Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/359,858

ASSESSMENT OF AN ANALYTE FROM A BIOLOGICAL SAMPLE DISPOSED ON A SUPPORT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 28, 2021
Examiner
ALEXANDER, LYLE
Art Unit
1797
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Revvity Omics Inc.
OA Round
6 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
6-7
OA Rounds
4y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
234 granted / 392 resolved
-5.3% vs TC avg
Strong +55% interview lift
Without
With
+55.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 4m
Avg Prosecution
3 currently pending
Career history
395
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
29.1%
-10.9% vs TC avg
§102
35.1%
-4.9% vs TC avg
§112
19.8%
-20.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 392 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 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 § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sporty et al., Ozbal et al. and Babu et al. See the appropriate paragraph of the 1/25/24 office action. The 11/26/25 amendments of the 1/16/24 version of claim 1 read: “concentration [[of]] as low as 5 micromoles [[or higher]] in the blood sample.” Amended claim 1 requires the method to measure NAD concentrations as low as 5 micromoles and include concentrations above 5 micromoles. The 11/26/25 amendments do not appear to change the scope of the 1/16/24 claims that were previously considered by the BPAIand the Office maintains the same rejection is properly applied. Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sporty et al., Ozbal et al. and Babu et al. as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Chittock. See the appropriate paragraph of the 1/25/24 rejection. Response to Arguments Applicant’s 11/26/25 amendments and remarks have been considered. The 11/26/25 remarks state on page 5 the instant claims have been amended to emphasize NAD is detected at concentrations as low as 5 micromoles which is not taught or suggested in any of the references. The 11/26/25 amendments to the 1/16/24 claims do not appear change the scope of the claims. The 1/16/24 claims are to a “… NAD is detected at a concentration of 5 micromoles or higher …” where as the 11/26/25 amended claims are “ … NAD is detected at a concentration as low as 5 microns …”. The 11/26/25 claims are broad enough to include NAD concentrations above 5 micromoles. The 10/3/25 Decision on Appeal, states on page 5 lines 9-11 “Rather, the plain language of the claim requires only that “NAD is detected at a concentration of 5 micromoles or higher.” There is no dispute that the prior art teach the detection of NAD at concentrations higher than 5 micromoles”. We maintain the scope of the 11/26/25 claim includes concetration above 5 micromoles and is properly addressed by the 1/25/24 rejection. We maintain the 1/25/24 rejection of record is proper. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYLE A ALEXANDER whose telephone number is (571)272-1254. The examiner can normally be reached M,W-8:30-5; T,thur-6:30am-7pm; off Fri. 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. 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. /LYLE ALEXANDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 28, 2021
Application Filed
Jan 23, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 18, 2023
Response Filed
May 05, 2023
Final Rejection — §103
Jun 16, 2023
Notice of Allowance
Jun 16, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 27, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 18, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 27, 2023
Notice of Allowance
Sep 27, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 18, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 05, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 16, 2024
Response Filed
Jan 21, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 22, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 22, 2024
Notice of Allowance
Apr 22, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
May 20, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
May 20, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
May 31, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 04, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 05, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 05, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 27, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 06, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 06, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 07, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 07, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 02, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 23, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12329365
KITS FOR STABILIZATION OF URINE SAMPLES AT ROOM TEMPERATURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jun 17, 2025
Patent 12303887
METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR MANUFACTURING A MICROFLUIDIC ARRANGEMENT, AND A MICROFLUIDIC ARRANGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted May 20, 2025
Patent 12203937
COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR CARRYING OUT ASSAY MEASUREMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 21, 2025
Patent 9357759
NETWORKED CHEMICAL DISPERSION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Jun 07, 2016
Patent 9357760
Networked Chemical Dispersion System
2y 5m to grant Granted Jun 07, 2016
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

6-7
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+55.1%)
4y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 392 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