Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/386,776

DIFFERENTIATION-INDUCED CELL POPULATION FROM WHICH UNDIFFERENTIATED CELLS HAVE BEEN REMOVED, USE OF SAME, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 28, 2021
Examiner
TICHY, JENNIFER M.H.
Art Unit
1653
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Osaka University
OA Round
7 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
7-8
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allow Rate
395 granted / 606 resolved
+5.2% vs TC avg
Strong +34% interview lift
Without
With
+34.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
77 currently pending
Career history
683
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.7%
-36.3% vs TC avg
§103
36.0%
-4.0% vs TC avg
§102
20.2%
-19.8% vs TC avg
§112
29.1%
-10.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 606 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2 February 2026 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2-3 remain withdrawn. Claim 1 is currently pending and under examination. The present application is a divisional of U.S. Patent Application No. 15/523746, filed May 2, 2017, which is the National Stage of International Application No. PCT/JP2015/081408, filed November 6, 2015, which claims benefit of priority to Japanese Application No. 2014-226682, filed November 7, 2014. Withdrawal of Rejections: The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al., is withdrawn. New Rejections: 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. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US 2013/0028909; Published Jan. 31, 2013 – Previously presented), in view of Van de Donk et al., Brentuximab vedotin, Landes Bioscience, Vol. 4, Iss. 4, (July/August 2012), pp. 458-465 – Previously presented art of record). With regard to claim 1, Tang et al. teach a method of producing a cell population including liver cells, which are differentiated cells, obtained by inducing differentiation of pluripotent stem cells in a culture medium, where the amount of undifferentiated stem cells in the population is reduced as compared to an amount prior to performance of the method (Abs.; Para. 41-43, 55). The method including culturing a mixed population of cells comprising differentiated cells and pluripotent cells, and depleting the pluripotent cells by affinity separation techniques, including utilizing antibodies and a cocktail of pluripotent markers, including CD30, and using a cytotoxic agent conjugated with an affinity reagent, which includes an antibody, bound to one or more markers, including CD30 (Para. 41, 45-47, 55). Which encompasses affinity separation using a cytotoxic agent, which is a drug having cell-killing activity, conjugated with a linker cleavable in an intracellular environment to an antibody bound to one or more markers including CD30, which is an anti-CD30 antibody. Tang et al. do not specifically teach that the anti-CD30 antibody is used as a sole antibody-drug conjugate in the method. Van de Donk et al. teach that Brentuximab vedotin is an anti-CD30 antibody conjugated via a protease-cleavable linker to a potent anti-microtubule agent, wherein binding to CD30-positive cells leads to cell cycle arrest and apoptosis (Abs.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Tang et al. and Van de Donk et al., because both teach the use of an anti-CD30 antibody conjugated via a cleavable linker to a cell-killing agent, to bind to CD30+ cells and cause their destruction. The use of an anti-CD30 antibody as the sole antibody-drug conjugate to target and eliminate CD30+ cells is known in the art as taught by Van de Donk et al. Tang et al. teach that an anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate is one of the antibody-drug conjugates usable for eliminating CD30+ undifferentiated cells, and Van de Donk et al. teach that an anti-CD30 antibody can be used as the sole antibody-drug conjugate to eliminate CD30+ cells. As such, an ordinary artisan would have been motivated from the teachings of Van de Donk et al. to eliminate CD30+ cells, including the undifferentiated cells of Tang et al., using an anti-CD30 antibody as the sole antibody-drug conjugate. The use of a sole antibody-drug conjugate would have been expected to predictably and successfully eliminate undifferentiated CD30+ cells as desired by Tang et al., while also simplifying the method by using one antibody-drug conjugate to accomplish the desired goal of eliminating CD30+ cells from the mixed culture. Response to Arguments In view of Applicant’s amendments, all previous rejections have been withdrawn. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are moot. However, new rejections have been set forth above. Conclusion No claims are allowable. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER M.H. TICHY whose telephone number is (571)272-3274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 9:00am-7:00pm ET. 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, Sharmila G. Landau can be reached at (571)272-0614. 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. /JENNIFER M.H. TICHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1653
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 28, 2021
Application Filed
Dec 12, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 14, 2023
Response Filed
Mar 22, 2023
Final Rejection — §103
Jun 22, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 07, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 24, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 31, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 30, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 05, 2024
Response Filed
Apr 04, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Jul 09, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 10, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 11, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 17, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 01, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 31, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 02, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 04, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600935
DEVICE FOR FORMING AND COUNTING SPHEROIDS AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAME, AND SPHEROID CULTURING METHOD AND COUNTING METHOD USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593849
NOVEL TEMPERATURE-OPTMIZED BACILLI
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577532
XENO-FREE AND TRANSGENE-FREE REPROGRAMING OF MESENCHYMAL STEM CELLS TOWARD NEURAL PROGENITOR CELLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577525
METHOD OF PURIFYING A PROTEIN FROM FERMENTATION SOLIDS UNDER DESORBING CONDITIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571022
METHODS FOR QUANTIFYING MIXED-LINKAGE BETA GLUCAN
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

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+34.4%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 606 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