Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/250,916

EUROPIUM(III) COMPLEXES AS PH SENSORS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Apr 27, 2023
Examiner
BAEK, JONGHWAN NMN
Art Unit
1618
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Cisbio Bioassays
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 0% of cases
0%
Career Allow Rate
0 granted / 0 resolved
-60.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
24
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.6%
-36.4% vs TC avg
§103
34.9%
-5.1% vs TC avg
§102
10.8%
-29.2% vs TC avg
§112
33.7%
-6.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 0 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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II and species of complex 99a of formula in the reply filed on January 14, 2026 is acknowledged. In a telephone call with Seth J. Niemi on February 5, 2026, an election of the species of enzyme substrate as the molecule of interest species election requirement was made. No prior art was found in the search for the elected species. The search and examination was expanded to the full scope of claim 4 and no prior art was found. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-9, 19-35, and 37 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: A compound of formula (II) or (III) of instant claim is novel. The closest prior art of record Wong et al. (US 2019 0127393; cited on PTO-892), Walter et al. (Chemistry A European Journal, 2018; cited on PTO-892), and Lamarque et al. (WO 2018 229408; cited on IDS filed April 27, 2023) does not teach the specific compound features such as a mandatory R4 group (-(CH2)m-NR6R7 ) in a group of formula (IV) of instant claim 1 and at least one group of formula (IV) is required in compounds of formulas (II) and (III). The prior art does not provide a motivation to modify its compounds towards those claimed by the addition of such a group. Therefore, the compounds of the instant claim are not rendered obvious by the prior art. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The use of the terms BODIPY™, pHrodo™, AcidiFluor™, Herceptin™, Waters™, and Xbridge™ which are a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. Appropriate correction is required. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In the second structure on page 11, the phosphorus and oxygen indicated by the gray arrow do not have the proper valency and it appears that bond(s) may be missing. PNG media_image1.png 373 352 media_image1.png Greyscale Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Indefiniteness 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. Claim 16 is 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. In the first structure of claim 16, the phosphorus and oxygen indicated by the gray arrow do not have the proper valency and it appears that bond(s) may be missing. Because the claim does not clearly define whether the P-O bond is required, optional, or absent, the claim fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art of the metes and bounds of the invention with reasonable certainty. PNG media_image1.png 373 352 media_image1.png Greyscale Upon correction of the above rejection, the claims may be reconsidered for allowance. Clarification and/or amendment is required. Claim 36 is 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 36 recites the limitation "the enzyme substrate". The claim lacks an antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 35 recites “an enzyme substrate.” It is suggested that claim 36 be dependent on claim 35 to correct this issue. Upon correction of the above rejection, the claims may be reconsidered for allowance. Clarification and/or amendment is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Improper Independency 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. Claim 16 is 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 not referencing to a claim previously set forth. Claim 16 improperly depends from claim 23, which is a subsequently numbered claim. A dependent claim must refer to an earlier numbered claim. See 37 CFR 1.75(c) and MPEP § 608.01(n). Correction is required to place the claim in proper dependent form. Appropriate correction may include renumbering the claim and/or amending the dependency so that each dependent claim refers only to a preceding claim. Upon correction of the above rejection, the claim may be reconsidered for allowance. 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, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONG HWAN BAEK whose telephone number is (571)272-0670. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu, 9 am - 3 pm ET. 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 G Hartley can be reached at 571-272-0616. 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. /JONG HWAN BAEK/Examiner, Art Unit 1618 /Nissa M Westerberg/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1618
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 27, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

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
Grant Probability
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 0 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