Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/732,119

PEPTIDE CAPTURE AND CHARACTERIZATION

Non-Final OA §102§112§DP
Filed
Apr 28, 2022
Examiner
CHIN, CHRISTOPHER L
Art Unit
1677
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Lc Sciences LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
571 granted / 706 resolved
+20.9% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
720
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.7%
-37.3% vs TC avg
§103
28.4%
-11.6% vs TC avg
§102
19.7%
-20.3% vs TC avg
§112
34.8%
-5.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 706 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112 §DP
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Claims 15-17 are pending. Claims 1-14 are cancelled. Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures 2. REQUIREMENTS FOR PATENT APPLICATIONS CONTAINING NUCLEOTIDE AND/OR AMINO ACID SEQUENCE DISCLOSURES Items 1) and 2) provide general guidance related to requirements for sequence disclosures. 37 CFR 1.821(c) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.821(a) must contain a "Sequence Listing," as a separate part of the disclosure, which presents the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences and associated information using the symbols and format in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825. This "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure may be submitted: In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (see Section I.1 of the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (https://www.uspto.gov/PatentLegalFramework), hereinafter "Legal Framework") as an ASCII text file, together with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file in a separate paragraph of the specification as required by 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) identifying: the name of the ASCII text file; ii) the date of creation; and iii) the size of the ASCII text file in bytes; In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) on read-only optical disc(s) as permitted by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(1)(ii), labeled according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5), with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8) and 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) in a separate paragraph of the specification identifying: the name of the ASCII text file; the date of creation; and the size of the ASCII text file in bytes; In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(2) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF file (not recommended); or In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(3) on physical sheets of paper (not recommended). When a “Sequence Listing” has been submitted as a PDF file as in 1(c) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(2)) or on physical sheets of paper as in 1(d) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(3)), 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1) requires a computer readable form (CRF) of the “Sequence Listing” in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.824. If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the PDF copy and the CRF copy (the ASCII text file copy) are identical. If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed on paper or read-only optical disc, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the paper or read-only optical disc copy and the CRF are identical. Specific deficiencies and the required response to this Office Action are as follows: Specific deficiency - This application fails to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 because it does not contain a "Sequence Listing" as a separate part of the disclosure or a CRF of the “Sequence Listing.”. Required response - Applicant must provide: A "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure; together with An amendment specifically directing its entry into the application in accordance with 37 CFR 1.825(a)(2); A statement that the "Sequence Listing" includes no new matter as required by 37 CFR 1.821(a)(4); and A statement that indicates support for the amendment in the application, as filed, as required by 37 CFR 1.825(a)(3). If the "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure is submitted according to item 1) a) or b) above, Applicant must also provide: A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required incorporation-by-reference paragraph, consisting of: A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version); A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter. If the "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure is submitted according to item 1) c) or d) above, applicant must also provide: A CRF in accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1) or 1.821(e)(2) as required by 1.825(a)(5); and A statement according to item 2) a) or b) above. Specific deficiency - This application fails to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 because the application does not contain a statement that the CRF is identical to the "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure, as described above in item 1), as required by 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii). Required response - Applicant must provide such statement. Specific deficiency – Nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences appearing in the specification are not identified by sequence identifiers in accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(d). Required response – Applicant must provide: A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers, consisting of: A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version); A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter. Specific deficiency – Nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences appearing in the drawings are not identified by sequence identifiers in accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(d). Sequence identifiers for nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences must appear either in the drawings or in the Brief Description of the Drawings. Required response – Applicant must provide: Replacement and annotated drawings in accordance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) inserting the required sequence identifiers; AND/OR A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers into the Brief Description of the Drawings, consisting of: A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version); A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter. Page 18 of the specification, lines 4-5, appear to recite peptide sequences GGSXGGLL (X is Asn or Ala), GWSYGGY, GGSYGG, and GGHSYGAFMT which do not comply with ST25 sequence rules. Page 7, lines 6 and 9, recite peptide sequences pY-PPEPs and pY-PPEP-SH2 without sequence identifiers. Page 21 of the specification, line 10, appears to recite an amino acid sequence for a phosphopeptide with a sequence identifier – pY-E/V/Q/K-N-V/I/L Table B1 (page 7) and Figures 11 and 12 appear to recite peptide sequences without sequence identifiers. MPEP 2421.02 - The sequence rules embrace all unbranched nucleotide sequences with ten or more nucleotide bases and all unbranched, non-D amino acid sequences with four or more amino acids, provided that there are at least 10 “specifically defined” nucleotides or 4 “specifically defined” nucleotides or amino acids. The rules apply to all sequences in a given application, whether claimed or not. All such sequences are relevant for the purposes of building a comprehensive database and properly assessing prior art. It is therefore essential that all sequences, whether only disclosed or also claimed, be included in the database. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 3. 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. 4. Claims 16 and 17 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 16 is vague because it is not clear as to what environment the peptides are synthesized in by merely saying “in situ”. The claim is further vague because it depends from cancelled claim 1. Claim 17 is vague because the term “using” is not clear how the Grb2 functions as a reporter. The claim is further vague because it depends from cancelled claim 2. 5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 6. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The manner in which the peptides are made does not further limit the steps of the method of detection in claim 15, assuming claim 16 is meant to depend from claim 15 instead of cancelled claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Double Patenting 7. 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. 8. Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,366,120. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patent ‘120 claims a method that anticipates the instant invention. Patent ‘120 claims: 1. A method for differential detection of phosphoprotein expression in cancerous and non-cancerous cells comprising: a) making a microarray containing peptides that bind phosphoproteins; b) lysing the cancerous cells and collecting proteins from the cells; c) binding the phosphoproteins with peptides on the microarray; d) detecting the phosphoproteins; and e) repeating steps b-d using the non-cancerous cells and comparing the results. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 9. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 – (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States. 10. Claim(s) 15-16 are is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Thiele et al (“High Density Peptide Microarrays for Proteome-Wide Fingerprinting of Kinase Activities in Cell Lysates”, Methods Mol. Biol. 2010, 173-181; herein referred to as Thiele). Thiele discloses a method for detecting phosphoproteins bound to a peptide microarray. The peptides probes were synthesized by SPOT technology and covalently immobilized on appropriately modified glass slides. Cell lysates are contacted with a phosphorylation solution to produce phosphoproteins and applied to the peptide microarray. Bound phosphoproteins are detected with a phosphate specific stain solution (pages 174-177). With respect to claim 16, as noted above in the 112(b) rejection, synthesis in situ is not clearly defined so the SPOT technology taught by Theile is considered in situ synthesis. Conclusion 11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER L CHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0815. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00am - 6:30pm. 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, Bao-Thuy Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-0824. 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. /CHRISTOPHER L CHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1677 4/2/26
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 28, 2022
Application Filed
Apr 28, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 06, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601005
METHODS FOR INCREASING THE MOLECULAR SPECIFICITY OF A NANOSENSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590958
ASSESSING RESPONSIVENESS OF RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS PATIENTS TO BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584912
AN IMMUNOCHROMATOGRAPHIC TEST STRIP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584909
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR DETERMINING BIOLOGICAL ANALYTES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12560602
DIAGNOSTIC CARTRIDGE FOR IMMUNODIAGNOSIS AND DIAGNOSTIC DEVICE AND SYSTEM USING THE SAME
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+23.0%)
3y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 706 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