Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 17/547,350

METHOD FOR DEFINING A PERSONALIZED VACCINE AGAINST HIV/AIDS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Dec 10, 2021
Examiner
KINSEY WHITE, NICOLE ERIN
Art Unit
1672
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
3 (Non-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

§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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/8/2025 has been entered. Election/Restrictions Amended claims 4-10 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The originally presented claims were drawn to a method of defining a personalized vaccine against HIV/AIDS. Claim 4 (and dependent claims 5-10) has been amend to recite “A method for administering the personalized vaccine against HIV/AIDS”, which is a new independent method claim that is different from the originally filed method claims. Method claims 1-3 and 11-19 and method claims 4-10 differ in the method objectives, method steps, in the reagents used, and have different final outcomes. Additionally, the search burden is at least doubled and deemed unduly burdensome. Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention (A method of defining a personalized vaccine against HIV/AIDS), this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 4-10 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03. Status of the Claims Claims 4-10 have been withdraw as being directed to a non-elected invention. Claims 1-3 and 11-19 are under examination at this time. Withdrawn Rejections The rejection of claims 4-10 and 12-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the claims. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 11 contains amino acid sequences without the appropriate sequence identifier (e.g., SEQ ID NO: X). Appropriate correction is required. The use of trademarks has been noted in this application. A trademark should be capitalized wherever it appears and be accompanied by the generic terminology. Although the use of trademarks is permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner, which might adversely affect their validity as trademarks. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: For clarity and consistency, claim 1 should be amended as follows: Part c) “translating the sequences of a) into amino acid sequences of circulating . . . . “. Part d) “aligning the amino acid sequences of c) and creating a consensus sequence . . . .” Part f) “where only epitopes showing a binding affinity having an IEDB score of >100 and mapping to positions on the gag protein documented to interact with the HLA Class I haplotypes of the individual are selected” Part g) “synthesizing the epitopes selected in step f)” rewritten for clarity, particularly steps f), g) and h), should be rewritten for clarity. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 1-3 and 11-19 are 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 1, step f), recites “selection of epitopes including a plurality of peptides”. It is not clear how one selects “a plurality of peptides” where the previous step only relates to epitopes. For claim 2, it is not clear if the 2-7 peptides are the epitopes of claim 1, step f), the “plurality of peptides” of claim 1, step f), or a different set of peptides. Further, the order recited does not indicate which gag sequences are preferred and the meaning of the ordered gag sequences. Lastly, claim 2 is not clear. For example, it is not clear how the combination of two to seven peptides are used “based on the following order based on position within the gag sequence: Gag256-377 > Gag147-169 ≥ Gag225-251”. The term “highest ranking” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “highest ranking” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprized of the scope of the invention. Claim 12 recites the limitation "The method for administering the personalized vaccine" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 16 recites the limitation "The method for administering the personalized vaccine" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art will not know the metes and bounds of the claim. Conclusion No claim is allowed. 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 on 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

Dec 10, 2021
Application Filed
May 15, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Sep 04, 2024
Response Filed
Nov 19, 2024
Final Rejection — §112
Jun 11, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 30, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 01, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 08, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Apr 08, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 08, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

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
High
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