Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/329,427

CYCLIC CELL-PENETRATING PEPTIDE COMPOUNDS

Non-Final OA §102§DP
Filed
Sep 15, 2025
Examiner
COFFA, SERGIO
Art Unit
1658
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Ohio State Innovation Foundation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
61%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 61% of resolved cases
61%
Career Allow Rate
436 granted / 719 resolved
+0.6% vs TC avg
Strong +34% interview lift
Without
With
+33.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
61 currently pending
Career history
780
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.5%
-36.5% vs TC avg
§103
32.1%
-7.9% vs TC avg
§102
20.5%
-19.5% vs TC avg
§112
27.0%
-13.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 719 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 Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of CPP12 (SEQ ID NO: 58) in the reply filed on 1/20/2026 is acknowledged. Applicants elected species was deemed to be free of the prior art. In accordance with Markush Practice, the search was extended to the Markush group/independent claim, and a reference was discovered that rendered it obvious. As a result, claims 1-4, 11 and 15 have been examined and claims 5-10, 12-14 and 16-19 are withdrawn from consideration. While applicant’s elected species may read on one or more withdrawn claims, they have not been fully examined for patentability, and thus a determination of allowability cannot be made with respect to these claims at this time. This is proper, as MPEP 803.02 states that, in these circumstances, the prior art search, however, will not be extended unnecessarily to cover all nonelected species (MPEP 803.02). Status of the Claims Claims 1-19 are pending in this application. Claims 5-10, 12-14 and 16-19 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected species. Claims 1-4, 11 and 15 are presently under consideration as being drawn to the elected species. 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 1-4, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Quian et al. (ACS Chem Biol. 2013 February 15; 8(2): 423-431). With respect to claim 1, Quian et al. teach many peptides which correspond to the instantly claimed cyclic peptides. For instance, SEQ ID NO: 13 (i.e. the peptide cyclo(AFfRRRRQ) corresponds to the instantly claimed cyclic peptide of formula I-D wherein AA1 is Ala, AA2 is Phe, AA3 is L-2-naphthylalanine, AA4 is Arg, AA5 is Arg, AA6 is Arg, AA7 is Arg, AA8 is Gln. Quian et al. also teach that “[o]ur cyclic CPPs are 2–5-fold more efficacious than R9 in transporting cargos including phosphopeptides into the mammalian cytoplasm and nucleus, apparently due to a more efficient endosomal escape process (page 7, 2nd para). Quian et al. further teach that “[a]ll cyclic peptides contained a Lys(FITC)-NH2 attached to the side chain of the invariant Gln residue” (Table 1, page 22). With respect to claim 2, AA3 in the peptide of Quian et al. corresponds to L-2-naphthylalanine. With respect to claim 3, AA2 in the peptide of Quian et al. corresponds to Phe. With respect to claim 4, as discussed above, AA2 and AA3 correspond to Phe and L-2-naphthylalanine, respectively. With respect to claim 11, the Arg at position 4 is adjacent to L-2-naphthylalanine at position 3. With respect to claim 15, the amino acids of the cyclic peptides of Quian et al. are in the natural stereoconfiguration. 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 1-4 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 10626147. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they relate to the same cyclic peptide. With respect to claim 1, ‘147 teaches a cyclic peptide comprising formula Ia or formula IIa (claims 1 and 7), wherein m is 0; n and p are each 1; AA8 is L-arginine; and AA9 is L-glutamine (claims 3 and 9), wherein the cyclic peptide further comprises a cargo moiety, wherein the cargo moiety comprises a detectable moiety, a therapeutic moiety, a targeting moiety, or a combination thereof (claim 6). With respect to claim 2, in the peptide of ‘147 (i.e. cyclo(ffRrRrRQ) AA2 corresponds to L-2-naphthylalanine. With respect to claim 3, AA1 in the peptide of ‘147 corresponds to Phe. With respect to claim 4, as discussed above, AA1 and AA2 correspond to Phe and L-2-naphthylalanine, respectively. With respect to claim 11, the Arg at position 3 is adjacent to L-2-naphthylalanine at position 2. Claims 1-4, 11 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-40 of U.S. Patent No. 10815276. