Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/269,683

ATP-PRT VARIANT WITH REDUCED FEEDBACK INHIBITION BY HISTIDINE, AND HISTIDINE-PRODUCING STRAIN EXPRESSING SAME

Non-Final OA §DOUBLEPATENT
Filed
Jul 18, 2023
Priority
Dec 28, 2020 — RE 10-2020-0184671 +1 more
Examiner
YAMASAKI, ROBERT J
Art Unit
1657
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Daesang Corporation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
4m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allowance Rate
370 granted / 548 resolved
+7.5% vs TC avg
Strong +43% interview lift
Without
With
+42.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
581
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
55.5%
+15.5% vs TC avg
§102
5.0%
-35.0% vs TC avg
§112
9.8%
-30.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 548 resolved cases

Office Action

§DOUBLEPATENT
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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2 April 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are currently pending and are considered here. Any rejection not reiterated herein has been withdrawn. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 2 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amendments to claim 1 distinguish the reference applications cited in the double patenting rejection. This is not persuasive with respect to Application No. 18269689 because the '689 claims recite an ATP phosphoribosyltransferase of SEQ ID 1 with an E271K substitution ('689, claim 1) and a T252L/G/V/I substitution ('689, claim 4). The '689 claims thus anticipate the instant claims. 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. Claim 1-3 and 5-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-3 and 5-7 of copending Application No. 18269689 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘689 discloses variant HisG enzymes based on SEQ ID NO: 1 having reduced histidine feedback inhibition and including the following substitutions: E271K (‘689, claim 1) and T252L/G/V/I (‘689, claim 4). The ‘689 further teaches an E. coli strain transformed with the variants and a method of culturing said E. coli to produce histidine (‘689, claims 5-7). The ‘689 claims thus anticipate the instant claims. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J YAMASAKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-6 PST. 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, Louise Humphrey can be reached at 571-272-5543. 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. /ROBERT J YAMASAKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1657
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 18, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT
Dec 10, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 02, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT
Apr 02, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 02, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 07, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12636324
METHOD OF PROMOTING FIRMNESS, ELASTICITY AND WOUND HEALING ABILITY OF THE VULVA AND THE VAGINA
2y 2m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12624383
KINASE ACTIVITY SIGNATURES FOR PREDICTING THE RESPONSE OF NON-SMALL-CELL LUNG CARCINOMA PATIENTS TO A PD-1 OR PD-L1 IMMUNE CHECKPOINT INHIBITOR
4y 2m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12624390
DISTINGUISHING SEQUENCES BY DETECTING POLYMERASE DISSOCIATION
3y 7m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12600957
SYNTHESIS OF TRANSCRIPTS USING VSW-3 RNA POLYMERASE
4y 4m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595504
METHODS FOR SCREENING COMPOUNDS FOR BACTERICIDAL ACTIVITY AND FOR DETERMINING THE SENSITIVITY OF BACTERIAL SAMPLES
3y 2m to grant Granted Apr 07, 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
68%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+42.9%)
3y 3m (~4m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 548 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