Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/861,077

ENHANCED NUCLEIC ACID IDENTIFICATION AND DETECTION

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 08, 2022
Examiner
CHUNDURU, SURYAPRABHA
Art Unit
1681
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
California Institute Of Technology
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
53%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
4y 0m
To Grant
70%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 53% of resolved cases
53%
Career Allow Rate
377 granted / 710 resolved
-6.9% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+17.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 0m
Avg Prosecution
58 currently pending
Career history
768
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.2%
-35.8% vs TC avg
§103
29.6%
-10.4% vs TC avg
§102
30.8%
-9.2% vs TC avg
§112
17.8%
-22.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 710 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 19, 2025 has been entered. Status of the Application 2. Claims 57-77 are pending under examination. Claims 1-56 were canceled. The Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and found persuasive for the following reasons. Response to Arguments: 3. The rejection of claims under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maples et al. has been withdrawn in view of the persuasive arguments. 4. The rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 over Maples et al. in view of Ismagilov et al. has been withdrawn in view of the persuasive arguments. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 5. 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. Claims 57, 67 and 72-73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayashi et al. (US 2006/0252058). Hayashi et al. teach a method of claim 57, 67, comprising: providing a volume suspected of containing target nucleic acids; and conducting an isothermal nucleic acid amplification reaction in said volume in the presence of a modulator comprising an engineered or non-natural sequence-specific nuclease (engineered sequence specific mismatch binding protein), wherein said modulator modulates said isothermal amplification of said target nucleic acids by acting on said target nucleic acid within a region located between amplification primers of said isothermal amplification (para 0081-0085, 0089, 0075-0076, 0107-0114, 0130). With reference to claim 61-66, Hayashi et al. teach providing comprises providing a first volume comprising a first nucleic acid and a second volume comprising a second nucleic acid, wherein dispensing said first volume among a plurality of first areas and dispensing said second volume among plurality of second areas and performing amplification in said areas and detecting the amplification differences in said first and second target nucleic acid, said difference is diagnostic of said nucleic acids (para 0106-0110, 0120-0130, 0008-0011 indicating chip with plurality of reaction areas). With reference to claim 67, Hayashi et al. teach that the said modulation comprises producing a difference in amplification efficiency (para 0084-0085). With reference to claim 72, Hayashi et al. teach that the method further comprises comparing results of said isothermal amplification to results of a control isothermal amplification in (para 0114, 0130). With reference to claim 73-74, Hayashi et al. teach that the isothermal amplification is a LAMP, NASBA or SDA (para 0050). For all the above the claims are anticipated. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 57-74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (US 2006/0252058) in view of Ismagilov et al. (WO 2010/111265). Hayashi et al. teach a method for isothermal amplification in the presence of a modulator as discussed above. However, Hayashi et al. did not teach distributing or partitioning a volume comprising a target nucleic acid into plurality of areas capable of generating digital nucleic acid amplification signals. Ismagilov et al. teach a digital amplification method comprising a slipchip comprising multiple areas on a chip, wherein a volume suspected of containing target nucleic acids is dispensed in said areas (para 0359-0360, 0366-0368, 0427-0433, 0513-0514); and conducting an isothermal nucleic acid amplification reaction in said volume (para 0406, 0417, 0427-0433, 0515-0519, 0359-0360, 0366) wherein providing comprises dispensing said volume among a plurality of areas and conducting is performed in the dispended volume in said plurality of areas, wherein providing comprises comprise a first volume comprising a first nucleic acid and a second volume comprising a second nucleic acid at most one target and detecting a difference in said first and second target amplification and digitally detecting positive and negative amplification signals using positive and negative control for comparison (para 0427-0446, 0513-0519, 0175). With reference to claims 70-71, Ismagilov teach that the target nucleic acid comprises HCV nucleic acid and the method determining a detection signal of HCV genotype (para 0544, 0640). It would have been prime facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method as taught by Hayashi et al. with a digital amplification method as taught by Ismagilov et al. to develop an improved sensitive method for detecting a target nucleic acid in a sample. The ordinary person skilled in the art would have motivated to modify the method of Hayashi et al. with the digital amplification as taught by Ismagilov et al. and have a reasonable expectation of success that the modification would result in an improved sensitivity of the amplification method because Ismagilov et al. explicitly taught that the method provides analysis of multiple samples in small- volume samples using multiple analysis methods with digital read out of results (para 0267, 0359, 0406, 0417) and such a modification of the method is considered obvious over the cited prior art. Allowable Subject Matter 6. Claims 75-77 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SURYAPRABHA CHUNDURU whose telephone number is (571)272-0783. The examiner can normally be reached 8.00am-4.30pm. 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, Gary Benzion can be reached at 571-272-0782. 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. Suryaprabha Chunduru Primary Examiner Art Unit 1681 /SURYAPRABHA CHUNDURU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1681
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 08, 2022
Application Filed
May 05, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Aug 15, 2023
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 16, 2023
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 11, 2023
Response Filed
Dec 08, 2023
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 21, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 22, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 15, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 22, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
May 06, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
May 09, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 28, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 30, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 31, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 03, 2024
Response Filed
Mar 13, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jul 14, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jul 16, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 19, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 02, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601003
METHOD FOR SELECTING POLYNUCLEOTIDES BASED ON ENZYME INTERACTION DURATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12577563
METHODS FOR MULTIPLEXING RECOMBINASE POLYMERASE AMPLIFICATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577606
Gene target region enrichment method and kit
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12553044
METHYLATION DETECTION AND ANALYSIS OF MAMMALIAN DNA
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12534756
Method and system for the amplification of a nucleic acid
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
53%
Grant Probability
70%
With Interview (+17.2%)
4y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 710 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