Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/349,562

Engineered EpCam Binding Antibodies

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jul 10, 2023
Priority
Jan 11, 2021 — provisional 63/136,111 +1 more
Examiner
SULLIVAN, DENNIS JOHN
Art Unit
1642
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Tigatx
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
61%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
9m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 61% of resolved cases
61%
Career Allowance Rate
64 granted / 105 resolved
+1.0% vs TC avg
Strong +50% interview lift
Without
With
+49.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
153
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.9%
-38.1% vs TC avg
§103
48.9%
+8.9% vs TC avg
§102
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§112
10.6%
-29.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 105 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . DETAILED ACTION Priority Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Claims 2-24 have an effective filing date of 11JAN2021. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 13JUN2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Restriction/Election In the response filed on 3/27/2026, Applicant elected, without traverse: Group I, claims 2-9 Species CDR SEQ ID NOs: 2545, 2546, 2547, 2548, 2549, 2550 Status of Claims Claims 2-24 are currently pending and presented for examination on the merits. Claims 10-24 are withdrawn from further examination under 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Claims 3 and 9 are withdrawn from further examination under 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected species. Claim 1 is canceled. 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 2, and 4-8 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the specificity of an antibody is dependent upon the 6 CDR regions and different combinations of CDR sequences greatly alter antigen binding. Regarding the elected species, the instant specification discloses an antagonist antibody of EpCAM comprising the following six CDRs: 2545, 2546, 2547, 2548, 2549, and 2550. However, the specification does not adequately disclose, for example, a genus of EpCAM antibodies comprising SEQ ID NOs: 2545, 2546, 2547, 2548, 2549, and 2550 having 1 to 3 mutations in each CDR and that is capable of binding EpCAM, and has CDRs that can be mixed and matched. It is well established in the art that the formation of an intact antigen-binding site generally requires the association of the complete heavy and light chain variable regions of a given antibody, each of which consists of three CDRs which provide the majority of the contact residues for the binding of the antibody to its target epitope. The amino acid sequences and conformations of each of the heavy and light chain CDRs are critical in maintaining the antigen binding specificity and affinity which is characteristic of the parent immunoglobulin. It is expected that all of the heavy and light chain CDRs in their proper order and in the context of framework sequences which maintain their required conformation, are required in order to produce a protein having antigen-binding function and that proper association of heavy and light chain variable regions is required in order to form functional antigen binding sites. Even minor changes in the amino acid sequences of the heavy and light variable regions, particularly in the CDRs, may dramatically affect antigen-binding function as evidenced by Rudikoff et al. (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1982, 79:1979-1983). Rudikoff et al. teach that the alteration of a single amino acid in the CDR of a phosphocholine-binding myeloma protein resulted in the loss of antigen-binding function. MacCallum et al. (Journal of Molecular Biology, 1996, 262:732-745) analyzed many different antibodies for interactions with antigen and state that although CDR3 of the heavy and light chain dominates, a number of residues outside the standard CDR definitions make antigen contacts (see page 733, right column) and non-contacting residues within the CDRs coincide with residues as important in defining canonical backbone conformations (see page 735, left column). The fact that not just one CDR is essential for antigen binding or maintaining the conformation of the antigen binding site is underscored by Casset et al. (Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 2003, 307:198-205), which constructed a peptide mimetic of an anti-CD4 monoclonal antibody binding site by rational design and the peptide was designed with 27 residues formed by residues from 5 CDRs (see entire document). Casset et al. also states that although CDR H3 is at the center of most if not all antigen interactions, other CDRs play an important role in the recognition process (page 199, left column) and this is demonstrated in this work by using all CDRs except CDR L2 and additionally using a framework residue located just before the CDR H3 (see page 202, left column). Holm et al. (Molecular Immunology, 2007:1075-1084) describes the mapping of an anti-cytokeratin antibody and found that in addition to the involvement of the residues in the CDR3 of the heavy chain in antigen binding, a residue in CDR2 of the light chain was also involved (abstract). Chen et al. (Journal of Molecular Biology, 1999, 293:865-881) describe high affinity variant antibodies binding to VEGF wherein the results show that the antigen binding site is almost entirely composed of residues from heavy chain CDRs, CDR-H1, H2, H3 (page 866). There is insufficient evidence or nexus that would lead the skilled artisan to predict the ability of an antibody to bind to EpCAM comprising fewer than 6 CDR regions of an antibody known to bind EpCAM. Applicant is informed that the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) may be overcome by limiting claim 2 to the elected heavy and light chain CDR SEQ ID NOs: 2545, 2546, 2547, 2548, 2549, 2550. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS JOHN SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0509. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 7:30AM - 4:30PM. 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, Samira Jean-Louis can be reached at (571) 270-3503. 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. /DENNIS J SULLIVAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1642 /NELSON B MOSELEY II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1642
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 10, 2023
Application Filed
May 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12636340
METHODS OF TREATING MULTIPLE MYELOMA
5y 0m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12584920
METHOD OF DETECTING CANCER OR CANCER CELLS
6y 7m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12559557
METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS RELATING TO ANTI-PD1 ANTIBODY REAGENTS
3y 7m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12534525
AQUEOUS PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITION OF AN ANTI-IL17A ANTIBODY AND USE THEREOF
4y 4m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12479915
CYTOTOXICITY-INDUCING THERAPEUTIC AGENT
2y 6m to grant Granted Nov 25, 2025
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
61%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+49.9%)
3y 8m (~9m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 105 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