Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/336,644

FAST PROTEIN SEQUENCING

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jun 16, 2023
Examiner
CHEU, CHANGHWA J
Art Unit
1678
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
891 granted / 1194 resolved
+14.6% vs TC avg
Strong +48% interview lift
Without
With
+47.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
15 currently pending
Career history
1209
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
9.4%
-30.6% vs TC avg
§103
29.3%
-10.7% vs TC avg
§102
18.8%
-21.2% vs TC avg
§112
26.2%
-13.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1194 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . Claims 1-20 are pending and under examination. 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 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 11726096. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the 096’ patent also recites analyzing at least one protein by mixing a protease enzyme with the sample, and digestion occurs on the emitter of electrospray followed by a tandem mass spectrometry analysis in a real-time fashion. Note, claim 28 of the 096’ patent recites identifying the post translational modifications of the protein sample. As to the procedures of the analysis, 096’ patent also recites using denaturant, sample size less than about 10 ug/uL, protease/protein sample ratio 1:1-1:10, positive voltage, and protease pepsin, or protease XIII. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: no prior art teaches or suggests the current invention for analyzing a post-translational modified protein, especially first mixing a protease enzyme with a protein sample to form a final sample, then contacting the final sample to an electrospray emitter, wherein digestion of said protein by said protease occurs on the electrospray emitter. The closest prior art is the reference of Zhao (Analytical Biochemistry 2006 359:167-175). Zhao teaches a method of integrating nanoelectrospray mass spectrometry for protein analysis (see Title and abstract). Zhao teaches contacting the samples on electrospray where trypsin is immobilized on emitter surface followed by tandem mass spectrometry analysis (see page 168, left bottom paragraph). Zhao also teaches sequencing the sample in identifying the structure of protein sample together with the mass data of the tested proteins (see Table 1-3; page 170). However, Zhao considers that immobilizing protease on the emitter surface for sample digestion provides advantages of reducing rate-limiting factor in allowing more samples digestion and avoiding autodigestion (page 168, left column, 2nd paragraph). This feature teaches away from the current invention because the protease in current method is not immobilized on the electrospray emitter. Rather the current method teaches mixing sample with protease to form a final sample, then contacting the final sample to an electrospray emitter wherein digestion of the protein occurs on the electrospray emitter. Conclusion No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANGHWA J CHEU whose telephone number is (571)272-0814. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am to 8 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, Gregory Emch can be reached at 5712728149. 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. CHANGHWA J. CHEU Primary Examiner Art Unit 1678 /CHANGHWA J CHEU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1678
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 16, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590967
METHOD FOR DETECTING PARTICULATE SUBSTANCE USING IMMUNOCHROMATOGRAPHY, AND KIT FOR SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590974
METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE DETECTION AND MANAGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12578326
METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR IDENTIFYING A SURVIVABILITY INDEX FOR AN ANIMAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571805
METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR DETERMINING OXPL-ASSOCIATED DISEASES AND DISORDERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12566182
A Point of Care Device, Method and Kit Involving Club Cell Protein 16 as a Marker for Silicosis
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
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
75%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+47.6%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1194 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