Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/850,501

Multi Chromophore Fluorescent Dyes with Enhanced Brightness

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Jun 27, 2022
Examiner
BERKELEY, EMILY R
Art Unit
1796
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY
OA Round
2 (Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
310 granted / 409 resolved
+10.8% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+28.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
430
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.3%
-35.7% vs TC avg
§103
38.0%
-2.0% vs TC avg
§102
23.1%
-16.9% vs TC avg
§112
28.8%
-11.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 409 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . The response dated 1/14/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 21-40 are cancelled. Claims 4-6 and 20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-3 and 7-19 are considered on the merits below. Response to Amendment Applicant's claims, filed 1/14/2026, are acknowledged. In response to the applicant's amendments, the grounds of rejection for claims 1-3 and 7-19 are maintained compared to the previous action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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 – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-3 and 7-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 8,969,509 B2). Regarding claim 1, Liu describes a multi-chromophore dye (columns 1-2 and column 11-14 “formula (VI)” and “R15”) comprising: two or more dyes each comprising a water solubilizing group (column 3 “Multiple conjugation sites will allow for conjugation of multiple elements to the CP structure. This can be used to create polymer- biomolecule-dye tandem conjugates for multiplex or multicolor analysis.” And columns 26-27 “Organic Dyes…For multiplexed assays, a plurality of different fluorophores can be used with detectably different emission spectra… Exemplary fluorescent dyes include fluorescein,…” which has a water solubilizing group. And columns 13-14: R15 shows “(dye)” compounds); two or more polymeric spacer domains (column 11-12: compounds a, b, c, e are spacer groups for R15); and a linking moiety (column 3 PNG media_image1.png 242 31 media_image1.png Greyscale ). Regarding claim 2, Liu describes the multi-chromophore dye of claim 1, wherein the two or more polymeric spacer domains are part of a branched backbone joining the two or more dyes to the linking moiety (claims 1 and 21 “The polymer of claim 1, wherein E, for each occurrence, is independently an aryl group optionally substituted with a reactive group or a pendent reactive group capable of undergoing chain extension, conjugation, or crosslinking.” i.e. it is part of the branched backbone of the linking moiety in column 3 PNG media_image1.png 242 31 media_image1.png Greyscale ). Regarding claim 3, Liu describes The multi-chromophore dye of claim 2, wherein the multi-chromophore dye has the structure: PNG media_image2.png 212 364 media_image2.png Greyscale (a linking moiety: column 3 PNG media_image1.png 242 31 media_image1.png Greyscale , Spacer 1: column 11-12: compounds a, b, c, e are spacer groups for R15, Spacers 2: column 14 “Organic dyes with covalent linker include any chromophore or fluorophore described herein attached.” And column 63 “The term “alkyl”, as used herein, unless otherwise indicated, means straight or branched saturated monovalent hydrocarbon radicals “ and claim 21 “The polymer of claim 1, wherein E, for each occurrence, is independently an aryl group optionally substituted with a reactive group or a pendent reactive group capable of undergoing chain extension, conjugation, or crosslinking.” And column 65 “E is even more preferably aryl or aryl substituted with a reactive group capable of undergoing chain extension, conjugation or crosslinking or a trialkylsiloxy. “ Thus, E can be branched to provide the spacers/dyes indicated.) Regarding claim 7, Liu describes the multi-chromophore dye of claim 1, wherein the two or more polymeric spacer domains are each independently a poly(alkylene oxide) group (column 12 compound “e” PNG media_image3.png 200 400 media_image3.png Greyscale ( PNG media_image4.png 200 400 media_image4.png Greyscale is a poly(alkylene oxide))). Regarding claim 8, Liu describes the multi-chromophore dye of claim 7, wherein the poly(alkylene oxide) group is a poly(ethylene oxide) group (column 12 compound “e” PNG media_image3.png 200 400 media_image3.png Greyscale ( PNG media_image4.png 200 400 media_image4.png Greyscale is a poly(ethylene oxide)). Regarding claim 9, Liu describes the multi-chromophore dye of claim 7, wherein the poly(alkylene oxide) group has 4 to 50 alkylene oxide units (column 14 “k=2, 4, 8, 12 or 24”). Regarding claim 10, Liu describes the multi-chromophore dye of claim 9, wherein the poly(alkylene oxide) group has 8 to 30 alkylene oxide units (column 14 “k=2, 4, 8, 12 or 24”). Regarding claim 11, Liu describes the multi-chromophore dye of claim l, wherein the linking moiety comprises a functional group (column 4 “L1, L1, L2 and L2 are each independently a covalent bond, a C1-C12 alkylene, a C3-C12 cycloalkylene, a C2-C12 alk- enylene, a C2-C12 alkynylene, a (C6-C18)aryl(Cl-C12) alkylene, a (C6-C18)aryl(C2-C12)alkenylene, a (C6-C18) aryl(Cl-C12)alkynylene, a C6-C18 arylene group, —Y1— [O-YJi,-, —O—Y1-(C)-Y2] — wherein each CI-C12 alkylene, C3-C12 cycloalkylene, (C6-C18)aryl(Cl-C12) alkylene, or C6-C18 arylene group is optionally substituted with one or more halogen, hydroxyl, C1-C12 alkyl, C2-C12 alkenyl, C2-C12 alkynyl group, C1-C12 alkoxy, C1-C12 haloalkyl, -Y1-(O-Y2)p,- or —O—Y1-[O—Y2]p,-;). Regarding claim 12, Liu describes the multi-chromophore dye of claim 11, wherein the functional group is a chemoselective