Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/373,485

NOVEL AAV8 MUTANT CAPSIDS AND COMPOSITIONS CONTAINING SAME

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jul 12, 2021
Examiner
MONTANARI, DAVID A
Art Unit
1632
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allow Rate
491 granted / 754 resolved
+5.1% vs TC avg
Strong +49% interview lift
Without
With
+49.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
796
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.7%
-35.3% vs TC avg
§103
33.1%
-6.9% vs TC avg
§102
15.9%
-24.1% vs TC avg
§112
31.7%
-8.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 754 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/21/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 4 have been amended. In view of Applicant’s arguments and the amendments below, the written description rejection is withdrawn. It was discussed with Applicant proposed amendments to place the application in condition for an allowance and a Proposed Examiner’s Amendment (attached) was agreed upon. However, an ODP rejection is necessitated in view of the parent application. 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 1-5 and 8-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,091,776. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instantly claimed AAV comprising a capsid is encoded by the same nucleic acid sequences instantly recited (SEQ ID NOs: 17, 19 and 21-claim 3) as those in allowed claim 1 of ‘776. Both the instant capsid and the capsid of ‘776 comprise identical mutations (10 in total) and the nucleotide sequences set forth in SEQ ID NOs: 17, 19 and 21 of ‘776 encode the instantly recited capsid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NOs: 18, 20 and 22 respectively, thus the claimed invention would be obvious double patenting over the invention of ‘776. Regarding the instant method and composition, they are identical in scope to the composition and method of 10 and 11 in ‘776. While the instant application was filed as a DIV of the parent application, 16/093,800, it is interpreted that the instant application is a CON. A restriction was set forth in ‘800 on 10/6/2020, however the elected invention in ‘800 (Group I) encompasses the pending claims and thus an ODP rejection is proper Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A MONTANARI whose telephone number is (571)272-3108. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tr 8-6. 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, Peter Paras can be reached at 571-272-4517. 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. /DAVID A MONTANARI/Examiner, Art Unit 1632
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 12, 2021
Application Filed
Jul 22, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Jan 27, 2025
Response Filed
May 16, 2025
Final Rejection — §DP
Oct 21, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 21, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 09, 2026
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594306
USE OF ENTPD3 FOR IDENTIFICATION, ISOLATION, AND ENHANCING MATURE STEM CELL DERIVED INSULIN-PRODUCING CELLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584110
FUNCTIONAL FELINE PANCREATIC CELLS FROM ADIPOSE TISSUE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577587
COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR MAMMALIAN GENETICS AND USES THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576142
UNIVERSAL DONOR CELLS AND RELATED METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571005
PROTECTED GUIDE RNAS (PGRNAS)
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+49.1%)
3y 10m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 754 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