Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 17/617,008

USE OF CANNABINOID 1 RECEPTOR AGONIST ARACHIDONOYL CYCLOPROPYLAMIDE (ACPA) IN NON SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Dec 07, 2021
Examiner
RZECZYCKI, PHILLIP MATTHEW
Art Unit
1625
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Atilim Universitesi
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
54 granted / 90 resolved
At TC average
Strong +41% interview lift
Without
With
+41.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
63 currently pending
Career history
153
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.0%
-37.0% vs TC avg
§103
32.4%
-7.6% vs TC avg
§102
16.7%
-23.3% vs TC avg
§112
30.6%
-9.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 90 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3 March 2026 has been entered. Claims 5, 11, 12, 17, 18 , and 20 have been cancelled. Claim 19 has undergone amendments. Thus, Claim 19, submitted 3 March 2026, represent the claim under consideration. 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. Response to Amendment The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of Claims 5, 11-12, and 14-20 over Purdum in view of Brandi, Rivas, Badri, and Mora-Huertas is withdrawn. Applicant has cancelled Claims 5, 11, 12, 17, 18, and 20, rendering those rejections moot. Applicant has further amended Claim 19 to require an encapsulation efficiency of 39.9 ± 14.7% and/or a release of 44.7 ± 9.9% of the ACPA within 72 hours at 37°C. The cited prior art does not teach, suggest, or provide a motivation to arrive at a ACPA polycaprolactone nanoparticle which has an encapsulation efficiency of 39.9 ± 14.7% and/or a release of 44.7 ± 9.9% of the ACPA within 72 hours at 37°C. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)- NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION 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 contains the trademark/trade name PLURONIC F68. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a nonionic block copolymer surfactant and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: There is no prior art which teaches, suggests, or provides motivation for a polycaprolactone ACPA nanoparticle which has the claimed encapsulation efficiency and/or release profile (See STN Search, Search Notes). The closest prior art comes from Brandi (Electrophoresis, 2013 May; 34 (9-10):1359-68) and Purdum (US 2012/0052119; Publication Date: 1 March 2012). Brandi (See IDS, 8 December 2021) teaches that ACPA is a CB1 receptor agonist, and is capable of inhibiting the growth of the pancreatic adenocarcinoma cell line Pacn1. Brandi fails to teach PCL nanoparticles of ACPA. Purdum teaches PCL nanoparticles of cannabinoids such as CBD and THC, but does not teach the formulation of ACPA, nor does Purdum provide any teaching, suggestion or motivation to arrive at the claimed encapsulation efficiency or release profile of ACPA. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion Claim 19 is rejected. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP MATTHEW RZECZYCKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Thru Friday 730AM-5PM EST. 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, Andrew Kosar can be reached at 571-272-0913. 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. /P.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1625 /Andrew D Kosar/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1625
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 07, 2021
Application Filed
Sep 27, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Dec 03, 2024
Response Filed
Dec 21, 2024
Final Rejection — §112
Feb 11, 2025
Interview Requested
Feb 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 28, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 31, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jul 03, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 03, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 09, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 17, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Jan 21, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 22, 2026
Interview Requested
Feb 02, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 03, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 09, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589103
ANTIMICROBIAL AND ANTIVIRAL EFFECTS OF C2-C7 ALKYL BORONIC ACIDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590070
ADAMANTANE DERIVATIVES AS INHIBITORS OF FOCAL ADHESION KINASE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12570607
COMPOUND AS CYCLIN-DEPENDENT KINASE 9 INHIBITOR AND USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564638
EGFR PROTEIN DEGRADANT AND ANTI-TUMOR APPLICATION THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12558335
PREPARATION FOR REMOVAL AND/OR PREVENTION OF AN INFECTION ASSOCIATED WITH STAPHYLOCOCCUS EPIDERMIDIS
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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+41.1%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 90 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