Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/185,649

PEPTIDES AND COMBINATION OF PEPTIDES OF NON-CANONICAL ORIGIN FOR USE IN IMMUNOTHERAPY AGAINST DIFFERENT TYPES OF CANCERS

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Mar 17, 2023
Examiner
WU, JULIE ZHEN QIN
Art Unit
1643
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Immatics Biotechnologies GmbH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
211 granted / 343 resolved
+1.5% vs TC avg
Strong +52% interview lift
Without
With
+51.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
370
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.9%
-33.1% vs TC avg
§103
29.4%
-10.6% vs TC avg
§102
22.9%
-17.1% vs TC avg
§112
19.9%
-20.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 343 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . Claims 1-20 are pending and being examined on the merit. Examiner attempted to reach the applicant for a terminal disclaimer, but was unsuccessful in connecting with the applicant. Thus, the following office action is issued. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11357797B2 in view of Stevanovioc et al. (WO2009/138236, IDS entered on 3/17/2023). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The patented claims are directed to a method treating cancer comprised of administering a peptide consisting of SEQ ID NO:85, which is the same as the instant claimed peptide. A claimed product is obvious over a patented method comprising the product. Therefore, the instant claims are not patentably distinct from the issued claims. The only different between the patent claims and the instant application is the formulation of the peptide in pharmaceutically acceptable salts, chloride salt, acetate salt, the peptide being pegylated and the formation of the peptide in adjuvants. However these deficiencies are made up in Stevanovioc. Stevanovioc discloses methods of treating a patient who has cancer or a methods of eliciting an immune response in a cancer patient, comprising administering to said patient a composition comprising a population of activated T cells that selectively recognize cells in the patient that aberrantly express a peptide wherein the peptide is in a complex with MHC (see summary, page 56 and entire reference). The reference also discloses that the peptides can be in formulations containing acetate salts, chloride salts (page 25). The reference also discloses that the peptides can be pegylated to extend circulatory half-life. The peptides can be also be in compositions containing, buffers and diluents (page 59), Ringer’s, saline and dextrose solution (page 36) and adjuvants (pages 56-58), wherein the adjuvants includes IL-2, IL-7, IL12, IL-15, and IL-21 (pages 57-58, bridging paragraph). Thus, since both the patent claims and the reference disclose a method of treating a patient who has cancer or a methods of eliciting an immune response in a cancer patient, comprising administering to said patient a composition comprising a population of activated T cells that selectively recognize cells in the patient that aberrantly express a peptide wherein the peptide is in a complex with MHC and since the peptides in the reference can be in formulations containing acetate salts, chloride salts, buffers and diluents, Ringer's, saline, dextrose solution and adjuvants, wherein the adjuvants includes IL-2, IL-7, IL12, IL-15, and IL-21, and since the peptide can be pegylated to extend circulatory half-life, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the peptide in the formulations and with adjuvants, including IL-2, IL-7, IL12, IL-15, and IL-21, because Stevanovioc teaches that antigen peptides can be formulated in such a manner. Regarding claim 19, the peptide that is administered in the composition is the same as the peptide that is produced by a bacterial cell expression system. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success for formulating a peptide comprising SEQ ID NO:85 with a pharmaceutically acceptable salt (including acetate salts or chloride salts), buffers and diluents, Ringer's, saline, dextrose solution and adjuvants, wherein the adjuvants includes IL-2, IL-7, IL12, IL-15, and IL-21, and since the peptide can be pegylated to extend circulatory half-life, and adjuvants, including IL-2, IL-7, IL12, IL-15, and IL-21, can be formulated with peptide antigens. Allowable Subject Matter The claims are free from the art of record because the prior art neither teaches nor suggests a peptide consisting of SEQ ID NO:85. The closest prior art is Mintz (US20070083334A1) discloses SEQ ID NO:985269, which is 63 amino acids which comprises a which residues 34-42 reads on instant SEQ ID NO:85. The instantly claimed peptide is claimed using closed language and therefore is limited to a length of 9 amino acids. Thus, peptide in the reference is does not anticipate nor is it obvious over the instant claimed peptide consisting of SEQ ID NO:85. Further, the instant claimed composition is not a natural product because it is formulated in a pharmaceutically acceptable salt as read in light of the instant specification. Instant specification on page 52: “a pharmaceutically acceptable salt” refers to a derivative of the disclosed peptides wherein the peptide is modified by making acid or base salts of the agent. For example, acid salts are prepared from the free base (typically wherein the neutral form of the drug has a neutral -NH2 group) involving reaction with a suitable acid. Suitable acids for preparing acid salts include both organic acids, e.g., acetic acid, propionic acid, glycolic acid, pyruvic acid, oxalic acid, malic acid, malonic acid, succinic acid, maleic acid, fumaric acid, tartaric acid, citric acid, benzoic acid, cinnamic acid, mandelic acid, methane sulfonic acid, ethane sulfonic acid, p-toluenesulfonic acid, salicylic acid, and the like, as well as inorganic acids, e.g., hydrochloric acid, hydrobromic acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid phosphoric acid and the like. Conversely, preparation of basic salts of acid moieties which may be present on a peptide are prepared using a pharmaceutically acceptable base such as sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, ammonium hydroxide, calcium hydroxide, trimethylamine or the like. Conclusion No claims allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIE WU whose telephone number is (571)272-5205. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5PM. 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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at 571-272-4729. 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. /JULIE WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1643
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 17, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12577276
IMMUNOGLOBULIN BINDING PROTEINS FOR AFFINITY PURIFICATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12559565
ANTIBODIES BINDING CTLA4 AND USES THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12534531
PD-1-BINDING MOLECULES AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 11851500
Antibodies Useful for Detection of Human Carcinoma Antigen
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 26, 2023
Patent 11702481
ANTI-CUB DOMAIN-CONTAINING PROTEIN 1 (CDCP1) ANTIBODIES, ANTIBODY DRUG CONJUGATES, AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 18, 2023
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
62%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+51.6%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 343 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