Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 04, 2026
Application No. 18/029,677

ATTENUATION METHOD OF INFLUENZA VIRUS, ATTENUATED INFLUENZA VIRUS STRAIN, AND USE THEREOF

Final Rejection §102§103§112
Filed
Mar 31, 2023
Priority
Jan 27, 2022 — CN 202210100598.6 +1 more
Examiner
LY, KRISTINA ELISABETH
Art Unit
1671
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Difference Biotech Pte. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
100%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 100% — above average
100%
Career Allowance Rate
1 granted / 1 resolved
+40.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
24
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.0%
-30.0% vs TC avg
§103
22.0%
-18.0% vs TC avg
§102
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
§112
38.0%
-2.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Status 2. This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 28 February 2026, wherein claims 1, 5, 9, 15, and 17 were amended and claims 3, 12, and 16 were canceled. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9, 11, 15, and 17 are under consideration. Objections Withdrawn Specification 3. The objection to the abstract for containing legal language is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments. 4. The objection to the specification for missing SEQ ID NOs is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments. Claim Objections 5. The objections to claims 9 and 15-17 for being improper multiple dependent claims are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments. Claims 9 and 15-17 are further examined on the merits herein. The objections to claims 3 and 12 for their inconsistent wording are withdrawn in view of the claims being canceled. Rejections Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 6. The rejections of claims 1-5 and 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments. 7. The rejection of claims 1-2, 4, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, for failing to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 8. The rejections of claims 1-4 and 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 9. The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments. Claim Interpretation 10. Claim 4 is interpreted as a product-by-process claim, where “An attenuated influenza virus strain prepared by the attenuation method according to claim 1” is a product-by-process limitation. Claim 4 requires an attenuated influenza virus strain, but does not require the method of claim 1. MPEP § 2113 makes clear that “Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps” and that “determination of patentability is based on the product itself.” Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the product in claim 4 is an attenuated influenza virus strain with one of the deletions of claim 1. New Objections Claim Objections 11. Claims 9, 15, and 17 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 1-2 and 5, respectively. Claim 4 is a product-by-process claim and thus requires the structure of claim 1. Claim 1 does not have additional method steps that would not be embodied by claim 9, and therefore claim 9 would read on any method that results in the product of claim 4. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). New Rejections Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 12. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 13. Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 5 and 17 recite an attenuated virus with of claim 4, wherein the coding region comprises a nucleotide selected from SEQ ID NO: 1-6. However, this does not further limit claim 1 as the deletions (a)-(f) would result in the SEQ ID NOs, as claimed. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form so long that no duplicates are made, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Formal Matters 14. Due to the elected group not currently being allowable, no rejoinder may be considered at this time. Art-free Subject Matter 15. An attenuation method of an influenza virus with the deletions of claim 1 (a)-(f) is free of the prior art. Conclusion 16. Claims 1-2, 4, and 11 are in an allowable state. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTINA E LY whose telephone number is (571)272-5169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Michael Allen can be reached at (571) 270-3497. 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. /KRISTINA E. LY/Examiner, Art Unit 1671 /Michael Allen/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1671
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 31, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Feb 04, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 05, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 28, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 14, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
100%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+0.0%)
2y 8m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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