Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/640,571

METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR SCREENING USING MICROCAPILLARY ARRAYS

Non-Final OA §102§DP
Filed
Apr 19, 2024
Examiner
GROSS, CHRISTOPHER M
Art Unit
1684
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Xcella Biosciences Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
410 granted / 651 resolved
+3.0% vs TC avg
Strong +41% interview lift
Without
With
+41.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 1m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
688
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.2%
-36.8% vs TC avg
§103
31.9%
-8.1% vs TC avg
§102
27.6%
-12.4% vs TC avg
§112
23.1%
-16.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 651 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §DP
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 . DETAILED ACTION Responsive to claim set of 4/19/2024 Claims pending 67-86 Claims currently under consideration 67-86 Priority This application was filed 04/19/2024 and is a CON of 18/047,249 filed 10/17/2022 now PAT 12024705 18/047,249 is a CON of 16/468,260 filed 06/10/2019 now PAT 11473081 16/468,260 is a 371 of PCT/US2017/065600 filed 12/11/2017 that has PRO 62/433,210 12/12/2016 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. Claims 67,68,70-84,86 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al (2016 Nature Chemical Biology 12:76-81; published 7DEC2015; IDS entry 7/26/2024). Chen et al teach throughout the document and especially the abstract and p 77 including figure, the platform referred to as microcapillary single-cell analysis and laser extraction (microSCALE). That is, more particularly, said microSCALE constitutes an apparatus (system) and a method of use therewith entailing for selecting at least one protein from a population of variant proteins, the platform comprising: providing a microcapillary array comprising a plurality of microcapillaries, each microcapillary comprising variant proteins such as an antibodies, etc., immobilized target molecules on the surface of a bead, and a reporter element such as a fluorescent second antibody (shown schematically), wherein the variant protein(s) associate(s) with the immobilized target molecule necessarily with a particular affinity, wherein the variant protein is expressed by a cell-free expression system; and measuring a signal from at least one reporter element that indicates association of at least one variant protein with at least one immobilized target molecule to identify at least one microcapillary of interest; then isolating, using an extraction device, the contents of the at least one microcapillary of interest, wherein the extraction device comprises a laser and isolating comprises pulsing the at least one or multiple microcapillaries of interest with the laser. Said surface is configured settle in a microcapillary by gravitational sedimentation. The foregoing reads on claims 67,68,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79, 80,81,82,83,84,86. 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 obviousness-type 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); 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) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. 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). Claims 67,68,71,72,75,78-82,84 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,2,8-11,15,20,21-25 of U.S. Patent No. 11085039 (entered in 7/26/2024 IDS). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other the presently claimed method (and apparatus for its practice) recited in said present claims constitute a genus anticipated by the species thereof set forth in such conflicting claims at least of ‘039. Claims 67,68,71,72,75,78-82,84 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14,16-22 of U.S. Patent No. 10227583. (entered in 7/26/2024 IDS). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other the presently claimed method (and apparatus for its practice) recited in said present claims constitute a genus anticipated by the species thereof set forth in such conflicting claims at least of ‘583. Claims 67,68,70-73,75,78-84,86 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20,24-27 of U.S. Patent No. 11473081 (entered in 7/26/2024 IDS). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other the presently claimed system (and method of using) recited in said present claims constitute a genus anticipated by the species thereof set forth in such conflicting claims at least of ‘081. Claims 67-86 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 12024705. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other the presently claimed system (and method of using) recited in said present claims constitute a genus anticipated by such species thereof set forth in such conflicting claims at least of ‘705. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M GROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-4446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6. 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, Heather Calamita can be reached on (571)272-2876. 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. /CHRISTOPHER M GROSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1684
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 19, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 19, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 15, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12577555
SCREENING METHOD FOR TELOMERASE REVERSE TRANSCRIPTASE (TERT) PHOSPHORYLATION INHIBITORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12558350
COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR TREATMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12553892
ASSAYS FOR ANTIMICROBIAL ACTIVITY AND APPLICATIONS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12553074
PROCESSES AND SYSTEMS FOR PREPARATION OF NUCLEIC ACID SEQUENCING LIBRARIES AND LIBRARIES PREPARED USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12540318
NUCLEIC ACIDS ENCODING CHIMERIC POLYPEPTIDES FOR LIBRARY SCREENING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 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
63%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+41.2%)
4y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 651 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