functional group (column 30 “The solution may comprise additional components as described herein, including labeled probes such as fluorescently labeled antibodies or polynucleotides, specific for a species of a class of biomolecule target or a biomolecule associated therewith for the conjugated polymers and complexes including conjugated polymers.”). Regarding claim 13, Liu describes the multi-chromophore dye of any one of claims 12, wherein the linking moiety is bound to a specific binding member (column 30 “The solution may comprise additional components as described herein, including labeled probes such as fluorescently labeled antibodies or polynucleotides, specific for a species of a class of biomolecule target or a biomolecule associated therewith for the conjugated polymers and complexes including conjugated polymers.”). Regarding claim 14, Liu describes the multi-chromophore dye of claim 13, wherein the specific binding member is an antibody (column 3 “the adaptation of CP design to incorporate conjugation sites for direct covalent attachment of CPs to biomolecules such as proteins (antibodies, streptavidin, etc.), peptides and nucleic acids hybridization probes”). Regarding claim 15, Liu describes the multi-chromophore dye of claim 13, wherein the specific binding member is an antibody fragment or a binding derivative thereof (column 15 “antibody fragment,”). Regarding claim 16, Liu describes the multi-chromophore dye of claim 15, wherein the antibody fragment or binding derivative thereof is selected from the group consisting of a Fab fragment, a F(ab')2 fragment, a scFv, a diabody and a triabody (figure 20 shows Fab structure and column 23 “As shown schematically in FIG. 20, the sensor can be a biomolecule (e.g., an antibody) in a solution or on a substrate, to which conjugated polymers can be added. In the embodiment shown in FIG. 20, a dye can be covalently linked (bioconjugated) to an antibody (Y-shaped structure), which possesses a net negative charge”). Regarding claim 17, Liu describes the multi-chromophore dye of claim l, wherein each of the water solubilizing groups of the two or more dyes are independently a poly(alkylene oxide) group (column 27 “Exemplary fluorescent dyes include… carboxyrhodamine 110” which has a poly(alkylene oxide) group ). Regarding claim 18, Liu describes the multi-chromophore dye of claim 17, wherein each of the poly(alkylene oxide) groups is a poly(ethylene oxide) group (column 27 “Exemplary fluorescent dyes include… carboxyrhodamine 110” which has a poly(ethylene oxide) group). Regarding claim 19, Liu describes the multi-chromophore dye of claim 17, wherein each of the poly(alkylene oxide) groups has 4 to 50 alkylene oxide units (column 27 “Exemplary fluorescent dyes include… carboxyrhodamine 110” which has 4 (ethylene oxide) groups). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 1/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that (1) Liu does not teach all the elements of claim 1, because Liu fails to teach a dye that contains both 2 or more dyes and a linking moiety. Further arguing that the group E of Liu cannot be considered both a containing a dye and a linking group and there are only two E groups of Liu, while the claim required 3 elements, and (2) there is no suggestion to modify Liu to the requirements of the claim. In response to the applicant’s argument that (1) Liu does not teach all the elements of claim 1, because Liu fails to teach a dye that contains both 2 or more dyes and a linking moiety. Further arguing that, the group E of Liu cannot be considered both a containing a dye and a linking group; and there are only two E groups of Liu, while the claim required 3 elements. As indicated above, E can be branch (Liu: claims 1 and 21 “The polymer of claim 1, wherein E, for each occurrence, is independently an aryl group optionally substituted with a reactive group or a pendent reactive group capable of undergoing chain extension, conjugation, or crosslinking.” i.e. it is part of the branched backbone of the linking moiety), this then provides for the multiple components required by the claims. In response to the applicant’s argument that (2) there is no suggestion to modify Liu to the requirements of the claim, as the claims are rejected under 102 anticipation rejection there are no requirements of suggestion needed. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY R BERKELEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9831. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-6. 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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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. /LYLE ALEXANDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1797 /EMILY R. BERKELEY/ Examiner Art Unit 1796
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 27, 2022
Application Filed
Aug 04, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Jan 14, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 16, 2026
Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12560586
Soil Analysis Compositions and Methods
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12560587
Soil Analysis Compositions and Methods
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12559476
COMPOUND AND LABELED BIOLOGICAL SUBSTANCE USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12535492
MASS SPECTRAL TISSUE ANALYSIS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12486293
CHIRALITY SENSING WITH MOLECULAR CLICK CHEMISTRY PROBES
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
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
76%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+28.3%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 409 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