Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 16/095,207

NOVEL CRISPR ENZYMES AND SYSTEMS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 19, 2018
Examiner
ZHENG, LI
Art Unit
1662
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Massachusetts Institute Of Technology
OA Round
7 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
7-8
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
1055 granted / 1260 resolved
+23.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
1290
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.0%
-37.0% vs TC avg
§103
15.2%
-24.8% vs TC avg
§102
21.6%
-18.4% vs TC avg
§112
49.7%
+9.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1260 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/13/2025 has been entered. 1. Applicant’s submission of new claim 72 in the reply filed 8/13/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 70 is withdrawn for being drawn to non-elected species. As a result, claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-14, 25-27, 29-36, 41, 51, 64-68 and 71-72 are pending and examined on the merits. 2. The rejections and objections not recited in this action are withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 3. Claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-14, 25-27, 29-36, 41, 51, 64-68 and 71 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Begemann et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0233756) further in view of Dickey et al. (2015, Genbank Accession AKG12737) and Zetsche et al. (2015 Cell 163:759-771). Instant claims are drawn to an engineered CRISPR-Cas system comprising 1) a guide RNA, wherein the guide sequence hybridizes with a target sequence adjacent to PAM in a mammanlian cell and directing sequence-specific binding of a CRISPR complex to the target sequence in the mammalian cell; 2)a Cpf1 effector protein, wherein Cpf1 effector comprises a heterologous NLS and wherein the guide RNA forms a CRISPR complex with the Cpf1 effector having at least 95% identity to Moraxella bovoculi AAX11_00205; or the target sequence is within a eukaryotic cell; or wherein the CRISPR complex is capable of cleavage distally of the target sequence; or wherein the PAM comprises a 5’T-rich motif; or wherein the Cpf1 is Moraxella bovoculi AAX11_00205/Mb3Cpf1;or wherein the PAM sequence is TTN and Cpf1 effector is Mb3Cpf; or wherein the nucleic acid encoding the Cpf1 is codon optimized for expression in a eukaryotic cell; or wherein the nucleic acid encoding guide RNA and Cpf1 are on one vector; or a eukaryotic cell/particle comprising the system; or a method of modifying a target locus of interest comprising delivering the system according to claim 1 to the locus; or wherein the cell is a plant/animal cell; or wherein the target locus is a DNA molecule in vitro; or wherein the modification is a strand break; or wherein the strand break is a staggered DNA double strand break with a 4 or 5nt 5’ overhang; or wherein the polynucleotide molecule comprises one regulatory elements operably configured to express the Cpf1 effector and the guide RNA; or wherein target locus is a DNA molecule in vitro ;or wherein the polynucleotide molecule are comprised in a delivery system; or wherein the composition is delivered via a vesicle; or wherein the particle is a metal; or wherein the vesicle comprise liposomes;or wherein the viral vectors comprise adenovirus; or wherein that Cpf1 is a dead Cpf1 (dCpf1) having an inactive RuvC domain which do not cleave double-stranded DNA and that dCpf1 is fused to a transcriptional activation domain. Begemann et al. teach that a method of modifying a nucleotide sequence at a target site in the genome of a eukaryotic cell comprising: introducing into said eukaryotic cell (i) a DNA-targeting RNA, or a DNA polynucleotide encoding a DNA-targeting RNA, wherein the DNA-targeting RNA comprises: (a) a first segment comprising a nucleotide sequence that is complementary to a sequence in the target DNA; and (b) a second segment that interacts with a Cpf1 or Csm1 polypeptide; and (ii) a Cpf1 or Csm1 polypeptide, or a polynucleotide encoding a Cpf1 or Csm1 polypeptide, wherein the Cpf1 or Csm1 polypeptide comprises: (a) an RNA-binding portion that interacts with the DNA-targeting RNA; and (b) an activity portion that exhibits site-directed enzymatic activity, and wherein said genome of a eukaryotic cell is a nuclear, plastid, or mitochondrial genome (claim 1); Begemann et al teach that Cpf1-crRNA complexes can cleave target DNA preceded by a short protospacer-adjacent motif (PAM) that is often T-rich and that Cpf1 can introduce a staggered DNA double-strand break with a 4-5-nt 5’overhang (paragraph [0014]. Begemann et al teach that PAM sequence is TTN (paragraph [0090]). Begemann et al teach that nuclear localization signal is linked to Cfp1 protein (paragraph [0062]). Begemann et al teach that sequence encoding Cfp1 protein is optimized for expression in a plant cell (paragraph [0140]). Begemann et al teach that the nucleic acid encoding guide RNA and Cpf1 are on one vector (paragraph [0080]). Begemann et al teach the gold particle is used for bombardment (paragraph [0247]). Begemann et al teach that the vesicle comprises liposomes (paragraph [0101]) and that the viral vectors comprise adenovirus (paragraph [0063]). Begemann et al teach that Cpf1 is from Moraxella bovoculi 237 (Table 3). Begemann et al teach that Cpf1 have an inactive RuvC domain which do not cleave double-stranded DNA and that dCpf1 is fused to a transcriptional activation domain (paragraph [0018]). Begemann et al teach that the method can be used for transformation of mammals (paragraph [0130]). Begemann et al