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they relate to the same cyclic peptide. With respect to claim 1, ‘276 teaches a cyclic peptide comprising formula Ia or IIa (claims 1 and 16) wherein AA1 is phenylalanine; AA2 is naphthylalanine; AA3 is arginine; AA4 is arginine; AA5 is arginine; AA6 is arginine (claims 12 and 28); and wherein m is 0; n and p are each 1; AA8 is arginine; and AA9 is glutamine (claims 14 and 30); and wherein the cargo moiety comprises a detectable moiety, a therapeutic moiety, a targeting moiety or a combination thereof (claims 16). With respect to claim 2, in the peptide of ‘276 (i.e. cyclo(FfRRRRRQ) AA2 corresponds to L-2-naphthylalanine. With respect to claim 3, AA1 in the peptide of ‘276 corresponds to Phe. With respect to claim 4, as discussed above, AA1 and AA2 correspond to Phe and L-2-naphthylalanine, respectively. With respect to claim 11, the Arg at position 3 is adjacent to L-2-naphthylalanine at position 2. With respect to claim 15, the amino acids of the cyclic peptides of ‘276 are in the natural stereoconfiguration. Claims 1-4, 11 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-35 of U.S. Patent No. 11168310. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they relate to the same cyclic peptide. With respect to claim 1, ‘310 teaches a compound of formula V-A1, V-A2, or V-A3 (claims 1-2), which corresponds to the instantly claimed cyclic peptide of structure I-D (i.e. cyclo(FFfRRRRQ)), wherein AA1 is phenylalanine; AA2 is phenylalanine; AA3 is naphthylalanine; AA4 is arginine; AA5 is arginine; AA6 is arginine; AA7 is arginine; and AA8 is glutamine; wherein the cargo moiety (i.e. TP) is coupled to the side chain of glutamine (see claim 2). With respect to claim 2, in the peptide of ‘310, AA3 corresponds to L-2-naphthylalanine. With respect to claim 3, AA1 and AA2 in the peptide of ‘310 correspond to Phe. With respect to claim 4, as discussed above, AA1, AA2 and AA3 correspond to Phe, Phe and L-2-naphthylalanine, respectively. With respect to claim 11, the Arg at position 4 is adjacent to L-2-naphthylalanine at position 3. With respect to claim 15, the amino acids of the cyclic peptides of ‘310 are in the natural stereoconfiguration. Claims 1-4, 11 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11987821. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they relate to the same cyclic peptide. With respect to claim 1, ‘821 teaches a compound of formula V-A1, V-A2, or V-A3 (claims 1 and 8), which corresponds to the instantly claimed cyclic peptide of structure I-D (i.e. cyclo(FFfRRRRQ)), wherein AA1 is phenylalanine; AA2 is phenylalanine; AA3 is naphthylalanine; AA4 is arginine; AA5 is arginine; AA6 is arginine; AA7 is arginine; and AA8 is glutamine; wherein the cargo moiety (i.e. TP) is coupled to the side chain of glutamine (see claim 8). With respect to claim 2, in the peptide of ‘821, AA3 corresponds to L-2-naphthylalanine. With respect to claim 3, AA1 and AA2 in the peptide of ‘821 correspond to Phe. With respect to claim 4, as discussed above, AA1, AA2 and AA3 correspond to Phe, Phe and L-2-naphthylalanine, respectively. With respect to claim 11, the Arg at position 4 is adjacent to L-2-naphthylalanine at position 3. With respect to claim 15, the amino acids of the cyclic peptides of ‘821 are in the natural stereoconfiguration. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SERGIO COFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-3022. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 6AM-4PM. 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, MELISSA FISHER can be reached at 571-270-7430. 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. /SERGIO COFFA Ph.D./ Primary Examiner Art Unit 1658 /SERGIO COFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1658
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 15, 2025
Application Filed
Feb 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595283
POLYPEPTIDE TAG AND APPLICATION THEREOF IN IN VITRO PROTEIN SYNTHESIS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590119
PEPTIDE SYNTHESIS AND SYSTEM THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582924
METHODS FOR OBTAINING LIQUID FROM A SOLID PHASE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569574
PROTEINS WITH CARDIOPROTECTIVE ACTIVITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12569435
Ocular Compositions and Methods Thereof
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
61%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+33.6%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 719 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