Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/637,003

MODIFIED 3D-PRINTED OBJECTS AND THEIR USES

Final Rejection §DP
Filed
Apr 16, 2024
Examiner
ROBINSON, MICHAEL
Art Unit
1744
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Lung Biotechnology Pbc
OA Round
2 (Final)
61%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 61% of resolved cases
61%
Career Allow Rate
254 granted / 415 resolved
-3.8% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
454
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.9%
-38.1% vs TC avg
§103
50.2%
+10.2% vs TC avg
§102
15.3%
-24.7% vs TC avg
§112
21.2%
-18.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 415 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/2026 are found persuasive. The only remaining rejection is claims 12-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,999 B2. 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 12-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,999 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other: Regarding claim 12, U.S. Patent No. 11,986,999 B2 meets the claimed method of increasing actin coverage of cells, the method comprising: providing a polymeric scaffold, (Claim 1, lines 1-3) the polymeric scaffold comprising polymerized poly(ethyelene glycol) di(meth)acrylate moieties, (claim 1, lines 2-4) polymerized poly(ethyelene glycol) di(meth)acrylamide moieties, polymerized poly(ethyelene glycol) (meth)acrylate/(methacrylamide) moieties, or mixtures thereof; contacting the polymeric scaffold with a hydrolysis agent comprising NaOH (claim 1, lines 5-7) and a proteolysis agent comprising cholesterol esterase; (claim 1, lines 7-9) U.S. Patent No. 11,986,999 B2 does not teach and after contacting the polymeric scaffold with the hydrolysis agent and the proteolysis agent, contacting the polymeric scaffold with the cells to increase actin coverage of the cells, wherein contacting the polymeric scaffold with the hydrolysis agent and the proteolysis agent increases cell attachment to the polymeric scaffold and reduces a Young's modulus of the polymeric scaffold. U.S. Patent No. 11,986,999 B2 teaches contacting the polymer scaffold with lung cells, claim 1, lines 15-20. This limitation “to increase actin coverage of the cells, wherein contacting the polymeric scaffold with the hydrolysis agent and the proteolysis agent increases cell attachment to the polymeric scaffold and reduces a Young's modulus of the polymeric scaffold.” is treated as a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, see §MPEP 2112. Examiner notes the materials and methods claimed in the present application and U.S. Patent No. 11,986,999 B2 are identical, therefore the increase actin coverage of the cells and changes to Young’s modulus is presumed inherent. “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999).) Claims 13-24 are not patentably distinct from the claims 2-14 of the U.S. Patent. No. 11,986,999 B2. Relevant Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Skardal et al. (US 2017/0307598 A1) teaches Abstract, [0036] An extrudable hydrogel composition useful for making a three-dimensional organ construct includes a cross-linkable prepolymer, a post-deposition crosslinking group, optionally, an initiator that catalyzes the reaction between the prepolymer and said the crosslinking group; live cells (e.g., plant, animal, or microbial cells), optionally at least one growth factor, and optionally water to balance. Methods of using the same and products so made are also described. Larsen (US 2013/0029030 A1) teaches Abstract, the present invention relates to a matrix material comprising a pharmaceutical composition such as a matrix material with a pharmaceutical composition applied by ultrasonic spray technology on the surface. In one embodiment the pharmaceutical composition comprises thromb in. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M. ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0467. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM. 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, Sam Zhao can be reached at (571)270-5343. 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. /MICHAEL M. ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 16, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Feb 13, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 27, 2026
Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594712
METHOD FOR PRODUCING A THREE-DIMENSIONAL OBJECT, AND DEVICE THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594717
ACRIFLAVINE FUSING AGENTS FOR THREE-DIMENSIONAL PRINTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595392
WATER-BASED BINDER SOLUTIONS FOR USE IN ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING PROCESSES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584506
Securing Element and Cover for an Interior Mirror Base of a Motor Vehicle
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12570054
MULTI-LAYERED SUPPORT SURFACE ASSEMBLY FOR A THREE-DIMENSIONAL PRINTER
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
82%
With Interview (+21.1%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 415 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