Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 04, 2026
Application No. 18/772,744

CONSTRUCTS COMPRISING NEURONAL VIABILITY FACTORS AND USES THEREOF

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jul 15, 2024
Priority
Dec 22, 2017 — EU 17306915.4 +2 more
Examiner
AMICK, THOMAS RUSSE
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Sorbonne Université
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 8m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allowance Rate
76 granted / 104 resolved
+13.1% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+30.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
15 currently pending
Career history
119
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.1%
-35.9% vs TC avg
§103
38.8%
-1.2% vs TC avg
§102
25.1%
-14.9% vs TC avg
§112
22.1%
-17.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 104 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 . Status of the Claims Claims 1-20 are pending. 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. Claim 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10668129 (US 20180153962 A1, Application US15/576,027) (Herein the ‘129 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim under examination is anticipated by the reference claim. Claim 1 of the ‘129 patent teaches an AAV comprising two “nucleic acids” (i.e. “expression cassettes) wherein the two nucleic acids are the short and long isoform of RdCVF (RdCVF and RdCVFL). Claims 15-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 10668129 (US 20180153962 A1, Application US15/576,027). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim under examination is anticipated by the reference claim. Claim 3 of the ‘129 patent teaches a treatment method for a retinal degenerative disease comprising administration the vector of claim 3 of the ‘129 patent, which claims an AAV comprising two “nucleic acids” (i.e. “expression cassettes”) wherein the two nucleic acids are the short and long isoform of RdCVF (RdCVF and RdCVFL). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-14, and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Claim 20 is free of the art. Claims 1-19 are allowable, if not for the double patenting rejections recited above. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Independent claims 1, 15, and 20 are identical to allowed claims in the parent application, 16/956,894, which was indicated as allowable and was abandoned on 9/6/2024. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion Claim 20 is allowed. Claims 1 and 15-17 are rejected. Claims 2-14, and 18-19 are objected to. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS RUSSE AMICK whose telephone number is (571)272-5474. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F. 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, Tracy Vivlemore can be reached at (571) 272-2914. 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. /THOMAS R. AMICK/Examiner, Art Unit 1638 /Tracy Vivlemore/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1638
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 15, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12742184
METHODS FOR MANUFACTURING GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CAR-T CELLS
4y 1m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12741025
Genetically Engineered Phagocytes, and Related Compositions, Vectors, Methods and Systems
3y 11m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12735681
FILTRATION-BASED SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ISOLATION OF CLUSTERED PARTICLES
4y 9m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12714756
ISOLATED MODIFIED AAV9 CAPSID PROTEIN VP1
2y 6m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12703735
METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR ENGINEERING CD4-DEFICIENT CAR T CELLS AND ANTI-CD4 CAR T CELLS AND USES THEREOF
4y 11m to grant Granted Aug 11, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+30.4%)
3y 11m (~1y 8m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 104 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