Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/458,690

OPTIMIZED PEPTIDES FOR TARGETING HUMAN NERVES AND THEIR USE IN IMAGE GUIDED SURGERY, DIAGNOSTICS AND THERAPEUTIC DELIVERY

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Aug 30, 2023
Examiner
LIEB, JEANETTE M
Art Unit
1654
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
The Regents of the University of California
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
623 granted / 780 resolved
+19.9% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+16.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
805
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.0%
-37.0% vs TC avg
§103
37.4%
-2.6% vs TC avg
§102
14.7%
-25.3% vs TC avg
§112
15.5%
-24.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 780 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . Non-Statutory 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 61-85 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 11,299,515. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 1 is drawn to the same SEQ ID NO: 1/HNP 401 of claim 61 of ‘515, and claim 2 is drawn to it being conjugated to a drug. Instant claim 62 is also met by claim 1 of ‘515, as it teaches the same identical peptides and linkers. Instant claims 63-66 and 68-70 are met by claims 10-12 of ‘515, teaching the same linkers and direct attachment to the termini of the peptide. Instant claim 67 is met by claim 14 of ‘515, which teaches that same exact sequences. Instant claim 71 is met because claim 3 of ‘515 teaches the same drugs for conjugation. Instant claims 72-75 are met because claim 4 of ‘515 teaches e.g., benzocaine and lidocaine (anesthetics) and methotrexate (cytotoxic). Instant claims 76 and 77 are met because ‘515 teaches, e.g. flunarizine, as a neuron inhibitor. Instant claims 78-79 are met because claim 4 teaches e.g., BDNF as a growth factor. Instant claims 80-81 are met because claims 18-19 teach delivering the molecule to a neuron by administration and contacting a neuron or nerve with the composition. Claim 82 is met because claim 20 teaches topical administration, which is local. Claims 83-85 are met because claim 20 teaches intravenous administration, which is systemic and parenteral. As such, the claims are met by those of ‘515. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEANETTE M LIEB whose telephone number is (571)270-3490. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7. 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, Lianko Garyu can be reached on 571-270-7367. 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. /JEANETTE M LIEB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1654
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 30, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599647
PEPTIDE AMIDE COMPOSITION AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12583885
COMPOSITIONS OF HYBRID SUPPORTED LIPID BILAYERS AND METHODS FOR PRODUCING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569416
OIL-IN-WATER EMULSIFIED COSMETIC
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571020
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED MICROORGANISMS THAT OVEREXPRESS MICROCIN-MGE AND METHODS OF PURIFICATION AND USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12559528
PPR PROTEIN CAUSING LESS AGGREGATION AND USE OF THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
80%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+16.8%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 780 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