Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/245,115

COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF FOR PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF INFLUENZA INFECTIONS

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Mar 13, 2023
Priority
Sep 11, 2020 — provisional 63/077,454 +1 more
Examiner
HILL, MYRON G
Art Unit
1671
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
The United States of America, AS Represented By the Secretary of Agriculture
OA Round
2 (Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allowance Rate
461 granted / 693 resolved
+6.5% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+19.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
729
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.5%
-37.5% vs TC avg
§103
41.4%
+1.4% vs TC avg
§102
4.0%
-36.0% vs TC avg
§112
16.9%
-23.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 693 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 § 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 3, 12, and 17 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. The guidelines for the Examination of Patent Applications Under the 35 U.S.C. 112, § 1 "Written Description" Requirement make clear that if a claimed genus does not show actual reduction to practice for a representative number of species, then the Requirement may be alternatively met by reduction to drawings, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the Applicant was in possession of the genus (Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 4, pages 1099-1111, Fri. January 5, 2001, see especially page 1106 column 3). The Board in Ex Parte Kubin further stated on page 16 that Possession may not be shown by merely describing how to obtain possession of members of the claimed genus or how to identify their common structural features. See University of Rochester, 358 F.3d at 927, 69 USPQ2d at 1895. The court in In re Alonso (Fed. Cir. 2008) citing In re Enzo, Enzo, 323 F.3d at 969 stated that [F]or purposes of satisfying the written description requirement, it is not enough merely to disclose a method of making and identifying compounds capable of being used to practice the claimed invention. Here the claim requires “functional fragments” of IGIP and this is a large genus of fragments of undetermined length and composition of fragment sequence. The specification teaches only known protein sequences that are homologous and have the same function, see SEQ ID N0: 1-12. The specification does not teach fragments that have the same function. The specification does not teach what structure or sequence motif is required for the function, thus there is no structure function correlation. Without such teaching, one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing would not be able to recognize the fragments without testing. Thus, applicant is not in possession of the genus of fragments that the function of IGIP. Applicant argues that the term “functional fragment” is removed. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and not found persuasive. The 70% or more identity includes functional fragments that are not described. SEQ ID No: 1-12 have been described. The specification does not teach what structure or sequence motif is required for the function, thus there is no structure function correlation. Without such teaching, one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing would not be able to recognize the fragments without testing. Thus, applicant is not in possession of the genus of fragments that the function of IGIP. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1, 6-7, 25-27, 29-33, 36-37, 46-48, and 76 are allowed. SEQ ID# 31 is free of the prior art. Conclusion 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MYRON G HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-0901. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 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. MYRON G. HILL Examiner Art Unit 1671 /M.G.H/Examiner, Art Unit 1671 /Shanon A. Foley/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1671
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 13, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Feb 02, 2026
Response Filed
Jun 02, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12678410
RESPIRATORY SYNCYTIAL VIRUS (RSV) POLYANHYDRIDE NANOPARTICLE VACCINE
4y 4m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12679870
RECOMBINANT HUMAN METAPNEUMOVIRUS F PROTEINS AND THEIR USE
3y 9m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12629413
Utilizing Vaccines to Treat Cancer and Enhance the Success Rate of Cancer Immunotherapy
5y 4m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12630890
Anti-SARS-CoV-2-Spike Glycoprotein Antibodies and Antigen-Binding Fragments
3y 5m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12606803
METHODS FOR GROWING AFRICAN SWINE FEVER VIRUS IN FETAL PORCINE LUNG ALVEOLAR MACROPHAGE CELLS
4y 3m to grant Granted Apr 21, 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
66%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+19.8%)
3y 2m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 693 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