Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/634,223

THERMOSTABLE RAMAN INTERACTION PROFILING (TRIP)

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Apr 12, 2024
Examiner
SMITH, MAURICE C
Art Unit
2877
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
The Texas A&M University System
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
594 granted / 704 resolved
+16.4% vs TC avg
Minimal -4% lift
Without
With
+-4.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
737
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.7%
-36.3% vs TC avg
§103
47.3%
+7.3% vs TC avg
§102
17.1%
-22.9% vs TC avg
§112
30.2%
-9.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 704 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . 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 1-20 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1, 10, 11, & 19 recites the broad recitation “about”, and the claim also recites “between” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. For example, 43° is about 40°, however it is outside the range of 0° and 40°, therefore the approximation of the range is ambiguous. Use of a narrow numerical range that falls within a broader range in the same claim may render the claim indefinite when the boundaries of the claim are not discernible. Clarification is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (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. Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 11-16, & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang CN 113670893. With respect to claim 1, Yang teaches a method of evaluating an interaction between a first composition and a second composition, the method comprising the step of subjecting the interaction between the first composition “protein”/or “salt solution” and the second composition “salt solution”/or “protein” to Raman spectroscopy “Raman spectrum”, wherein the step of subjecting is performed at a temperature between 0 °C and 40 °C “room temperature” (pg. 10, ¶ 1-4). With respect to claim 2 according to claim 1, Yang teaches the method wherein the first composition is comprised in an aqueous composition “ice water”, wherein the aqueous composition is a solution “salt solution” (pg. 10, ¶ 1-3). With respect to claim 3 according to claim 2, Yang teaches the method wherein the aqueous composition is present at near physiological conditions “room temperature” (pg. 10, ¶ 1-4). With respect to claim 4 according to claim 1, Yang teaches the method wherein the second composition is comprised in an aqueous composition “ice water”, wherein the aqueous composition is a solution “salt solution” (pg. 10, ¶ 1-3). With respect to claim 5 according to claim 4, Yang teaches the method wherein the aqueous composition is present at near physiological conditions “room temperature” (pg. 10, ¶ 1-4). With respect to claim 7 according to claim 1, Yang teaches the method wherein the first composition is an antibody and wherein the second composition is an antigen “coronavirus” “antibody antigen” (pg. 2, lines 40-42). With respect to claim 11, Yang teaches the method of evaluating an interaction between a first biomolecule “protein” and a second biomolecule “salt”, the method comprising the step of subjecting the interaction between the first biomolecule and the second biomolecule to Raman spectroscopy “Raman spectrum” (pg. 10, ¶ 1-4), wherein the step of subjecting is performed at a temperature between about 0 °C and about 40 °C “room temperature” (pg. 10, ¶ 1-4). With respect to claim 12 according to claim 11, Yang teaches the method wherein the first biomolecule is selected from the group consisting of a protein (pg. 10, ¶ 1). With respect to claim 13 according to claim 11, Yang teaches the method wherein the first biomolecule is comprised in an aqueous composition “ice water”, wherein the aqueous composition is a solution “salt solution” (pg. 10, ¶ 1-3). With respect to claim 14 according to claim 13, Yang teaches the method wherein the aqueous composition is present at near physiological conditions “room temperature” (pg. 10, ¶ 1-4). With respect to claim 15 according to claim 11, Yang teaches the method wherein the second biomolecule is comprised in an aqueous composition “ice water”, wherein the aqueous composition is a solution (pg. 10, ¶ 1-3). With respect to claim 16 according to claim 11, Yang teaches the method wherein the aqueous composition is present at near physiological conditions “room temperature” (pg. 10, ¶ 1-4). With respect to claim 20 according to claim 11, Yang teaches the method wherein the step of subjecting is performed at a temperature below 10 °C “-20 °C” (pg. 7, ¶ 7). Claim(s) 1, 10, 11, & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LEE WO 2022182126. With respect to claim 1, Lee teaches the method of evaluating an interaction between a first composition and a second composition, the method comprising the step of subjecting the interaction between the first composition “nucleotides” and the second composition “nucleic acid detection