Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/820,434

ANTIGEN-BINDING PROTEINS TARGETING KKLC-1 SHARED ANTIGEN

Non-Final OA §112§DP
Filed
Aug 17, 2022
Examiner
BELYAVSKYI, MICHAIL A
Art Unit
1644
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Gritstone Bio Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
697 granted / 1091 resolved
+3.9% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
77 currently pending
Career history
1168
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.3%
-37.7% vs TC avg
§103
29.0%
-11.0% vs TC avg
§102
9.7%
-30.3% vs TC avg
§112
10.9%
-29.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1091 resolved cases

Office Action

§112 §DP
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 . DETAILED ACTION 1. Claims 1,3,10-15,17,32,37,45,47-51 are pending. 2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1,3,10-15,17,32,37,45,47-51 as they read on ABP comprising heavy and light chain CDRs from a clone 2H03 in the reply filed on10/20/25 is acknowledged. It is noted that in the Restriction Requirement mailed on 06/18/25, the Examiner indicated that each clone is patentably distinct group not a species as indicated in Applicant’s response filed on 10/20/25. Claims 1,3,10-15,17,32,37,45,47-51 as they read on ABP comprising heavy and light chain CDRs from a clone 2H03 are under consideration in the instant application. 3. Claims 1,3,10-15,17,32,37,45,47-51 are objected because they do not correspond to the scope of the elected Group I, as they read only on heavy and light chain CDRs from a clone 2H03 . Appropriate correction is required. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Claims 1,3,10-15,17,32,37,45,47-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. 7. Claims 1,3,10-15,17,32,37,45,47-51 are indefinite in the recitation of “clone 2H03” because its characteristics are not known. The use of " clone 2H03" as the sole means of identifying the claimed isolated ABP renders the claim indefinite because clone 2H03" is merely a laboratory designation which does not clearly define the claimed product, since different laboratories may use the same laboratory designation s to define completely distinct ABP. Applicant should amen the claims to recited a specific SEQ ID NOs for HCDRs and LCDRs for said clone 2H03 as recited in Table 10 of the instant Specification. 8. Claim 3 indefinite in the recitation of “the isolated ABP of claim 0” because its characteristics are not known. There is no claim 0 in the instant pending claims. Appropriate correction is required. 9. Claim 51 indefinite in the recitation of “modification that alters an affinity of ABP” because its characteristics are not known. The Specification provided no teaching or definition of what modification Applicant considered to alters an affinity of ABP. Appropriate correction is required. 10. 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. 11. The claims 1,3,10-15,17,32,37,45,47-51 are provisionally rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting of the claims of copending Applications: US 20240279343 A1 US 20240059797 A1 US 20230295305 A1 US 20250353914 A1 US 20230287128 A1 US 20230041030 A1 US 20220213196 A1 US 20220162320 A1 US 20210147550 A1 US 20210061914 A1 Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of copending Applications: US 20240279343 A1 US 20240059797 A1 US 20230295305 A1 US 20250353914 A1 US 20230287128 A1 US 20230041030 A1 US 20220213196 A1 US 20220162320 A1 US 20210147550 A1 US 20210061914 A1 Each recited an isolated ABP that specifically binds to HLA-Peptide. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented. 12. No claim is allowed. 13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michail Belyavskyi whose telephone number is 571/272-0840. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM. A message may be left on the examiner's voice mail service. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Daniel Kolker can be reached on 571/ 272-3181 The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571/273-8300 Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /MICHAIL A BELYAVSKYI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1644
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 17, 2022
Application Filed
Jan 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599675
NOVEL CONJUGATE OF IMMUNE-STIMULATING IL-2 ANALOG AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589113
PREPARATION OF A THERAPEUTIC COMPOSITION FOR TREATING AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584125
METHODS AND USE OF CHIMERIC PROTEINS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577581
USE OF PRE T ALPHA OR FUNCTIONAL VARIANT THEREOF FOR EXPANDING TCR ALPHA DEFICIENT T CELLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570959
PROCESSES FOR PRODUCTION OF TUMOR INFILTRATING LYMPHOCYTES AND USES OF SAME IN IMMUNOTHERAPY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
64%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+27.2%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1091 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