Prosecution Insights
Last updated: September 17, 2026
Application No. 18/789,224

COMPOSITION COMPRISING A CROSS-LINKED POLYOL

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jul 30, 2024
Priority
Apr 02, 2019 — nonprovisional of PCTCH2019000009 +1 more
Examiner
AZPURU, CARLOS A
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Volumina Medical SA
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
6m
Est. Remaining
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allowance Rate
1083 granted / 1293 resolved
+23.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
1319
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.7%
-37.3% vs TC avg
§103
24.5%
-15.5% vs TC avg
§102
20.0%
-20.0% vs TC avg
§112
30.4%
-9.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1293 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 . Information Disclosure Statement Information disclosure statements were filed on 11/07/2024 and 07/13/2026. 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 1-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 12,059,507 (US’507). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US’507 claims : PNG media_image1.png 700 769 media_image1.png Greyscale US’507 also claims: PNG media_image2.png 413 719 media_image2.png Greyscale This is an anticipatory obvious-type double patenting rejection. Conclusion No Claims are allowed. Claim 32 is objected to as dependent upon a rejected base claim. The closest prior art is that of US PGPUB 20190062461 A1 (Karlsson ) which teaches a composition and method which is an amorphous, non-porous material, where as the instant composition obtained by the instant method is a composition comprising multiple interconnected pores. The method used by Karlsson differs from that of the instantly claimed method in that after removal of the unreacted cross-linking agent in step b, the activated HA is precipitated in a precipitating liquid medium (step c). The instant method does not comprise a precipitation step. The precipitated activated HA of Karlsson produces a viscous polymer that can not create a crystal-like structure before polymerization. No porogen is used, and unlike the interconnected pores of the instant invention, no porous structure is produced. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS A AZPURU whose telephone number is (571)272-0588. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am- 3 pm, 4 pm-8pm. 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, Sue X Liu can be reached at 571-272-5539. 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. /CARLOS A AZPURU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617 caz
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 30, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12702640
DRUG IMPLANTS CONTAINING ENZALUTAMIDE AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF
3y 3m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12702646
MICROSPHERE FORMULATIONS COMPRISING NALMEFENE ANDMETHODS FOR MAKING AND USING THE SAME
2y 10m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12685758
COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR INHIBITING THE BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY OF SOLUBLE BIOMOLECULES
2y 11m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12678448
POLYMERIC CARRIERS FOR DELIVERY OF THERAPEUTIC AGENTS
3y 6m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12678536
BIOCOMPATIBLE POLYMER, BIOCOMPATIBLE COMPOSITIONS, SOL OR GEL, AND INJECTABLE COMPOSITION
3y 4m to grant Granted Jul 14, 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
84%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+10.7%)
2y 7m (~6m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1293 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