Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/022,062

NOVEL 5'CAP ANALOG HAVING CAP2 STRUCTURE AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 17, 2023
Examiner
LEWIS, PATRICK T
Art Unit
1691
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Shenzhen Rhegen Biotechnology Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
844 granted / 1135 resolved
+14.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
1175
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.0%
-36.0% vs TC avg
§103
30.5%
-9.5% vs TC avg
§102
20.4%
-19.6% vs TC avg
§112
21.4%
-18.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1135 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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TRILINK BIOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. WO 2017/053297 A1 (TRILINK). Claim 12 is drawn to an RNA analog capped with a 5'Cap analog having a Cap2 structure, wherein the RNA analog comprises the structure of formula (II). TRILINK relates to methods and compositions for synthesizing 5'Capped RNAs wherein the initiating capped oligonucleotide primers have the general form m7Gppp[N2'Ome]n[N]m wherein m7G is N7-methylated guanosine or any guanosine analog, N is any natural, modified or unnatural nucleoside, "n" can be any integer from 0 to 4 and "m" can be an integer from 1 to 9 (Abstract). TRILINK teaches that messenger RNA (mRNA), encoding physiologically important proteins for therapeutic applications, has shown significant advantages over DNA-based plasmid and viral vectors for delivering genetic material [0004]. The most important of these advantages are: (i) high level of safety (reduces potential genome damage from viral or plasmid integration), (ii) mRNA delivery results in immediate protein expression (unlike delayed responses that generally occur with plasmids), (iii) mRNA allows for robust dose-dependent control over expression of proteins and (iv) the simplicity of large scale synthesis of mRNAs compared to manufacturing of plasmid and viral vectors. Figure 10H shows the structure of initiating capped oligonucleotide primers used in examples according to Formula I wherein: Bi is adenine; B2 is guanine; Bio is guanine; M is 0; L is 1 ; qi is 1; q2 is 1; q3 through q9 are 0; Ri is H; R2 is H; R3 is O-methyl; X1 is 0; X2 is 0; X4 is 0; X5 is 0; Xu is 0; Yi is OH; Y2 is OH; Y4 is OH; Y5 is OH; Y13 is OH; Z0 is 0; Z1 is 0; Z2 is 0; Z4 is 0; Z5 is 0; Z6 is 0; Z22 is 0; R4 is O-methyl; R5 is O-methyl [0042]. PNG media_image1.png 398 586 media_image1.png Greyscale The initiating capped oligonucleotide primer of TRILINK (e.g., m7GpppA2OmepG2OmepG) differs from the instantly claimed capped RNA analog in that the primer of TRILINK does not contain an RNA chain; however, this deficiency would have been obvious as TRILINK relates to methods and compositions for synthesizing 5'Capped RNAs. Thus, TRILINK would have reasonably suggested an RNA analog as depicted in Figure 10H wherein an RNA chain is extended from the G residue. “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). See MPEP 2144.01. Conclusion Claims 1-14 are pending. Claim 12 is rejected. Claims 1-11 and 13-14 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: TRILINK BIOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. WO 2017/053297 A1 (TRILINK) is representative of prior art. TRILINK does not teach or suggest a compound of instant formula (I). It would not have been obvious to modify a compound of TRILINK in a manner that would produce an analog of instant formula (I). Contacts Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK T LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)272-0655. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10 AM to 4 PM EST (Maxi Flex). 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, Shaojia Jiang can be reached at (571) 272-0627. 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. /PATRICK T LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1691 /PL/
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 17, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599594
Treatment Of Fabry Disease In ERT-Naïve And ERT-Experienced Patients
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599595
Dosing Regimens for the Treatment of Lysosomal Storage Diseases Using Pharmacological Chaperones
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595281
Indodicarbocyanine Phosphoramidites with Bathochromically Shifted Absorption and Emission, and Tunable Hydrophobicity
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594292
ANTIVIRAL PRODRUGS, INTERMEDIATE-AND LONG-ACTING FORMULATIONS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584124
MAGNETIC BEAD BASED NUCLEIC ACID EXTRACTION SYSTEM
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
74%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+14.3%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1135 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