Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/924,013

Neoantigenic Epitopes Associated with SF3B1 Mutations

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Nov 08, 2022
Examiner
BELYAVSKYI, MICHAIL A
Art Unit
1644
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale
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

§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. Claims 18-38 are pending. 2. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claims 18-21 and 23 in the reply filed on 10/06/25 is acknowledged. Applicant traverse the Restriction Requirement on the grounds that the search of Groups I-VI together would not constitute a serious search burden on the examiner and that search of the claims of Group I would provide useful information for the claims of Group II -VI This is not found persuasive because the MPEP 803 (August 2001) states that “For purposes of the initial requirement, a serious burden on the examiner may be prima facie shown if the examiner shows by appropriate explanation either separate classification, separate status in the art, or a different field of search”. The Restriction Requirement enunciated in the previous Office Action meets this criteria and therefore establishes that serious burden is placed on the examiner by the examination of more than one Group. The Inventions are distinct for reasons elaborated in paragraphs 3-5 of the previous Office Action and above The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 22, 24-38 are withdrawn from further consideration by the Examiner, 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions. Claims 18-21 and 23 read on tumor specific neoantigeneic peptide, wherein said peptide is encoded by a part of ORF sequence from transcript associated with SF3B1 mutation are under consideration in the instant application. 3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. 4. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 5. 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. 6. Claims 18-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Patent Application 20200291076 US Patent Application’076 teaches a cancer specific neoantigenic peptide, wherein said peptide is result of cancer-associated mutation in ORF of SF3B1. US patent Application’076 teaches that SF3B1 mutant tumor includes melanoma, breast cancer, carcinoma etc. US patent Application’076 teaches that said peptide are typicaly 15 to 30 amino acid long ( see entire document , paragraphs 0006, 0010, 0035, 0041, 0094 in particular). It is noted that because the neoantigenic peptide is the results of cancer-associated mutation in ORF of SF3B1 it is not expressed in normal healthy cells. Claim 23 is included because the claimed functional limitation would be inherent properties of the referenced cell composition. A cancer specific neoantigenic peptide is a neoantigenic peptide irrespective of its intended use. The terms “ vaccine or pharmaceutical composition” carries little patentable weight in the absence of evidence of structural difference. Claim 19 is included because it would be conventional and within the skill of the art to : (i) identify an optimal size of cancer specific neoantigenic peptide . Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233; 235 (CCPA 1955). see MPEP § 2144.05 part II A. The reference teaching anticipates or , the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary. 7. No claim is allowed. 8. 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

Nov 08, 2022
Application Filed
Nov 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (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