Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/368,212

NUCLEATION OF LARGE-SCALE PROTEIN CRYSTALS FROM NANOPARTICLE SEEDS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 14, 2023
Examiner
KUNEMUND, ROBERT M
Art Unit
1714
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Khalifa University Of Science And Technology
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
1065 granted / 1301 resolved
+16.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
1338
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
60.4%
+20.4% vs TC avg
§102
11.6%
-28.4% vs TC avg
§112
9.3%
-30.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1301 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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. Claims 1 to 6 contains the trademark/trade name Linbro. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a type of plates and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin et al (Journal of Crytal growth) in view of Takedo (WO 2011013857), Molecular Dimensions and Emadisum.com. The Rubin et al reference teaches a kit for protein crystallization ,note entire reference. The kit contains a ultra-high conditions scaled up to a screen , note page 157. There are a plurality of coverslips, note page 158. Also, there are greased plates, note page 158. The kit can be used for hanging drop growth, note abstract. There are plurality of recesses, or wells for the growth to occur. The differences between the instant claim and the prior art are the gold nanoparticles in PEG, the Linbro plates and the coverslips with recesses. However, the Takedo reference teaches the use of gold nanoparticles coated in PEG for protein crystallization ,note, translation page 3. The Molecular Dimensions reference teaches Linbro plates for protein crystallization page 1. Emadisum.com reference teaches coverslips with recesses for protein crystallization kits or apparatus, note, page 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Rubin et al reference by the teachings of the Takedo, Molecular Dimensions and Emadisum.com references to have the gold nanoparticles, Linbro plates and recessed coverslips in the kit or apparatus in order to have a seed for the protein to crystallize on, plates that create a very good seal lowering impurities and more useful cover promoting better overall crystallization. Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin et al (Journal of Crytal growth) in view of Takedo (WO 2011013857), Molecular Dimensions and Emadisum.com. The Rubin et al, Takedo, Molecular Dimensions and Emadisum.com references are relied on for the same reasons stated, supra, and differ from the instant claims number of conditions and recess capacity. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined references to have a set number of screen conditions as the Rubin et al reference teaches multiple screens and is not limited and a size recess for growth in order to allow for multiple chambers and conditions. Claim(s) 4 to 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin et al (Journal of Crytal growth) in view of Takedo (WO 2011013857), Molecular Dimensions and Emadisum.com. The Rubin et al, Takedo, Molecular Dimensions and Emadisum.com references are relied on for the same reasons stated, supra, and differ from the instant claims in the specific gold properties. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined references to have a gold with differing buffer amounts, particle sizes and self-life in order to have differing conditions of the seed and one that lasts, noting the references do teach gold and PEG. Claims 7 to 20 stand allowable over the art of record as the prior art does not teach nor render obvious a modified hanging drop method for protein crystallization. The process comprising creating a recess on a coverslip and pouring a target protein solution and a precipitant solution in the recess on the coverslip sufficient to form a drop. The precipitant solution comprises gold nanoparticles. Then inverting the coverslip without disturbing the drop and placing the inverted coverslip onto a sealed well of a greased reservoir. The rim of the reservoir is greased and gently applying pressure on the silicon grease on the rim of the reservoir to create an airtight seal The steps can be repeated with all the buffer combinations listed in the ultra-high conditions. Then allowing the plate to rest undisturbed at a temperature of 18- 22 °C to facilitate crystallization and visually inspecting the plate for crystallization. Examiner’ Remarks The remaining references are merely cited of interest as showing the state of the art. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M KUNEMUND whose telephone number is (571)272-1464. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 4:30 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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. RMK /ROBERT M KUNEMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 14, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601087
HEAT-RESISTANT MEMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601083
PROCESS FOR SYTHESIZING SPINEL-COATED SINGLE-CRYSTAL CATHODE ACTIVE MATERIALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595588
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING NITRIDE SEMICONDUCTOR SUBSTRATE, NITRIDE SEMICONDUCTOR SUBSTRATE, AND LAMINATE STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590384
THERMAL STABLE, ONE-DIMENSIONAL HEXAGONAL-PHASE VANADIUM SULFIDE NANOWIRES AND METHODS FOR PREPARING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583756
RECOVERING A CAUSTIC SOLUTION VIA CALCIUM CARBONATE CRYSTAL AGGREGATES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
82%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+14.2%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1301 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