Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/465,724

TARGETED NEXT-GENERATION SEQUENCING VIA ANCHORED PRIMER EXTENSION

Non-Final OA §101§102§103§112
Filed
Sep 12, 2023
Priority
Mar 15, 2021 — provisional 63/161,062 +1 more
Examiner
BROWN, MINDY G
Art Unit
1683
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Roche Sequencing Solutions Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
50%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 50% of resolved cases
50%
Career Allowance Rate
61 granted / 121 resolved
-9.6% vs TC avg
Strong +50% interview lift
Without
With
+50.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
128
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.7%
-35.3% vs TC avg
§103
49.2%
+9.2% vs TC avg
§102
9.8%
-30.2% vs TC avg
§112
16.2%
-23.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 121 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102 §103 §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 . Drawings The drawings are objected to because some of the drawings are not legible or do not contain SEQ ID NOs. Figures 16 and 17 do not have a SEQ ID NO for every sequence. Even if sequences are repeated in the same figure, they must be labeled with the SEQ ID NO. Figure 19 is blurry and the text is not legible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Sequence Compliance Summary of Requirements for Patent Applications Filed On Or After July 1, 2022, That Have Sequence Disclosures 37 CFR 1.831(a) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.831(b) must contain a “Sequence Listing XML”, as a separate part of the disclosure, which presents the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences and associated information using the symbols and format in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.831-1.835. This “Sequence Listing XML” part of the disclosure may be submitted: 1. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.831(a) using the symbols and format requirements of 37 CFR 1.832 through 1.834 via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (see Section I.1 of the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (https://www.uspto.gov/PatentLegalFramework), hereinafter “Legal Framework”) in XML format, together with an incorporation by reference statement of the material in the XML file in a separate paragraph of the specification (an incorporation by reference paragraph) as required by 37 CFR 1.835(a)(2) or 1.835(b)(2) identifying: a. the name of the XML file b. the date of creation; and c. the size of the XML file in bytes; or 2. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.831(a) using the symbols and format requirements of 37 CFR 1.832 through 1.834 on read-only optical disc(s) as permitted by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(1)(ii), labeled according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5), with an incorporation by reference statement of the material in the XML format according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8) and 37 CFR 1.835(a)(2) or 1.835(b)(2) in a separate paragraph of the specification identifying: a. the name of the XML file; b. the date of creation; and c. the size of the XML file in bytes. SPECIFIC DEFICIENCIES AND THE REQUIRED RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE ARE AS FOLLOWS: Specific deficiency - Sequences appearing in the drawings are not identified by sequence identifiers in accordance with 37 CFR 1.831(c). Sequence identifiers for sequences (i.e., “SEQ ID NO:X” or the like) must appear either in the drawings or in the Brief Description of the Drawings. Figures 16 and 17 contain sequences that are not identified by a SEQ ID NO. Required response – Applicant must provide: Amended drawings in accordance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) inserting the required sequence identifiers; AND/OR A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3), and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers (i.e., “SEQ ID NO:X” or the like) into the Brief Description of the Drawings, consisting of: • A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version); • A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and • A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 in the reply filed on 4 March 2026 is acknowledged. The requirement for an election of species is withdrawn. Claims 9-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4 March 2026. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it recites a “use” of the of the kit in claim 9. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 1-8, 16, and 17 are 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. Claims 1 and 16 are indefinite because they recite a ligating step and it is not clear from the claim what is achieved at this step. The step does not state what is ligated. Claims 2-8 and 17 are included as they do not remedy the rejection. Claims 3 and 4 recite the limitation "intramolecular ligation products" and claim 1 only recites ligation products. It is not clear if these are the same ligation products. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 is indefinite because it is not clear what the step is achieving because the adapters are only introduced to the mixture. It is also not clear what the adapter is or if it binds to a specific component in the mixture. Claims 8 and 17 are indefinite because they state the linker oligonucleotide comprises [B]x and [C]y and then states X and Y can be 0 or 1. If they are both 0 there is only a constant region and the probe will not bind to the target nucleic acid. Furthermore, if Y is 0 there will also not be any binding to the target nucleic acid. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-3, 6-8, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tamminen et al. (WO 2019/038372 A1). Regarding claims 1 and 16, Tamminen et al. teach a method of accurate and massively parallel quantification of a nucleic acid. Tamminen et al. teach providing a probe for each target nucleotide in a sample. (claim 1). Tamminen et al. teach a first probe, second probe, and bridge sequence wherein the probes comprise bridge sequences, an optional barcode sequence and a sequence specific to the target. (claim 1). Tamminen et al. teach contacting the target nucleotide sequences with the probes and the bridge oligo which extends the probe attached to the target. (claim 1). Tamminen et al. additionally teach extending the bridge oligo to fill any gaps between the bridge and the probe. [0038, vii]. Tamminen et al. teach self-annealing to form ligation products. (claim 1, 00107). Tamminen et al. teach introducing primers that are complimentary to the constant region of the probe. [0040, figure 7]. Tamminen et al. teach amplifying the ligation product. (figure 7). Regarding claim 2, Tamminen et al. teach sequencing the ligation product. (see figure 7 for example). Regarding claim 3, Tamminen et al. teach a single extended probe-target nucleic acid complex. (claim 1, figure 3). Regarding claims 6 and 7, the instant specification identifies “inverse PCR” as a type of PCR that proceeds from primers that are on the probe because they are known and the target sequence is not known. (see paragraphs 230-231). Tamminen et al. teach primers that are universal [0040] and target the probe [00100]. Regarding claims 8 and 17, Tamminen et al. teach figure 2A with a probe with a region that is complementary to the bridge oligo (202), an identifier region (206), and a portion that bind the target (208). Tamminen teach the bridge is 3’ to 5’ (224-226). Tamminen et al. teach the constant region is 15-25 bases, the identifier region is 10-20 bases, unique region is 15-30 bases, and the bridge is at least 15-25 bases. [00100-102]. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamminen et al. (WO 2019/038372 A1). The teachings of Tamminen et al. are applied to claim 4 as applied to claims 1-3, 6-8, 16, and 17 above under 35 USC 102(a)(2). Tamminen et al. does not teach wherein the one or more ligation products is formed from two or more extended probe-target nucleic acid molecule complexes. Tamminen et al. does teach that the probe comprising a bridge has an overhang that binds to a constant region allowing them to bind to any constant region. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to link multiple ligation products together to identify multiple targets. Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINDY G BROWN whose telephone number is (571)270-5605. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST. 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, Anne Gussow can be reached at (571) 272-6047. 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. /MINDY G BROWN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1683 /ANNE M. GUSSOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1683
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 12, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101, §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 10934327
CAPSID-MODIFIED, RAAV3 VECTOR COMPOSITIONS AND USES IN GENE THERAPY OF HUMAN LIVER CANCER
3y 3m to grant Granted Mar 02, 2021
Patent 10787654
Methods and Compositions for Sequences Guiding Cas9 Targeting
4y 2m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2020
Patent 10774313
TWO PLASMID MAMMALIAN EXPRESSION SYSTEM
4y 1m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2020
Patent 10761090
SANDWICH ASSAYS IN DROPLETS
3y 7m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2020
Patent 10759830
BACTERIAL COLICIN-IMMUNITY PROTEIN PROTEIN PURIFICATION SYSTEM
2y 2m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2020
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
50%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+50.5%)
2y 8m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 121 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