Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 16/936,490

COMPOSITIONS, METHODS, AND PLANT GENES FOR THE IMPROVED PRODUCTION OF FERMENTABLE SUGARS FOR BIOFUEL PRODUCTION

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jul 23, 2020
Examiner
STEPHENS, REBECCA JOHANNA
Art Unit
1663
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
The Governing Council of the University of Toronto
OA Round
5 (Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
6-7
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
131 granted / 198 resolved
+6.2% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+31.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
235
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.5%
-31.5% vs TC avg
§103
20.1%
-19.9% vs TC avg
§102
17.0%
-23.0% vs TC avg
§112
40.9%
+0.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 198 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Status of the Claims The claims filed 05September2025 are acknowledged. Claims 1-142 were previously cancelled. Claim 18 is now cancelled. Claims 143-147 and 149-157 are pending. Claims 143-147 are currently amended. Claims 149-157 were previously presented. Claims 143-147 and 149-157 are examined on the merits herein. Withdrawn Objections and/or Rejections The one outstanding rejection within the nonfinal action dated 05March2025 (obviousness) is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments filed 05September2025. Please see the Written Description rejection herein below for more context. Claim Objections Claim 143 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “fragment” recited in claim 143 appears to be a nucleic acid sequence (at least because the claim says that the “fragment thereof encod[es] said mutant polypeptide”). With that understanding, there appears to be a typographical error in the claim where it says that the “fragment comprises said G1009D mutation” (= please amend this to “… fragment encodes[[comprises]] said G1009D mutation ….” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Indefiniteness The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 143 (and, therefore, also claims 144-147 and 149-157 which refer thereto without correcting the issue) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. As amended, the reference to the polypeptide being a CESA1 polypeptide has been removed and claim 143 now says that the encoded double mutant polypeptide has either at least 80% sequence identity to mutant CESA1 polypeptide sequence SEQ ID NO: 19 or has at least 80% sequence identity to mutant CESA3 polypeptide sequence SEQ ID NO: 23. For clarity of the record, CESA1 and CESA3 are different polypeptides and SEQ ID NOs: 19 and 23 of this application appear to have about 70% sequence identity to each other. As amended, it is not clear if the encoded double mutant polypeptide in these claims is a CESA1 polypeptide or a CESA3 polypeptide? These claims historically specified a CESA1 polypeptide and, to that end, Applicant is reminded that (following an election or office action on the merits) they “are not permitted to shift to claim another invention”. MPEP § 819. 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. Claim 143 (and, therefore, also claims 144-147 and 149-157 which refer thereto without correcting the issue) is/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. Claim 143 (and, therefore, all pending claims) is amended 05September2025 to recite one mutant nucleic acid encoding one mutant polypeptide that has both a G1009D mutation and a S1037F mutation. The mutations are defined with respect to CESA1 mutant sequence SEQ ID NO: 19 (which comprises G1009D) and CESA3 mutant sequence SEQ ID NO: 23 (which comprises S1037F). Further to the indefiniteness rejection above, it is not clear whether these claims are now directed toward mutant CESA1 structures or to mutant CESA3 structures. While the specification describes introducing a G1009D mutation into a CESA1 polypeptide (which may confer flupoxam resistance) and, separately, the specification also describes introducing a S1037F mutation into a CESA3 polypeptide (which may confer flupoxam resistance)1; the specification does not describe one CESA polypeptide that comprises both a G1009D mutation and a S1037F mutation (i.e., either a CESA1 polypeptide comprising both a G1009D and S1037F mutation or a CESA3 polypeptide comprising both a G1009D and S1037 mutation). The prior art does not appear to supplement the deficiencies of this specification. For completeness, because neither the specification nor the prior art describe the structures being claimed, it is also unclear whether the claimed structures would still confer flupoxam resistance. Absent evidence to the contrary, a skilled person would not reasonably recognize Applicant as being in possession of the mutant nucleic acids or polypeptides being claimed. To be clear, this is provided as a Written Description rejection (and not New Matter) per MPEP §§ 2163.01, 2163.06. As noted above, these claims historically specified a CESA1 polypeptide and Applicant is reminded that (following an election or office action on the merits) they “are not permitted to shift to claim another invention”. MPEP § 819. Conclusion 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 Rebecca STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-0070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30-4:30. 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, Amjad ABRAHAM can be reached on (571) 270-7058. 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. /REBECCA STEPHENS/Examiner, Art Unit 1663 /MATTHEW R KEOGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663 1 See the specification at “fpx 2-3” and “fpx 1-2”, respectively, in Table 4 on pages 34-35.
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 23, 2020
Application Filed
Jan 13, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jul 28, 2023
Response Filed
Oct 05, 2023
Final Rejection — §112
Apr 05, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 08, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 27, 2024
Final Rejection — §112
Jan 09, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 15, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Sep 05, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 07, 2025
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599070
GENETIC LOCI ASSOCIATED WITH DISEASE RESISTANCE IN SOYBEANS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599089
SOYBEAN CULTIVAR 23010103
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595487
METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR IMPROVING AGRONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF C4 PLANTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590315
Compositions and Methods Based on QPT Engineering for Producing Tobacco Plants and Products Having Altered Alkaloid Levels
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588645
TOMATO VARIETY NUN 09400 TOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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

6-7
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+31.0%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 198 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