Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/595,164

Formation of Array of Membranes and Apparatus Therefor

Non-Final OA §112§DP
Filed
Mar 04, 2024
Examiner
CAPOZZI, CHARLES
Art Unit
1798
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Oxford Nanopore Technologies PLC
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
61%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 61% of resolved cases
61%
Career Allow Rate
367 granted / 606 resolved
-4.4% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+36.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
632
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
45.8%
+5.8% vs TC avg
§102
14.0%
-26.0% vs TC avg
§112
33.5%
-6.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 606 resolved cases

Office Action

§112 §DP
DETAILED ACTION The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Continued Examination 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/24/2025 has been entered. Double Patenting The non-statutory 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. See 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); and 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) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b). Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). It is further emphasized that claims 13, 14 and 17 remain rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting s being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of US 11084015. It is maintained that, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all positively recited features of the instant claims are entirely within the scope of claims 1-7 of US 11084015. The rejection will not be held in abeyance. 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 13-14 and 17-30, as amended, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. In the amended claim 13, it is unclear from the claim language how the ‘polar medium’ recited in line 10 must be inter-related with the ‘polar medium’ recited in the preceding line 6. Similarly, it is unclear how the ‘polar medium’ recited in the paragraph of lines 11—14 must be inter-related with the ‘polar medium’ recited in the preceding lines. The same considerations apply to ‘polar medium’ recited in the second stepof ‘disposing’ and in the step of ‘flowing’, where many recitations in question lack antecedent basis. See also claims 14, 17, 23-24 and 27-28. Note that it is applicants’ responsibility to locate and correct all instances of the raised issues. Response to Arguments All of the Applicant s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, or moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Natalia Levkovich whose telephone number is (571)272-2462. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 2.00 pm-10:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jill A Warden can be reached on 571-272-1267. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /NATALIA LEVKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 04, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112, §DP
May 23, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 22, 2025
Final Rejection — §112, §DP
Nov 24, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 26, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112, §DP
Apr 03, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594571
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR REDUCING SOLVENT CONSUMPTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589407
APPLICATORS FOR HIGH VISCOSITY MATERIALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12576424
COATING APPARATUS AND COATING METHOD CAPABLE OF EASILY ADJUSTING THICKNESS OF COATING LAYER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576418
SUBSTRATE TREATING APPARATUS AND SUBSTRATE TREATING METHOD USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569866
Powder Suction And Discharge Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
61%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+36.2%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 606 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