Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 17/408,045

BETARETROVIRUS EPITOPES AND RELATED METHODS OF USE

Final Rejection §102§103§112
Filed
Aug 20, 2021
Examiner
KINSEY WHITE, NICOLE ERIN
Art Unit
1672
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allow Rate
493 granted / 858 resolved
-2.5% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
890
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.2%
-36.8% vs TC avg
§103
31.8%
-8.2% vs TC avg
§102
18.3%
-21.7% vs TC avg
§112
29.3%
-10.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 858 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Withdrawn Rejections The rejection of claims 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the claims. The rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lindemann et al. (EP2583974-A1; published April 24, 2013) has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the claim to recite “consisting of”. The rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stewart et al. (WO9951268-A1; published October 14, 1999) has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the claim to recite “consisting of”. The rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart et al. (WO9951268-A1; published October 14, 1999) has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 19 is directed a tetrameric peptide consisting of four monomeric sequences defined by any one of SEQ ID NOs:1-36. It is not clear if the tetramer comprises four copies of the same monomeric sequence or if the tetramer comprises four different monomers selected from any one of SEQ ID NOs: 1-36. Further, it is not clear how the monomers are arranged to form the tetramer (four monomers in tandem or a 3-D structure comprising the four monomers). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art will not know the metes and bounds of the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lajoie et al. (WO2016/138525; published 9/1/2016). The instant claims are directed to an immunogenic peptide consisting of 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, or 20 contiguous amino acids of a sequence as defined by any of SEQ ID Nos: 1-36. Lajoie et al. discloses SEQ ID NO: 101 which consists of 16 contiguous amino acids of instant SEQ ID NO: 4 (see the alignment below). Qy 1 MGVSGSKGQKLFVSVL 16 |||||||||||||||| Db 1 MGVSGSKGQKLFVSVL 16 Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marasco et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6004940; published 12/21/1999). The instant claims are directed to an immunogenic peptide consisting of 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, or 20 contiguous amino acids of a sequence as defined by any of SEQ ID Nos: 1-36. Marasco et al. discloses SEQ ID NO: 34 which consists of 8 contiguous amino acids of instant SEQ ID NO: 4 (see the alignment below). Qy 2 GVSGSKGQ 9 |||||||| Db 1 GVSGSKGQ 8 Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lajoie et al. (WO2016/138525; published 9/1/2016) as applied to claim 17 above. Claim 18 is directed to the isolated peptide of claim 17, wherein said peptide is covalently attached or physically associated with a dish, bead, well, support, macromolecule or carrier. The teachings of Lajoie et al. are outline above and incorporated herein. As outlined above, Lajoie et al. teaches the claimed peptide. Accordingly, attaching or associating the peptide with a surface does not render the claimed peptide patentable over Lajoie et al. The structure of the attached or associated peptide is the same as the claimed peptide. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marasco et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6004940; published 12/21/1999) as applied to claim 17 above. Claim 18 is directed to the isolated peptide of claim 17, wherein said peptide is covalently attached or physically associated with a dish, bead, well, support, macromolecule or carrier. The teachings of Marasco et al. are outline above and incorporated herein. As outlined above, Marasco et al. teaches the claimed peptide. Accordingly, attaching or associating the peptide with a surface does not render the claimed peptide patentable over Marasco et al. The structure of the attached or associated peptide is the same as the claimed peptide. Conclusion No claim is allowed. 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 Nicole Kinsey White whose telephone number is (571)272-9943. The examiner can normally be reached M to Th 6:30 am to 6:00 pm. 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, Thomas Visone can be reached at 571-270-0684. 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. /NICOLE KINSEY WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1672
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 20, 2021
Application Filed
May 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Oct 16, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 14, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589145
SYSTEMS TO PRODUCE B CELLS GENETICALLY MODIFIED TO EXPRESS SELECTED ANTIBODIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584917
RECOMBINANT ANTIBODIES, KITS COMPRISING THE SAME, AND USES THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584147
RATIONAL POLYPLOID ADENO-ASSOCIATED VIRUS VECTORS FOR THE TREATMENT OF DISEASE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571000
DIAPHRAGM-SPECIFIC NUCLEIC ACID REGULATORY ELEMENTS AND METHODS AND USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12560603
Self-Contained Apparatus and System for Detecting Microorganisms
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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
58%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (+16.2%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 858 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