Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 05, 2026
Application No. 18/940,746

Methods and Systems for Predicting Crystal Structures

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Nov 07, 2024
Priority
Nov 15, 2023 — provisional 63/599,039
Examiner
SMITH, EMILIE ALINE
Art Unit
1686
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Good Chemistry Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
51%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 8m
Est. Remaining
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 51% of resolved cases
51%
Career Allowance Rate
36 granted / 71 resolved
-9.3% vs TC avg
Strong +33% interview lift
Without
With
+32.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 4m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
102
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
17.0%
-23.0% vs TC avg
§103
62.2%
+22.2% vs TC avg
§102
3.5%
-36.5% vs TC avg
§112
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 71 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Applicant’s Response Applicant’s response, filed 02/12/2026, has been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous Office Actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application. Claims Status Claim 20 is canceled. Claims 1-19, 21, and 22 are pending. Claims 1-19, 21, and 22 are examined. Withdrawn Objections/Rejections The objection to the Specification is withdrawn in view of the amendments submitted. The objection to claims 21 and 22 are withdrawn in view of the amendments submitted. The rejection of claims 1-19, 21, and 22 under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn in view of the amendments submitted. The rejection of claims 1-22 under 35 USC 101 is withdrawn in view of the amendments submitted because the judicial exceptions are integrated into a practical application because the routing of the calculation to either the machine learning model or the ground truth calculation makes the computer function more computationally efficient and thus improves the computer, as discussed on page 2 and 3 of Applicant’s Remarks filed 02/12/2026. The rejection of 1-3, 7, 13, 18, and 20-22 under 35 USC 103 over Kailkhura et al. is withdrawn in view of the amendments submitted. The rejection of claims 4-6, 14-16, and 19 under 35 USC 103 over Kailkhura et al. in view of Stojevic et al. is withdrawn in view of the amendments submitted. The rejection of claims 8-11 under 35 USC 103 over Kailkhura in view of Aithani et al. is withdrawn in view of the amendments submitted. The rejection of claim 12 under 35 USC 103 over Kailkhura et al. in view of Stojevic et al. is withdrawn in view of the amendments submitted. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a new grounds of rejection as necessitated by claim amendments. With respect to claims 1, 21, and 22, the Specification as originally filed includes written description for “If the reliability metric for a given crystal structure calculated by the reliability metric calculator 104 is not within a predetermined threshold, the ground truth calculation engine 108 calculates a property metric for the crystal structure” (page 22, line 22); “The ground truth calculation can be computed using a molecular dynamics or Monte Carlo method. The ground truth calculation can be computed using a quantum mechanical method” (page 23, line 3). However, the Specification does not appear to provide any written description for “a ground truth model”. Conclusion No claims are allowed. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Emilie A Smith whose telephone number is (571)272-7543. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm. 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, Larry D Riggs can be reached at (571)270-3062. 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. /E.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1686 /LARRY D RIGGS II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1686
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 1 earlier event
Nov 20, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jan 30, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 30, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 12, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 06, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jun 18, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jun 18, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12644092
MULTI-LEVEL MACHINE LEARNING FOR PREDICTIVE AND PRESCRIPTIVE APPLICATIONS
5y 3m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Patent 12640236
DNA CANVAS FOR INFORMATION STORAGE AND NANOFABRICATION
5y 0m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12626790
POINT-OF-CARE TESTING (POCT) INSTRUMENT AND POCT SYSTEM
5y 1m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12603150
CALCULATING CELL-TYPE RNA PROFILES FOR DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT
5y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12602520
MACHINE-LEARNING VIRTUALIZATION-ENABLED HARVESTING
1y 5m to grant Granted Apr 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
51%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+32.8%)
4y 4m (~2y 8m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 71 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