reagent” to Raman spectroscopy “Raman spectrum”, wherein the step of subjecting is performed at a temperature “5°C” between 0 °C and 40 °C (pg. 30, ¶ 7). With respect to claim 10 according to claim 1, Lee teaches the method wherein the step of subjecting is performed at a temperature “5°C” 5 °C (pg. 30, ¶ 7). With respect to claim 11, Lee teaches a method of evaluating an interaction between a first biomolecule and a second biomolecule, the method comprising the step of subjecting the interaction between the first biomolecule “nucleotides” and the second biomolecule “nucleic acid detection reagent” to Raman spectroscopy, wherein the step of subjecting is performed at a temperature “5°C” between about 0 °C and about 40 °C (pg. 30, ¶ 7). With respect to claim 19 according to claim 11, Lee teaches method of claim 11 wherein the step of subjecting is performed at a temperature about 5 °C (pg. 30, ¶ 7). Claim(s) 1, 8, 9, 17, & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by paper of H.J. Ojeda-Galvan, “Application of Raman spectroscopy for the determination of proteins denaturation and amino acids decomposition temperature”, October 2022 hereafter Ojeda-Galvan. With respect to claim 1, Ojeda-Galvan teaches a method of evaluating an interaction between a first composition and a second composition, the method comprising the step of subjecting the interaction between the “intermolecular interactions” (pg. 6, ¶ 1, lines 21-22) first composition “protein molecules” and the second composition “protein molecules” to Raman spectroscopy (fig 1A), wherein the step of subjecting is performed at a temperature “20° C” between about 0 °C and about 40 °C (pg. 3, col 1, ¶ 2, lines 1-2). With respect to claim 8 according to claim 1, Ojeda-Galvan wherein the method is configured for evaluating “Each spectrum had an acquisition time” the interaction in less than 1 minute “20 sec” (pg. 2, col 2, ¶ 1, lines 6-8). With respect to claim 9 according to claim 8, Ojeda-Galvan the method wherein the method does not substantially degrade “thermal denaturation” (abstract, lines 1-3) the first composition or the second composition, wherein the degrading is heat derived degradation. With respect to claim 11, Ojeda-Galvan the method of evaluating an interaction between a first biomolecule and a second biomolecule, the method comprising the step of subjecting the interaction “intermolecular interactions” (pg. 6, ¶ 1, lines 21-22) between the first biomolecule “protein molecules” and the second biomolecule “protein molecules” to Raman spectroscopy, wherein the step of subjecting is performed at a temperature between 0 °C and 40 °C “20° C” (pg. 3, col 1, ¶ 2, lines 1-2). With respect to claim 17 according to claim 11, Ojeda-Galvan the method wherein the method is configured for evaluating “Each spectrum had an acquisition time” the interaction in less than 1 minute “20 sec” (pg. 2, col 2, ¶ 1, lines 6-8). With respect to claim 18 according to claim 17, Ojeda-Galvan the method wherein the method does not substantially degrade “thermal denaturation” (abstract, lines 1-3) the first composition or the second composition, wherein the degrading is heat derived degradation. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang CN 113670893 in view of LIANG CN 101340902. With respect to claim 6 according to claim 1, Yang does not teach the first composition is a drug and wherein the second composition is a drug target. Liang, in the same field of endeavor as Yang of virology (abstract), teaches observing a drug TG21 (pg. 10, ¶ 2, line 1) and virus i.e. drug target to check a survival of an embryo at room temperature (pg. 10, ¶ 5, lines 4-8). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to observe a drug and drug target via Yang’s Raman spectrometer to observe the efficacy of a drug for eliminating a virus. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAURICE C SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-2526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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. /MAURICE C SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 12, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Apr 03, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 03, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590882
THRESHOLD GATING FOR FLOW CYTOMETRY METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590889
OUTLIER DETECTION FOR SPECTROSCOPIC CLASSIFICATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12571678
SPECTROSCOPE AND SPECTROSCOPE PRODUCTION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12566253
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR CONTROLLING LASER EMISSION, AND RELATED APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12560533
OPTICAL SYSTEM COMPRISING ANS OPTICAL MULTIPLEXER
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
84%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (-4.5%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 704 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