Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 25, 2026
Application No. 18/578,959

ADIPOSE COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF

Non-Final OA §112§DP
Filed
Jan 12, 2024
Priority
Jul 13, 2021 — provisional 63/221,248 +1 more
Examiner
FIEBIG, RUSSELL G
Art Unit
1655
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Britecyte Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3m
Est. Remaining
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allowance Rate
565 granted / 902 resolved
+2.6% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+25.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
66 currently pending
Career history
949
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.7%
-28.3% vs TC avg
§103
41.2%
+1.2% vs TC avg
§102
8.1%
-31.9% vs TC avg
§112
30.2%
-9.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 902 resolved cases

Office Action

§112 §DP
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 . A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3 September 2026 has been entered. Status of the Claims Claims 5, 10-11, 15-25, 40, 42-43, 45-47, 49-57 and 59-67 have been cancelled. Claims 26-39, 41, 44, 48, 58 and 68-69 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-4, 6-9, 12-14 are presented for examination on the merits. 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 1-4, 6-9, 12-14 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 1 recites the limitation "the native cells" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear to what “cells” this phrase is meant to refer: cells of the adipose tissue or the “exogenous cells”. As this term is part of the added phrase “wherein the at least 98% of the native cells are dead cells”, which appears from Applicant’s remarks how this adipose matrix is distinguished from those of the prior art, it is critical that the meaning is clear. Appropriate clarification is required. All other claims depend directly or indirectly from rejected claims and are, therefore, also rejected under U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, for the reasons set forth above. 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 1-4, 6-9, 12-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17, 33, 34, and 36 of copending Application No. 17887013 and claims 1-4 and 14-16 of copending Application No. 18614296 in view of the prior art references cited above. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both encompass a composition comprising devitalized adipose tissue, wherein the devitalized adipose tissue comprises at least 50% of the native lipids, wherein the devitalized adipose tissue comprises at least 70% of the native growth factors; wherein the devitalized adipose tissue comprises less than 5% of the native viable cells; wherein the devitalized adipose tissue does not comprise free lipids; wherein the devitalized adipose tissue retains its native structure; wherein the growth factors inherently include angiogenic growth factors, vascular endothelial growth factors, insulin like growth factors, hepatocyte growth factor, platelet-derived growth factor, or fibroblast growth factors; and the devitalized adipose tissue is non-radiated; wherein the devitalized adipose tissue is lyophilized or has been previously cryopreserved. It would have been obvious to combine such adipose-derived compositions as claimed with exogenous cells such as MSCs as taught by any of the cited prior art references. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Response to Arguments Applicant’s amendments/arguments, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 102/103 rejection of the previous Office action has been withdrawn. However, Applicant’s amendments to distinguish the claimed adipose matrix from that of the prior art has introduced some indefiniteness into the claims (see above). The Double Patenting rejection of the cited claims remains. Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL G FIEBIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4. 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, Anand Desai can be reached at 5712720947. 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. /RUSSELL G FIEBIG/Examiner, Art Unit 1655
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 12, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112, §DP
Apr 20, 2026
Response Filed
Jun 03, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112, §DP
Sep 03, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 05, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12766090
COSMETIC USES OF A HIPPOPHAE RHAMNOIDES CAKE HYDROLYSATE
3y 4m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12766091
COSMETIC USE OF AN OILY EXTRACT FROM DISTILLATION RESIDUE OF IMMORTELLE AS A SKIN BRIGHTENING AGENT
2y 10m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12758581
Use of Plasma and Plasma Fractions for Improvement of Pain, Wound Healing, and Postoperative Recovery
3y 4m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12741006
HERBO-LIPID COMPOSITION AND THE PROCESS FOR PREPARATION THEREOF
4y 10m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12715995
THE USE OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES IN THE PRODUCTION OF GELATINE FROM ANIMAL TISSUES
2y 11m to grant Granted Aug 25, 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
63%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+25.0%)
3y 0m (~3m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 902 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