Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 17/794,497

KETOGENIC FASTING-MIMICKING DIET TO IMPROVE KIDNEY FUNCTION

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jul 21, 2022
Priority
Jan 21, 2020 — provisional 62/963,652 +1 more
Examiner
PRAKASH, SUBBALAKSHMI
Art Unit
1793
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Sapienza University Of Rome
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
45%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 45% of resolved cases
45%
Career Allowance Rate
317 granted / 705 resolved
-20.0% vs TC avg
Strong +37% interview lift
Without
With
+37.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
754
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
73.4%
+33.4% vs TC avg
§102
4.0%
-36.0% vs TC avg
§112
14.9%
-25.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 705 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 . Status of the Application Receipt is acknowledged of the request for continued examination, amendment and response filed 2/20/2026. Claims 1-3,5-11,14-23 and 25-31 are pending in the application. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/20/2026 has been entered. Response to Arguments Claim amendments render the previous rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 103 moot. However, the claims as amended present new grounds for rejection. 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. Claim 1, 21 and dependent claims 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 claim(s) contains 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. The claims require that the recited dietary regimen “repairs kidney tissue” and “restores kidney function”; and “repairs glomerular tissue damage” and “restores glomerular function” respectively in a human subject. However the specification is limited to a rat model demonstrating changes in surrogate markers (e.g. proteinuria, BUN, urinary eGFR, and histology), and further states that the formulation “will be developed for human purposes”. ([0089]) This forward-looking statement indicates that the application of the regimen to humans had not yet been achieved at the time of filing. Accordingly, the specification does not reasonably convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors were in possession of methods achieving repair of kidney tissue or restoration of kidney function in humans. The disclosure of biomarker changes in an animal model, without more, does not demonstrate possession of the broadly claimed treatment outcomes. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is not supported by an adequate written description. 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 1,21 and dependent claims 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. The claims recite “repairs kidney tissue” and “restores kidney function”; and “repairs glomerular tissue damage” and “restores glomerular function”, respectively, in a human subject. These functional limitations lack objective boundaries. Although the specification describes data obtained in rats (e.g. proteinuria, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), urinary eGFR, and histology), it does not define what or type of change constitutes “repair” or “restoration” in a human subject, nor provide objective criteria or thresholds for determining when such results are achieved. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of these limitations. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Subbalakshmi Prakash whose telephone number is (571)270-3685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday. 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. /SUBBALAKSHMI PRAKASH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 21, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Aug 13, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 19, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Feb 20, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 26, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12635722
USE OF HIGH ACYL GELLAN IN WHIPPING CREAM
2y 2m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12628852
MEAT-LIKE PROCESSED FOOD PRODUCT AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 11m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12610968
WHIPPING AGENT FOR FOOD PRODUCTS AND USE THEREOF
4y 12m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12610965
PARTICULATE COMPOSITION CONTAINING CO-CRYSTAL OF MALIC ACID AND ALKALI METAL HYDROGEN MALATE
2y 10m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12610958
OAT FLOUR BASED FOOD COMPOSITION
1y 10m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
45%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+37.2%)
3y 5m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 705 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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