Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 04, 2026
Application No. 18/126,546

KIDNEY FUNCTION BIOMARKERS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Mar 27, 2023
Priority
Feb 27, 2013 — provisional 61/769,809 +2 more
Examiner
CARTER, SANDRA DILLAHUNT
Art Unit
1674
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Meso Scale Technologies LLC
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allowance Rate
296 granted / 527 resolved
-3.8% vs TC avg
Strong +29% interview lift
Without
With
+29.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
561
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.9%
-31.1% vs TC avg
§103
21.6%
-18.4% vs TC avg
§102
11.7%
-28.3% vs TC avg
§112
39.1%
-0.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 527 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/6/26 has been entered. Claims 28, 30, and 32 have been amended. Claims 1-27 and 43-60 have been canceled. Claims 28-42 are pending and under examination. Withdrawn Rejections The rejection of claims 28-44 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention, is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment thereto. See paragraph 8, page 3 of the previous Office action. The rejection of claims 29-42 and 44 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception without significantly more, is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment thereto. See paragraph 10, page 5 of the previous Office action. New Rejections 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. Claims 28-42 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 is a new matter rejection. The instant claims recite a “non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a computer program that, when executed by a computer system operably connected to an assay kit, causes the computer system to perform an operation of monitoring a kidney disease or a causative condition thereof…”. However, the specification does not describe “a computer readable medium having stored thereon a computer program that, when executed by a computer system operably connected to an assay kit, causes the computer system to perform an operation of monitoring a kidney disease or a causative condition thereof…” and therefore this limitation constitutes new matter. The disclosure concerning the use of a computer is limited to the following statement: “The specific methods/algorithms for using biomarker levels to make these determinations, as described herein, may optionally be implemented by software running on a computer that accepts the biomarker levels as input and returns a report with the determinations to the user. This software may run on a standalone computer or it may be integrated into the software/computing system of the analytical device used to measure the biomarker levels or, alternatively, into a laboratory information management system (LIMS) into which crude or processed analytical data is entered.” (See page 8 of the specification) However, this not interpreted as a computer-readable medium comprising a computer program that, when executed on a computer system operably connected to a computer system to perform an operation of monitoring a kidney disease or a causative condition thereon, as claimed. Although the PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP 714.02 and 2163.06 (“Applicant should therefore specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). It is noted that Applicant did not point to support in the specification, by page and line number, for the limitation recited in the amended claims. Accordingly, the limitations in the claims constitute new matter. 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 28-42 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. Claim 28 recites “determining from said comparing step (b) that the patient has an altered level of at least two of said plurality of biomarkers relative to normal control levels and administering to the patient at least one of an oral insulin, an ACE inhibitor, and an angiotensin II receptor blocker”. The term “altered” is a relative term than renders the claim indefinite. The term altered” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The “altered level of at least two of said plurality of biomarkers compared to a normal control” is used to make a treatment decision; however, there is no guidance regarding the change in the biomarkers levels that is required such that a treatment is administered to the patient. Thus, the claim scope is ambiguous and one of skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the claim. Dependent claims 29-42 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 28, and thus, are included in the rejection. Claim Status No claims are allowed. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANDRA CARTER whose telephone number is (571)272-2932. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 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, Vanessa L. Ford can be reached at (571)272-0857. 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. /SANDRA CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1674 /VANESSA L. FORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1674
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 27, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jun 12, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 06, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jan 02, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 06, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 07, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12741011
LIQUID FORMULATION
3y 10m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12703747
FUSION CONSTRUCTS AND METHODS OF USING THEREOF
3y 8m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12698346
PARATHYROID HORMONE RECEPTOR 1(PTH1R) ANTIBODIES AND USES THEREOF
2y 11m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12697394
MUSCLE TARGETING COMPLEXES AND FORMULATIONS FOR TREATING MYOTONIC DYSTROPHY
11m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12653897
PEGYLATED PORCINE INTERFERON AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF
5y 3m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

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
56%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+29.0%)
3y 6m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 527 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