Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 12, 2026
Application No. 18/418,727

SELF-EMULSIFYING COMPOSITION OF OMEGA-3 FATTY ACID

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jan 22, 2024
Priority
Jan 21, 2015 — nonprovisional of PCTJP2015051558 +2 more
Examiner
DAVIS, BRIAN J
Art Unit
1614
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allowance Rate
1341 granted / 1581 resolved
+24.8% vs TC avg
Minimal -4% lift
Without
With
+-4.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 9m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
1618
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.2%
-34.8% vs TC avg
§103
16.5%
-23.5% vs TC avg
§102
19.5%
-20.5% vs TC avg
§112
44.7%
+4.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1581 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 . Claim Objections Withdrawn The objections to claims 19, 25 and 34, outlined in the previous Office Action, have been overcome by inventor’s amendment. The amendment corrects the claim texts as appropriate. The objection to claims 16, 17, 30 and 31, as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but otherwise allowable, is withdrawn. With respect to claims 16 and 30, the amendment cancels the claims. With respect to the remaining claims, the objection is moot. 112(a) Rejections Withdrawn The rejection of claims 15, 18-29 and 32-34 under 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, outlined in the previous Office Action, has been overcome by inventor’s amendment and arguments. Inventor’s narrowing amendment and accompanying arguments have been carefully considered and are persuasive. The examiner is now in agreement with inventor that the claims are enabled. 112(b) Rejections Withdrawn The rejection of claim 19 under 35 USC 112(b) or 35 USC 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, outlined in the previous Office Action, has been overcome by inventor’s amendment. The amendment clarifies the claim as appropriate. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b), NEW 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 34 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. The claim depends from a canceled claim (claim 14). The dependency of the claim is thus unclear. The examiner notes for clarity of the record that claim 34 was previously dependent upon claim 28. Inventor has inexplicably changed the dependency of claim 34 in the pending claim set to depend from canceled claim 14 (and, furthermore, not in the manner of properly making amendments to the claims). Finally, in part (e), there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “…ω3PUFA…” in the claim. The examiner respectfully suggests the term should properly be: EPA. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 15, 17-29 and 31-33 are allowed for reasons of record (3/16/2026). Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN J DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-0638. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM EDT. 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, Ali Soroush, can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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. /BRIAN J DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614 6/24/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 22, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jun 11, 2026
Response Filed
Jun 29, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12697333
Methods of Treating Splenomegaly
4y 7m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12691100
NOVEL USE
4y 2m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12678516
IMMUNOSTIMULATORY TOLL-LIKE RECEPTOR AGONIST-NANOPARTICLE FOR CANCER IMMUNOTHERAPY
2y 9m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12673026
LIPOSOMAL COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF FOR IMPROVED STABILITY, BIOAVAILABILITY & SUSTAINED RELEASE
2y 1m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12667560
CO-ADMINISTRATION OF MIRDAMETINIB AND LIFIRAFENIB FOR USE IN TREATING CANCERS
3y 9m to grant Granted Jun 30, 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
85%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (-4.1%)
1y 9m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1581 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