 120-124: Published Online: May 26, 2020) teaches a neutralizing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody which binds to the receptor-binding domain of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. The reference does not teach that the antibody comprises the instantly claimed CDRs. Because claim 32 is drawn to a method of in vitro expression of the antibody, claim 32 would be allowable as indicated with the objection above. Claims 29 and 30, which are drawn to a nucleic encoding the antibody which comprises the CDRs of SEQ ID NOs: 59-64 or 119-124 and an expression vector comprising the nucleic acid encoding the antibody which comprises the CDRs of SEQ ID NOs: 59-64 or 119-124, are interpreted as a single nucleic acid or expression vector comprising the CDRs of both the heavy and light variable chains. Claim 31 recites a host cell comprising “the nucleic acid according to claim 29” (a singular nucleic acid). It is noted that vector defined as “a nucleic acid molecule capable of transporting another nucleic acid to which it has been linked” (see page 25 of the instant disclosure) encompasses chromosomal DNA being transported through mitotic division. And an expression vector defined as “certain vectors [which] are capable of directing the expression of genes to which they are operatively linked” (see page 25 of the instant disclosure), does not delineate from naturally occurring DNA which comprises promotors thereby directing expression. Given that nucleic acids encoding the heavy and light variable regions of antibodies are naturally present on different chromosomes, the presence of both regions on a single nucleic acid molecule is distinct from the naturally occurring nucleic acid molecules encoding the human antibody; see McBride et al. (Journal of Experimental Medicine. 155(5): 1480-1490; Published: May 1, 1982). Moreover, while a single nucleic acid molecule encoding both the heavy and light variable regions is distinct from the naturally occurring nucleic acid molecules encoding the human antibody, the antibody which would result from the expression of such a single nucleic acid molecule is not distinct from the naturally occurring human antibody unless, for example, recitation of such an antibody were restricted to non-naturally occurring antibody formats which can be expressed from a single nucleic acid molecule (e.g. scFv). Similarly, more than one nucleic acid molecule encoding both the heavy and light variable domains would be out of scope of claims 29 and 30, and a host cell comprising more than one nucleic acid molecule encoding both the heavy and light variable domains would be out of scope of claim 31. It is noted that a naturally occurring B cell comprising the nucleic acid molecules encoding the antibody are encompassed in both of these aforementioned out-of-scope products and would be considered products of nature. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE ANN HOLTZMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0252. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm. 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, Janet Epps-Smith can be reached on (571)272-0757. 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. /KATHERINE ANN HOLTZMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1646 /DANIEL E KOLKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1644
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 28, 2021
Application Filed
Nov 29, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Apr 29, 2024
Response Filed
Apr 29, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 12, 2024
Response Filed
Nov 16, 2024
Final Rejection — §101
Jan 17, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Jun 27, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Dec 11, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590132
FGF21 VARIANT POLYPEPTIDE MOLECULES AND APPLICATION THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590150
ANTIBODY AGAINST NECTIN-4 AND APPLICATION THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583918
THERAPEUTIC AGENT FOR UROLOGICAL CANCER WHICH IS CHARACTERIZED BY BEING ADMINISTERED WITH IL-6 INHIBITOR AND CCR2 INHIBITOR IN COMBINATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576150
CD4+ T CELLS EXPRESSING IL-10 AND CHIMERIC ANTIGEN RECEPTORS AND USES THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569556
ALUMINUM BASED ADJUVANTS FOR TOLEROGENIC VACCINATION
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

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+62.4%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 55 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month