Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/513,783

MULTIFUNCTIONAL COPOLYMERIC NANOPARTICLE

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Nov 20, 2023
Examiner
ALAWADI, SARAH
Art Unit
1619
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
37%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 37% of cases
37%
Career Allow Rate
247 granted / 661 resolved
-22.6% vs TC avg
Strong +39% interview lift
Without
With
+38.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
52 currently pending
Career history
713
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.7%
-38.3% vs TC avg
§103
46.4%
+6.4% vs TC avg
§102
13.5%
-26.5% vs TC avg
§112
21.4%
-18.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 661 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112-failure to further limit The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 depends from the nanoparticle of claim 1 and states that the nanoparticle is cationic. However, the nanoparticle of claim 1 is neutral and not cationic. Accordingly, claim 2 does not further limit the nanoparticle of claim 1 which is neutral. To make the particle cationic would exclude the neutral compound in the formula of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim 3 recites the multifunctional copolymeric nanoparticle of claim 1, wherein the multifunctional copolymeric nanoparticle has a functional group, the functional group comprising an ammonium group, an amide group, and a disulfide group. However, the copolymeric nanoparticle of claim 1 already has groups present not specified as a “functional group”. To add additional functional groups such as ammonium would require the formula in claim 1 to be different. Alternatively, the claim may just be describing the groups already present (e.g. disulfide) in which case formula 1 is already defined by claim 1. Accordingly, the claim does not further limit the structure specified in claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112-indefinite 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 6 and 13 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. Claim 6 recites The multifunctional copolymeric nanoparticle of claim 5, wherein the multifunctional copolymeric nanoparticle has the antibacterial activity against gram-positive bacteria and gram-negative bacteria, the gram-positive bacteria comprising Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus, and the gram-negative bacteria comprising Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Escherichia coli. Here, it is unclear if the nanoparticle has activity against both gram positive bacteria of Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus, or if the Staphylococcus aureus is in alternative to Enterococcus. It is suggested that Applicants can amend the claim to recite: The multifunctional copolymeric nanoparticle of claim 5, wherein the multifunctional copolymeric nanoparticle has the antibacterial activity against gram-positive bacteria and gram-negative bacteria, the gram-positive bacteria comprises Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus, and the gram-negative bacteria comprises Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Escherichia coli. Claim 13 does not end in a period, so it is unclear whether the claim is finished and thus the claim is incomplete. According to MPEP 608.01(m), each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot readily ascertain the metes and bounds of claim 13. Applicants can overcome this rejection by placing a period at the end of claim 13. Claim Objections Claims 1, 4-5, 7-12 and 14-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Statement regarding reference of interest Ebadati et al. (Mechanism and antibacterial synergies of poly (DABCO-BBAC) nanoparticles against multi-drug resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from human burns) teaches DABCO-BBAC nanoparticles, however the reference does not constitute prior art. There is no prior art that teaches DABCO-BBAC nanoparticles claimed, and thus the instant claims are considered free of the prior art. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)270-7678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00am-6:30pm 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, David Blanchard can be reached at 571-272-0827. 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. /SARAH ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1619
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 20, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588693
COMPOSITION FOR PRODUCING HYDROGEN RICH WATER AND OTHER PRODUCTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12569475
METHOD FOR ERADICATING HELICOBACTER PYLORI INFECTION IN PATIENTS REGARDLESS OF BODY MASS INDEX
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564603
METHODS FOR INHIBITING PATHOGENIC INFECTION AND INHIBITING GROWTH OF PATHOGENS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12558374
Botanical Film-Forming Acne Compositions
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12558454
ULTRAHIGH DUCTILITY, NOVEL Mg-Li BASED ALLOYS FOR BIOMEDICAL APPLICATIONS
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
37%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+38.7%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 661 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month