Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/786,481

UTILIZATION OF A FASTING-MIMICKING DIET TO REDUCE SENESCENT CELLS AND INFLAMMATION

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jun 16, 2022
Examiner
O'HERN, BRENT T
Art Unit
1793
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
1216 granted / 1560 resolved
+12.9% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
1602
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
41.2%
+1.2% vs TC avg
§102
14.6%
-25.4% vs TC avg
§112
37.9%
-2.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1560 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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/7/2025 has been entered. Claims Claims 1-9, 11-17 and 19 are pending. WITHDRAWN OBJECTIONS All objections of record in the Office Action mailed 7/7/2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments in the Paper filed 10/7/2025. WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS All rejections of record in the Office Action mailed 7/7/2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments in the Paper filed 10/7/2025. NEW OBJECTIONS The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Official Correspondence. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 10-11 sometime refer to weight as being “grams” while other times “g”. Applicant is advised to be consistent. PNG media_image1.png 108 780 media_image1.png Greyscale Appropriate correction is required. Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 2-3 sometime refer to weight as being “grams” while other times “g”. Applicant is advised to be consistent. PNG media_image2.png 126 790 media_image2.png Greyscale Appropriate correction is required. NEW REJECTIONS The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Official Correspondence. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claims 1-9, 11-17 and 19 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 recites the limitation "p16INK4a" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the p16INK4a". Claim 1 recites the limitation "step a)" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier referring to “a)” and “b)” as steps and stating "the step" in line 6. Claim 1 recites the limitation "p16INK4a expression" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the expression of p16INK4a". The phrase “16-25 grams of monounsaturated fats” in claim 1, line 10 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether the weight includes the glyceride head in triglycerides or does it just refer to the fatty acid chains of triglycerides, like oleic acid (C18:1). PNG media_image3.png 202 490 media_image3.png Greyscale The Specification as filed does not provide any guidance. A single triglyceride with 3 monounsaturated chains, like oleic acid (C18:1), has a different weight than 3 oleic acid chains (C18:1). PNG media_image4.png 128 514 media_image4.png Greyscale Paragraph [0062] refers to “monounsaturated food” including olive oil and polyunsaturated food including soybean oil. However, not every fatty acid chain in olive oil is C18:1 and not every fatty acid chain in soybean oil is C18:2 and C18:3. The phrase “4.8-8 grams of polyunsaturated fats” in claim 1, lines 10-11 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether the weight includes the glyceride head in triglycerides or does it just refer to the fatty acid chains of triglycerides, like linolenic acid (C18:3). PNG media_image3.png 202 490 media_image3.png Greyscale The Specification as filed does not provide any guidance. A single triglyceride with 3 monounsaturated chains, like linolenic acid (C18:3), has a different weight than 3 linolenic acid chains (C18:3). PNG media_image5.png 86 748 media_image5.png Greyscale Paragraph [0062] refers to “monounsaturated food” including olive oil and polyunsaturated food including soybean oil. However, not every fatty acid chain in olive oil is C18:1 and not every fatty acid chain in soybean oil is C18:2 and C18:3. PNG media_image6.png 382 846 media_image6.png Greyscale The phrase “1-10 grams of saturated fats” in claim 1, line 11 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether the weight includes the glyceride head in triglycerides or does it just refer to the fatty acid chains of triglycerides, like stearic acid (C18:0). Claim 5 recites the limitation "step a)" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier referring to “a)” and “b)” as steps and stating "the step" in line 1. Claim 6 recites the limitation "step a)" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier referring to “a)” and “b)” as steps and stating "the step" in line 1. Claim 8 recites the limitation "a subject’s" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the subject’s”. Claim 8 recites the limitation "a subject’s" in line 2, second instance. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the subject’s”. Claim 9 recites the limitation "a subject’s" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the subject’s”. Claim 9 recites the limitation "a subject’s" in line 2, second instance. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the subject’s”. Claim 11 recites the limitation "sugars" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the sugars". Claim 11 recites the limitation "monounsaturated fats" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the monounsaturated fats". Claim 11 recites the limitation "polyunsaturated fats" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the polyunsaturated fats". Claim 11 recites the limitation "saturated fats" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the saturated fats". Claim 17 recites the limitation "the fasting" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "fasting". The phrase “caloric fasting” in line 6 has a different meaning than “fasting”. Claim 17 recites the limitation "p16INK4a expression" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the p16INK4a expression". Clarification and/or correction required. ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS The limitations of the amended/new claims are discussed above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT T O'HERN whose telephone number is (571)272-6385. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:00 am - 3:30 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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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. /BRENT T O'HERN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793 November 27, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 16, 2022
Application Filed
Oct 31, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
May 05, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 02, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Oct 07, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 09, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599149
OILY FOOD FOR FROZEN DESSERTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593862
COATED PROBIOTIC, FOOD COMPOSITION CONTAINING THE SAME AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588691
DIET FORMULATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590287
LACTIC ACID BACTERIAL STRAIN WITH IMPROVED TEXTURIZING PROPERTIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590275
BEVERAGES COMPOSED OF FRUIT AND/OR VEGETABLE COMPONENTS AND METHODS FOR PRODUCING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
78%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+20.0%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1560 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