Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/999,131

METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE POTENCY OF ANTIGENS

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Nov 17, 2022
Examiner
BOESEN, AGNIESZKA
Art Unit
1672
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Takeda Vaccines Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
555 granted / 816 resolved
+8.0% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
847
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.9%
-33.1% vs TC avg
§103
31.6%
-8.4% vs TC avg
§102
20.7%
-19.3% vs TC avg
§112
21.3%
-18.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 816 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on November 17, 2022 is acknowledged. Claims 1-4, 7-9, 13, 14, 17, 20, 21, 29-36, and 39 are pending and under examination in this Office action. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 17, 2022 has been considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. Claim 32 is 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. Claim 32 is drawn to the claimed method wherein the antigen sample is a zika virus antigen and antibody 1 binds to amino acid E370 of SEQ ID NO: 1 and antibody 2 binds to amino acids T397 and H398 of SEQ ID NO: 1. The claim is rejected because there is a lack of structure and function correlation between the antigen and the antibodies binding an amino acid E370 or T397 of SEQ ID NO: 1. The antibodies required in the presently claimed method are not sufficiently described by requiring only one amino acid within SEQ ID NO: 1. Applicant Specification and claims 33-36 describe the antibodies used in the claimed method, wherein the antibodies comprise the entire antigen binding region. However, present claim 32 describes the antibodies solely by the antigen to which the antibodies should bind. Amending claim 32 to recite either the heavy or light variable chain of the of each of the antibodies required in the claimed method would help overcome the present rejection. The present claims are rejected for lack of written description support for the reasons discussed above. 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)(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. Claims 1-4, 7-9, 13, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (Clinica Chimica Acta, 2013, p. 139-144). Liu et al. disclose a method for detecting a signal indicative of the potency in the sample such as the hepatitis B virus vaccine sample comprising providing a kit comprising an acceptor kit and a donor kit, the acceptor kit comprising an amount of an acceptor microsphere and an amount of an acceptor antibody and the donor kit comprising an amount of a donor microsphere and an amount of a donor antibody, wherein the acceptor microsphere is capable to accept energy which is transferred in a proximity reaction to produce a signal and is capable of binding or is bound to the constant region of the acceptor antibody and is not capable of binding to the donor antibody, the acceptor antibody has a variable region which is capable of binding to one of the at least two epitopes of the antigen and a constant region which is capable of binding or is bound to said acceptor microsphere, wherein the acceptor antibody is not capable of binding to the donor microsphere, the donor microsphere is capable to donate energy which is transferred in a proximity reaction to produce a signal by the acceptor microsphere and is capable of binding or is bound to the constant region of the donor antibody and is not capable of binding to the acceptor antibody, and the donor antibody has a variable region which is capable of binding to the other of the at least two epitopes of the antigen and a constant region which is capable of binding to said donor microsphere, wherein the donor antibody is not capable of binding to the acceptor microsphere, and Step 2: contacting the amount of said donor microsphere, the amount of said acceptor microsphere, the amount of said donor antibody and the amount of said acceptor antibody of step 1 with the sample to allow forming a complex of the antigen in the sample with the donor antibody bound to the donor microsphere and the acceptor antibody bound to the acceptor microsphere and the acceptor antibody bound to one of the at least two epitopes of the antigen and the donor antibody bound to the other of the at least two epitopes of the antigen, Step 3: conducting a proximity reaction to produce a signal indicative for the potency of the antigen sample, and Step 4: detecting the signal indicative for the potency of the antigen sample (see Materials and Methods, Results, and Figure 1). Thus, by this disclosure Liu anticipate the present claims. 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. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-4, 7-9, 13, 14, 17, 20, 21, 29-32, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (Clinica Chimica Acta, 2013, p. 139-144) in view of Yu e al. (US Patent 10,967,057). Liu teaches the claimed invention as discussed above. They do not teach the antigen being a zika virus antigen and the donor and acceptor antibodies providing an EC50 value towards the zika virus antigen of less than 100 ng/mL, or less than 80 ng/mL, or less than 60 ng/mL, or less than 40 ng/mL, or less than 30 ng/mL. Regarding present claims 29 and 30, Yu teaches methods of inducing and immune response and detecting Zika virus and teaches a Zika virus sequence identical with present SEQ ID NO: 1 (see SEQ ID NO: 62 in Yu) and the sequence alignment below). Present SEQ ID NO: 1 and SEQ ID NO: 62 in Yu. Query Match 100.0%; Score 2667; Length 505; Best Local Similarity 100.0%; Matches 504; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0; Qy 1 IRCIGVSNRDFVEGMSGGTWVDVVLEHGGCVTVMAQDKPTVDIELVTTTVSNMAEVRSYC 60 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 1 IRCIGVSNRDFVEGMSGGTWVDVVLEHGGCVTVMAQDKPTVDIELVTTTVSNMAEVRSYC 60 Qy 61 YEASISDMASDSRCPTQGEAYLDKQSDTQYVCKRTLVDRGWGNGCGLFGKGSLVTCAKFA |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 61 YEASISDMASDSRCPTQGEAYLDKQSDTQYVCKRTLVDRGWGNGCGLFGKGSLVTCAKFA 120 Qy 121 CSKKMTGKSIQPENLEYRIMLSVHGSQHSGMIVNDTGHETDENRAKVEITPNSPRAEATL |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 121 CSKKMTGKSIQPENLEYRIMLSVHGSQHSGMIVNDTGHETDENRAKVEITPNSPRAEATL 180 Qy 181 GGFGSLGLDCEPRTGLDFSDLYYLTMNNKHWLVHKEWFHDIPLPWHAGADTGTPHWNNKE |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 181 GGFGSLGLDCEPRTGLDFSDLYYLTMNNKHWLVHKEWFHDIPLPWHAGADTGTPHWNNKE 240 Qy 241 ALVEFKDAHAKRQTVVVLGSQEGAVHTALAGALEAEMDGAKGRLSSGHLKCRLKMDKLRL |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 241 ALVEFKDAHAKRQTVVVLGSQEGAVHTALAGALEAEMDGAKGRLSSGHLKCRLKMDKLRL 300 Qy 301 KGVSYSLCTAAFTFTKIPAETLHGTVTVEVQYAGTDGPCKVPAQMAVDMQTLTPVGRLIT |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 301 KGVSYSLCTAAFTFTKIPAETLHGTVTVEVQYAGTDGPCKVPAQMAVDMQTLTPVGRLIT 360 Qy 361 ANPVITESTENSKMMLELDPPFGDSYIVIGVGEKKITHHWHRSGSTIGKAFEATVRGAKR |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 361 ANPVITESTENSKMMLELDPPFGDSYIVIGVGEKKITHHWHRSGSTIGKAFEATVRGAKR 420 Qy 421 MAVLGDTAWDFGSVGGALNSLGKGIHQIFGAAFKSLFGGMSWFSQILIGTLLMWLGLNTK |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 421 MAVLGDTAWDFGSVGGALNSLGKGIHQIFGAAFKSLFGGMSWFSQILIGTLLMWLGLNTK 480 Qy 481 NGSISLMCLALGGVLIFLSTAVSA 504 |||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 481 NGSISLMCLALGGVLIFLSTAVSA 504 It would have been prima facie obvious to provide use the method of Liu in order to detect the Zika virus antigen of Yu because Liu teaches that his method uses a shorter incubation time and an easier protocol than the ELISA protocol and Yu teaches that the Alphalisa technology using a bead-based method has multiple advantages over the standard ELISA method (see page 139 and Discussion). It would have been prima facie obvious to optimize the EC50 value of the zika virus antigen to less than 100 ng/mL, or less than 80 ng/mL, or less than 60 ng/mL, or less than 40 ng/mL, or less than 30 ng/mL, as this would have been a routine optimization. Thus, the present invention would have been prima facie obvious. Conclusion Claims 33-36 are free of prior art. Claim Objection Claims 33-36 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. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AGNIESZKA BOESEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8035. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 - 5:00 PM. 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, Thomas Visone can be reached on 571-270-0684. The fax phone 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /AGNIESZKA BOESEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1648
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 17, 2022
Application Filed
Nov 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599660
THERAPEUTIC RNA FOR HPV-POSITIVE CANCER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589143
HUMAN ANTI-PD-L1 PEPTIDE VACCINES AND METHODS OF THEIR USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12569553
SHINGLES VACCINES COMPRISING A TLR9 AGONIST
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12552854
PEPTIDES THAT BLOCK PRESENTATION OF ANTIGENIC ISLET PEPTIDES BY HLA-DQ8 AND METHODS FOR TREATING TYPE-1 DIABETES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12551550
COMPOSITIONS AND VACCINES FOR TREATING AND/OR PREVENTING CORONAVIRUS VARIANT INFECTIONS AND METHODS OF USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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
68%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+22.5%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 816 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