do not teach Cpf1 that is at least 90% identical to Cpf1 of Moraxella bovoculi AAX11_00205. Begemann et al do not teach target gene is in an isolated human cell. Dickey et al. teach Cpf1 protein of Moraxella bovoculi AAX11_00205. Zetsche et al. teach using Cpf1 to modify target gene in human cell (Figure 7). Given the knowledge that Cpf1 can be used for genome editing in various organisms including mammalian cells, it would have been obvious for skilled in the art to perform it in human cell as taught in Zetsche et al. It would also have been obvious to try the Cpf1 of Dickey et al. given the teaching of Zetsche et al. that Cpf1 is from Moraxella bovoculi 237 do not work well in human cell and that orthologs from different strains of the same species may work better in human cells(LbCpf1 vs Lb2Cpf1 in Figure 7). Although the combined teachings do not teach target gene is in an isolated human cell, such limitation is merely considered as an obvious design choice given that a human cell is an obvious option for mammals as taught by Begemann et al (paragraph [0130]). Although the combined teaching do not teach target locus is a DNA molecule in vitro, such limitation is merely considered as an obvious design choice. Applicants traverse in the paper filed 8/13/2025. Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered but were not found persuasive. Applicants argue that Zetsche et al. that Cpf1 from Moraxella bovoculi 237 of Zetsche et al. has at least 95% sequence identity to instant Cpf1 of SEQ ID NO:792 or 794 whereas LbCpf1 and Lb2Cpf1 only share 41.7% sequence similarity (response, pages 8-9). Therefore there is no motivation to try instant Cpf1 of SEQ ID NO:792 or 794 given that Cpf1 from Moraxella bovoculi 237 of Zetsche et al does not work well in human cell. The Office contends that it is well established in the art that two homologous Cas9 genes from two different strains of the same species with high sequence homology could still exhibit distinct features given the minor difference in a conserved domain (2019 Sun et al. Molecular Cell 76:938-952). 4. Claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-14, 25-27, 29-36, 41, 51, 64-68 and 71 remain and claim 72 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Begemann et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0233756) further in view of Dickey et al. (2015, Genbank Accession AKG12737) and Zetsche et al. (2015 Cell 163:759-771) as for claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-14, 25-27, 29-36, 41, 51, 64-68 and 71, further in view of Crabtree et al. (US 6,171,781). Claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-14, 25-27, 29-36, 41, 51, 64-68 and 71 are discussed above. Claim 72 further contains the limitation that the Cpf1 effector protein is fused to at least two heterologous NLSs. The teachings of Begemann et al further in view of Dickey et al. and Zetsche et al. are discussed above. The teachings of Begemann et al further in view of Dickey et al. and Zetsche et al. fail to teach that the Cpf1 effector protein is fused to at least two heterologous NLSs. Crabtree et al. teachan NF-AT polypeptide that is covalently linked to one or two copies of a heterologous NLS results in constitutive nuclear localization (column 33, line 35). It would have been obvious for skilled in the art to fuse the Cpf1 with two copies of a heterologous NLS according to the teaching of Crabtree et al.. One would have been motivated to do so given the teaching of Crabtree et al. that such modification would results in constitutive nuclear localization. Conclusion No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LI ZHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-8031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5). 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, SHUBO (JOE) ZHOU can be reached on 571-272-0724. 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. /LI ZHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1662
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 19, 2018
Application Filed
Mar 15, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 16, 2022
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 16, 2022
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jul 07, 2022
Response Filed
Sep 09, 2022
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 13, 2022
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 13, 2022
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 21, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 22, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
May 31, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 04, 2023
Response Filed
Jan 19, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Jul 19, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 24, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 26, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 28, 2024
Response Filed
Feb 11, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Aug 13, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 14, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588628
SOYBEAN CULTIVAR 22121100
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588638
SOYBEAN CULTIVAR 20320703
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588639
SOYBEAN CULTIVAR 25101703
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582060
CANOLA INBRED 4PPQP40A
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577624
TRANSGENIC CORN EVENT ZM_BCS216090 AND METHODS FOR DETECTION AND USES THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+13.2%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1260 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