Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/928,806

INORGANIC NANOPARTICLE-BASED VACCINE COMPOSITIONS FOR CANCER TREATMENT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 30, 2022
Examiner
STOICA, ELLY GERALD
Art Unit
1647
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Universidad de la Habana
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
807 granted / 1211 resolved
+6.6% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+22.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
1242
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.9%
-36.1% vs TC avg
§103
26.7%
-13.3% vs TC avg
§102
19.9%
-20.1% vs TC avg
§112
34.1%
-5.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1211 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-12) in the reply filed on 12/31/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from prosecution for being drawn to non-elected subject matter. Claims 1-12 are currently examined. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claims 1-7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez Martinez et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20100196412- from here on ‘412 document -cited by Applicant) in view of (Masson et al. - Calcium phosphate: a substitute for aluminum adjuvants? Exp. Rev. Vaccines, 16, 289-299, 2016 -cited by Applicant). The claims are drawn to a vaccine composition to induce an immune response against the epidermal growth factor (EGF), comprising as active principle a system that contains the recombinant human EGF (rhEGF), or peptides thereof, and a carrier protein, bound to a nucleus formed by inorganic nanoparticles. The nucleus is formed by Calcium base oxides or hydroxides (e.g. hydroxyapatite). The hydroxyapatite may be partially coated with organic ligands. The carrier protein is selected from cholera toxin B subunit, tetanus toxoid, KLH, and P64k of Neisseria meningitidis. The ‘412 reference teaches a vaccine composition comprising a chemical conjugated between the human recombinant Epidermal Growth Factor (hrEGF) and the P64K recombinant protein (abstract). The vaccine composition also comprise appropriate adjuvants such as Aluminum hydroxide or Montanide ([0015]). The reference is silent about inorganic adjuvant being in the form of nanoparticle and being a calcium phosphate based one. Masson et al. discloses that calcium phosphate was one of the substances that could replace alum salts in vaccines before 1980s abstract). Calcium phosphate was initially developed by the Pasteur Institute in hydroxyapatite form (Ca10(PO4)6(OH)2). This adjuvant was used in diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and poliomyelitis vaccines it still remains as an approved adjuvant for the World Health Organization (WHO) for human vaccination (p. 289; Table 1). Apart from its excellent storage stability, cold preparation, and relatively inexpensive development, calcium phosphate nanoparticles have positive characteristics. Calcium phosphate nanoparticles exist as rod shaped and sphere shaped. Rod-shaped one can induce both cellular immune response (development of T lymphocytes) by type-1 helper(Th1) way and humoral immune response by Th2 way. Microparticle-sized adjuvants may not be able to induce the same response due to a greater size. Nanoparticle adjuvants also allow the optimization of a selective cell response for the antigen release (p. 294-295). Finally, beyond the comparison with alum salts, calcium phosphate has demonstrated its effectiveness for use in human vaccination (p. 292, Table 4). it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was filed to have substituted the Aluminum Hydroxide adjuvant of ‘412 reference with the Calcium phosphate nanoparticles of Masson et al. and obtain EGF vaccines with a reasonable expectation of success. This is because a skilled artisan would have used known reagents and methods for a better outcome. A person of ordinary skill in the art is always motivated to pursue the known options within her or his technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez Martinez et al. (the ‘412 document) in view of (Masson et al. – cited above) and in further view of Zhang et al. (CN 107050447). The claim adds the limitation that the hydroxyapatite is partially coated by sodium citrate. The teachings of over Rodriguez Martinez et al. and Masson et al. were presented supra and they were silent about the sodium citrate. Zhang et al. disclosed a porcine epidemic diarrhea virus inactivated vaccine, containing inactivated porcine epidemic diarrhea virus and an adjuvant, wherein the adjuvant is composed of the following components by weight percentage 5% squalane, 1% oleic acid, 1% Tween 80, 92% 0.005M sodium citrate buffer solution and 1% of beta-glucan, the porcine epidemic diarrhea virus is porcine epidemic diarrhea virus strain (PEDV-KB2013-4 strain) prepared by inactivation ((invention content; Claim 1). it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was filed to have used known and routinely used vaccine adjuvants for EGF vaccines with a reasonable expectation of success since the knowledge in the art was ubiquitous for vaccine adjuvants. A person of ordinary skill in the art is always motivated to pursue the known options within her or his technical grasp. Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLY GERALD STOICA whose telephone number is (571)272-9941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST. 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, Joanne Hama can be reached at 571-272-2911. 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. ELLY-GERALD STOICA Primary Examiner Art Unit 1647 /Elly-Gerald Stoica/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1647
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 30, 2022
Application Filed
Feb 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600785
Method of screening for compounds that inhibit proliferation of pancreatic cancer cells having a loss -of-function mutation in the RNF43 gene
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600773
Treatment of diuretic resistant heart failure patients having at least one copy of the TMPRSS6 rs855791 allele
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590145
TRANSFORMING GROWTH FACTOR-BETA-RESPONSIVE POLYPEPTIDES AND THEIR METHODS FOR USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583928
NOVEL IGFR-LIKE RECEPTOR AND USES THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582675
METHODS FOR TREATMENT OF CANCERS HARBORING AN H3K27M MUTATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
67%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+22.7%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1211 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