Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/212,218

PD1-41BBL FUSION PROTEIN AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF

Final Rejection §DOUBLEPATENT
Filed
Jun 21, 2023
Priority
Jan 05, 2017 — provisional 62/442,471 +2 more
Examiner
OUSPENSKI, ILIA I
Art Unit
1644
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Kahr Medical Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allowance Rate
855 granted / 1102 resolved
+17.6% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
1152
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.8%
-38.2% vs TC avg
§103
12.4%
-27.6% vs TC avg
§102
22.6%
-17.4% vs TC avg
§112
19.4%
-20.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1102 resolved cases

Office Action

§DOUBLEPATENT
DETAILED ACTION 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 2. Applicant's amendment and remarks filed on 03/12/2026 are acknowledged. Claims 1-16 are pending. 3. 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. 4. Claims 1-2 and 4-12 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12286466 (of record). The ground of rejection presented in section 7 of the previous office action are maintained for the reasons of record. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but have not been found convincing. Applicant asserts that the instant application has an earlier patent term filing date than U.S. Patent No. 12,286,466, and points to MPEP section 1490 allegedly indicating that if the such non-statutory double patenting rejections are the only rejections remaining in the present utility application, which were filed after June 8, 1995, the rejection should be withdrawn. In response, MPEP section 1490(VI)(D)(2)(a), which contains the language pointed out by Applicant, applies to only to saturations where a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection is the only rejection remaining in a utility application. The present rejection is not a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection, and as such is maintained for the reasons of record, and is incorporated by reference herein as if reiterated in full. 5. Claims 1-9 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending application USSN 17785946, published as US 20230048719 (of record). The ground of rejection presented in section 8 of the previous office action are maintained for the reasons of record. Applicant’s assertion that the instant application has an earlier patent term filing date than USSN 17785946 is acknowledged. Since the present provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection is not the only rejection remaining in the instant application, the rejection is maintained for the reasons of record, and is incorporated by reference herein as if reiterated in full. 6. Claims 13-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all relevant limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 7. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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. 8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ILIA I OUSPENSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2920. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5:30 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, Julie Wu can be reached at 571-272-5205. 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. /ILIA I OUSPENSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1644
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 21, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT
Mar 12, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 16, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12630623
ANTIBODIES WITH REDUCED IMMUNOGENICITY
4y 4m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12630638
Methods and Compositions for Diabetes Treatment and Beta-Cell Regeneration
3y 3m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12622929
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED HEMATOPOIETIC STEM CELLS AND USES THEREOF
3y 11m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12622954
ANTI-ICOS AGONIST ANTIBODIES AND USES THEREOF
3y 6m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12624107
CANCER IMMUNOTHERAPY BY DISRUPTING PD-1/PD-L1 SIGNALING
1y 0m to grant Granted May 12, 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
78%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+20.3%)
2y 7m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1102 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