Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/771,271

ANTI-TSLP ANTIBODY AND USES THEREOF

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Apr 22, 2022
Examiner
GEORGE, DENNIS CHERIAN
Art Unit
1644
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Harbour BioMed (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
25%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
0%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 25% of cases
25%
Career Allow Rate
2 granted / 8 resolved
-35.0% vs TC avg
Minimal -25% lift
Without
With
+-25.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
25
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.5%
-37.5% vs TC avg
§103
24.9%
-15.1% vs TC avg
§102
18.8%
-21.2% vs TC avg
§112
26.9%
-13.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 8 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Status of Claims Applicant’s election for continued examination without traverse of the species of antibody 43B1-H2L2; VH and VL sequences of SEQ ID NOs: 68 and 69, respectively; IMGT CDR sequences of SEQ ID NOs: 42-47 and AbM CDR sequences of SEQ ID NOs: 48-52 and 47, filed in the reply on 08/14/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 9 does not read on the elected species and is withdrawn from examination. Claims 1-8, 10-21, and 23-27 are currently pending and under examination. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 12/13/2019. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. The foreign priority document is not in English, so the examiner cannot determine if it discloses the claimed invention. Therefore, for the purposes of applying prior art, the effective filing date is 12/08/2020, the date that PCT/CN2020/134438 was filed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-8, 10-21, and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 1, the limitation regarding the “sequence variant is a CDR having a substitution, deletion, or addition of one or more amino acids…” sweeps in all CDRs with up to three residue changes including additions/deletion for each of six VH and six VL sets. The Specification demonstrates the functional activity of antibodies with six specific CDR domains or with specific light and heavy chains (Specification, pgs. 54-56). The whole genus of possible 1-3 residue variants taught by claim 1 is not evidenced and is there unsupported by the Specification. Claims 2-8, 10-21, and 23-27 directly or indirectly depend from claim 1 and fail to overcome the unsupported deficiencies of claim 1. 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 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11-12, 14, 18, 22-24, and 26 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. 1. Regarding claim 1, antibodies are claimed by CDR sequence variants of the VH and VL but limitations do not specify the numbering scheme used. Therefore, it is unclear whether the claim requires antibodies to have the amino acids that correspond to the AbM scheme, the IMGT scheme, or some other CDR numbering scheme such as Kabat or Chothia. The person of skill in the art cannot determine where the boundary of claim 1 lies, because the CDR numbering scheme is not defined. Claims 2-8, 10-21, and 23-27 are rejected as they depend from claim 1, but do not remedy the deficiencies introduced by claim 1. 2. The use of the ambiguous expressions "at least one CDR contains a mutation" in claim 2, the use of "e.g.", "such as" appearing in claims 6, 11-12, 18, 22, and "less than about" appearing in claim 12, result in an inaccurate definition of the scope of protection of the claims, such that the scope of protection is unclear and renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear which limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). 3. In addition, the use of expressions such as “preferably,” or “optionally” in claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 14, 22-24, and 26 renders these claims indefinite because the two or more different ranges of protection introduced by such expressions creates questions or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Allowable Subject Matter PNG media_image1.png 338 677 media_image1.png Greyscale Claims 1 is allowable over the prior art. The closest prior art that matches SEQ ID NO: 68 of claim 1 is heavy chain of a human anti-IL-2 antibody disclosed as SEQ ID NO: 241 by Butz and Thomson (WO2016164937) with an 84.0% query match. PNG media_image2.png 265 685 media_image2.png Greyscale Furthermore, the closest prior art that matches SEQ ID NO: 69 of claim 1 is light chain variable region SEQ ID NO: 202 of a monoclonal human antibody that binds to growth differentiation factor 8 as disclosed by Stitt and Latres (WO2011150008) with a 97.1% query match. Since elected species of claim 1, VH and VL sequences of SEQ ID NOs: 68 and 69, respectively, were found allowable over the prior art, the remaining non-elected species within claim 1 were also searched over the prior art in accordance with MPEP 803.02(III)(C)(2). PNG media_image3.png 334 648 media_image3.png Greyscale In regard to VH SEQ ID NO: 1, the closest prior art is SEQ ID NO: 7855 Adeno-associated viral (AAV) bispecific amino acid for treating influenza disclosed by Hou et al. (WO2020223279) with a 89.8% query match. In regard to VH SEQ ID NO: 17, the closest prior art is VH SEQ ID NO: 39 anti-OX40 antibody disclosed by Zheng et al. (WO2019214624) with a 85.3% query match. PNG media_image4.png 341 659 media_image4.png Greyscale In regard to VH SEQ ID NO: 30, the closest prior art is heavy chain SEQ ID NO: 285 of an antibody used for strengthening or weakening insulin or insulin receptor complex binding affinity disclosed by Corbin et al. (US8926976) with a 83.5% query match. PNG media_image5.png 349 660 media_image5.png Greyscale In regard to VH SEQ ID NO: 40, the closest prior art is VH SEQ ID NO: 241 of a human anti-IL-2 antibody disclosed by Butz et al. (WO2016164937) with a 85.1% query match. PNG media_image6.png 346 653 media_image6.png Greyscale In regard to VH SEQ ID NO: 53, the closest prior art is VH SEQ ID NO: 1642 of a human germline-derived antibody disclosed by Bazirgan et al. (WO2010054007) with a 87.7% query match. PNG media_image7.png 259 633 media_image7.png Greyscale In regard to VL SEQ ID NO: 2, the closest prior art is VL SEQ ID NO: 107 of an immunoglobulin polypeptide that specifically binds to cancer antigen TES7 disclosed by Mather and Liang (WO2008066691) with a 98.0% query match. PNG media_image8.png 260 657 media_image8.png Greyscale In regard to VL SEQ ID NO: 18, the closest prior art is an anti-platelet autoantibody-related light chain SEQ ID NO: 75 disclosed by Siegel (WO2004005890) with a 97.3% query match. PNG media_image9.png 262 635 media_image9.png Greyscale In regard to VL SEQ ID NO: 31, the closest prior art is VL SEQ ID NO: 64 of an anti-Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) spike protein (MERS-S) antibody disclosed by Grosveld et al. (WO2020169755) with a 98.0% query match. PNG media_image10.png 259 643 media_image10.png Greyscale In regard to VL SEQ ID NO: 41, the closest prior art is VL SEQ ID NO: 202 of an anti-growth differentiation factor 8 (GDF8) antibody disclosed by Stitt and Latres et al. (WO2011150008) with a 96.4% query match. PNG media_image11.png 264 641 media_image11.png Greyscale In regard to VL SEQ ID NO: 54, the closest prior art is anti-Rh(D) light chain SEQ ID NO: 107 disclosed by Siegel (US8124742) with a 96.0% query match. PNG media_image12.png 265 686 media_image12.png Greyscale Conclusion No claim is allowable. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS GEORGE whose telephone number is (571)270-0340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 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, Daniel E Kolker can be reached at (571) 272-3181. 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. /DENNIS GEORGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1644 /DANIEL E KOLKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1644
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 22, 2022
Application Filed
Jan 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12371476
CANINE PARVOVIRUS (CPV) NANOBODY CPV-VHH-H1 AND USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 29, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 1 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
25%
Grant Probability
0%
With Interview (-25.0%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 8 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