Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/997,482

ENGINEERED IMMUNOGLOBULINS

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Oct 28, 2022
Examiner
NATARAJAN, MEERA
Art Unit
1643
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Novartis AG
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
464 granted / 747 resolved
+2.1% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
772
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.9%
-37.1% vs TC avg
§103
26.8%
-13.2% vs TC avg
§102
16.6%
-23.4% vs TC avg
§112
27.6%
-12.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 747 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
DETAILED ACTION Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of species SEQ ID NO: 252 for a first Fc domain and SEQ ID NO: 161 for a second Fc domain in the reply filed on 8/4/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 10-12, 14, are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/4/2025. Claims 1-9, 13, 15-19, 22-29 are pending and will be examined on the merits. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-9, 13, 15-19, 22-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claims recite limitations within parentheses that are not defining the terms preceding them. Thus, the limitations in parentheses renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2173.05(d). Appropriate correction required. 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. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: 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 of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-9, 13, 15-19, 22-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This a written description rejection. The claims are broadly drawn to an engineered, human IgG1 immunoglobulin or fragment thereof comprising a variant Fc region which is capable of binding and activates human FcαRI, capable of binding to human FcRn, and capable of binding to human FcγRs. However, the instant specification does not provide guidance on the specific amino acids that correlates to these claimed function other than the defined sequences listed in Table 51 of full length heavy chains comprising the variant Fc regions as described in the examples as well as the light chain used to generate complete antibodies. The instant specification does not provide a structure-to-function correlation for the broad scope of Fc variants encompassed by the instant claims and therefore do not show possession of the broad range of possible Fc variants. It is noted for example in claims 13 and 15 they recite “an amino acid sequence comprised within SEQ ID NO:” which reads on small amino acid fragments and do not require the entire SEQ ID NOs listed for the limitations to be met. MPEP § 2163 states that the written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. A “representative number of species” means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. See, e.g., AbbVie Deutschland GMBH v. Janssen Biotech, 759 F.3d 1285, 111 USPQ2d 1780 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus to provide a "representative number” of species. The “structural features common to the members of the genus” needed for one of skill in the art to ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus takes into account the state of the art at the time of the invention. “Functional” terminology may be used “when the art has established a correlation between structure and function” but “merely drawing a fence around the outer limits of a purported genus is not an adequate substitute for describing a variety of materials constituting the genus and showing one has invented a genus and not just a species.” Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F3d 1336, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1171 (Fed Cir. 2010). The prior art shows that specific amino acid substitutions within the Fc region can have varied altered effector functions. For example, Su et al. (Antibodies, 2018, 7, 20) teach IgA Fc mutations at positions C253Y/H304R in the CH3 region of IgA2 could effect antigen binding. The instant specification teaches specific amino acid mutations with defined substitutions in the Fc IgA2 region, however the broad genus of possible Fc variants encompassed by the instant claims is not adequately described. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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) 1-9, 13, 15-19, 22-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Georgiou et al. (WO2014/065945, cited on IDS filed 5/23/2023). The claims are drawn to an engineered, human IgG1 immunoglobulin or fragment thereof comprising a modified Fc regions and which is capable of binding and activating human FcαRI, capable of binding to human FcRn, and capable of binding to human FcγRs. The claims are further drawn to wherein the modification in the first Fc domain is a substitution that corresponds to an amino acid in an Fc domain of IgA1, an Fc domain of wild-type IgA2, an Fc domain of parental IgA2, or an affinity matured variant Fc domain of IgA1 or IgA2. Georgiou et al. discloses a chimeric Fc polypeptide retaining the binding to IgA receptor CD89 of an IgA and the binding to IgG receptors FcγRI, RIIa, and RIIb of an IgG, ie. CD64 and CD32. This is exemplified with a swap recombinant IgA Fc comprising the sequence PALEDLLLGSEANG, corresponding to SEQ ID NO: 14 of Georgiou et al., which is the IgA alpha1 loop of a human IgA, next to an IgG CH2 domain and an IgA CH3 domain. It has been shown that when this sequence is inserted into a human IgG Fc CH2 fused to a human IgA Fc CH3 as defined in claim 8 of Georgiou et al., ie. comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 9 of Georgiou et al., the mutant generated called Mutant D in Example 1, is capable of binding both FcαRI and FcγR (see example 1). HER2 target antigen binding capacity is exemplified in the case of trastuzumab (see Claims 1-31; Examples 1-9). Georgiou et al. discloses an engineered trastuzumab having a chimeric Fc polypeptide retaining the binding to IgA receptor and to receptors FcγRI, RIIa, and RIIb. Georgiou et al. further disclose “chimeric antibodies could be further modified by the additional of an FcRn binding peptide (FIG. 18), a modification that may increase serum half life of the molecules.” Georgiou et al. teach polynucleotides encoding the polypeptides and methods of producing the polypeptides of the invention comprising the antibodies having modified Fc regions. Georgiou et al. further teaches methods of treatment comprising administering said engineered immunoglobulins. It is noted in instant claims 13 and 15 they recite “an amino acid sequence comprised within SEQ ID NO:” which reads on small amino acid fragments, or for example the amino acid sequence “PALEDLLLGSEANG” taught by Georgiou et al. and present in several SEQ ID NOs from Table 51 of the instant application, and therefore do not require the entire SEQ ID NOs listed in the claims to meet the limitation. Conclusion Claims 1-9, 13, 15-19, 22-29 are rejected. No Claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEERA NATARAJAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM. 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, JULIE WU can be reached at 571-272-5205. 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. /Meera Natarajan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1643
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 28, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600795
OLIGOMERIC IgG FOR IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS AND DIAGNOSTICS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590151
ANTI-HUMAN CD19 ANTIBODIES WITH HIGH AFFINITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582702
Methods for Improving Leptin Sensitivity for the Treatment of Obesity and Diabetes
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12570760
ANTIGEN BINDING PROTEINS SPECIFICALLY BINDING PRAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12569578
RI-LABELED HUMANIZED ANTIBODY
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
62%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (+16.5%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 747 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