Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/021,637

INJECTABLE HYDROGELS AND METHODS OF CAPTURING CELLS USING THE SAME

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Feb 16, 2023
Examiner
DAVIS, BRIAN J
Art Unit
1614
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
VIRGINIA TECH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES, INC.
OA Round
2 (Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 11m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
1317 granted / 1549 resolved
+25.0% vs TC avg
Minimal -5% lift
Without
With
+-4.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 11m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
1596
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.0%
-36.0% vs TC avg
§103
16.0%
-24.0% vs TC avg
§102
19.4%
-20.6% vs TC avg
§112
43.6%
+3.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1549 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Drawings The objection to the drawings, outlined in the previous Office Action, has been overcome. Inventor has submitted properly labeled drawings. Claim Objections Withdrawn The objections to claims 3, 11, 16, 32 and 36, outlined in the previous Office Action, have been overcome by inventor’s amendment. The amendment corrects the claim texts as appropriate. (Claims 32 and 36 have been treated on the merits.) The objection to claim 6 (as being dependent upon a base claim which was also objected to) is withdrawn. (But note the new objection below.) Claim Objections, NEW Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the fifth text line of the claim, the term “…isa…” should properly be the two words: …is a…. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the fifth text line of the claim, for grammatical reasons, the phrase “…the wherein…” (“…and wherein the wherein [emphasis added] the stimulus…”) should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 36 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the first text line of the claim, for grammatical reasons, the phrase “…wherein second the external stimulus is…” should properly be: …wherein the second external stimulus is…. Appropriate correction is required. Inventor’s assistance is again respectfully requested in correcting any other minor grammatical and/or spelling errors which may be present in the claim set. 112(a) Rejections Withdrawn The rejection of claims 46, 47, 49 and 50 under 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, outlined in the previous Office Action, has been overcome by inventor’s amendment. The amendment narrows the scope of the claimed subject matter such that it is now enabled. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b), NEW 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. Claim 32 is 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 limitation of part (ii) of the claim is unclear (“…one or more reagents capable of forming the injectable hydrogel comprising [emphasis added] so as to form an injected injectable hydrogel…”). In particular, inclusion of the term comprising introduces a grammatical ambiguity into the claim. The examiner respectfully suggests a slight rewording, something along the lines of: …one or more reagents capable of forming the injectable hydrogel so as to form an injected injectable hydrogel…”. Claim 36 is also 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 claim depends, or ultimately depends, from an indefinite claim yet does not relieve the indefiniteness. Dependent claim 36 is also, therefore, indefinite. 112(d) Rejections Withdrawn The rejection of claim 50 under 35 USC 112(d) or 35 USC 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph, outlined in the previous Office Action, has been overcome by inventor’s amendment. The amendment rewrites the claim in proper dependent form. Allowability Withdrawn The allowability of claims 1, 2, 9, 18, 22, 23, 26, 30, 31 and 42 is withdrawn. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2, 3, 9, 11, 16, 18, 22, 23, 26, 30, 31, 42, 46, 47, 49 and 50 are objected to as being dependent upon a base claim which has been objected to, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. As noted in the previous Office Action, the subject matter of these claims is allowable subject matter. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN J DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-0638. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM EDT. 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, Ali Soroush, can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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. /BRIAN J DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614 4/6/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 16, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Mar 17, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 06, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594226
COMPOSITION FOR AMELIORATING SKIN CONDITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594257
MEANS AND METHODS FOR IMPROVING ANTI-TUMORAL EFFICACY OF TRANSMEMBRANE CHANNEL PROTEIN BLOCKERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594242
LIPID COMPOUNDS AND LIPID NANOPARTICLE COMPOSITIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595280
PHOSPHORAMIDATES FOR THE TREATMENT OF HEPATITIS B VIRUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12576107
METHODS OF TREATING CHRONIC INFLAMMATORY DISEASES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (-4.8%)
1y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1549 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