Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 17/052,320

METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR HOMOLOGY-DIRECTED REPAIR OF CAS ENDONUCLEASE MEDIATED DOUBLE STRAND BREAKS

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Nov 02, 2020
Priority
May 07, 2018 — provisional 62/667,968 +3 more
Examiner
KEOGH, MATTHEW R
Art Unit
1663
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Pioneer Hi-bred International Inc.
OA Round
6 (Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
7-8
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allowance Rate
557 granted / 711 resolved
+18.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
743
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.4%
-33.6% vs TC avg
§103
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
§102
15.3%
-24.7% vs TC avg
§112
42.2%
+2.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 711 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 . Claim Status Claims 1, 4-5, 17, 20-21, 29, 34-36, 41, and 43-44 are pending. Claims 1 and 43-44 are currently amended. Claims 1, 4-5, 17, 20-21, 29, 34-36, 41, and 43-44 are examined on the merits. Response to Arguments - Indefiniteness Applicant's arguments filed 28 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant still has failed to make clear why is it necessary to recite both “donor template” and “repair template.” Please either clarify what is structurally encompassed in a “donor template” versus a “repair template.” If they are not structurally different in any way, please delete either the term “donor” or “repair” in the claims. There is no good reason that claims should recite synonyms. This would only serve to unnecessarily complicate the claims. If they are not synonyms, Applicant need to make clear on the record what is structurally encompassed in each term, so that the metes and bounds of the claims are clear. 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. Claims 1, 4-5, 17, 20-21, 29, 34-36, 41, and 43-44 remain 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 requires, “a donor/repair template.” It is unclear what the distinct structure of the donor template is compared the to the recited repair template, as these phrases are typically used interchangeably in the art. If they are interchangeable, only a single phrase should be recited in the claim as the presence of both suggests that the phrases are intended to have distinct meanings. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. Claims 4-5, 17, 20-21, 29, 34-36, 41, and 43-44 are rejected for depending from an indefinite claim and failing to recite additional limitations that would render the claim definite. Conclusion No claims are allowed. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 MATTHEW R KEOGH whose telephone number is (571)272-2960. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-4:30, half day on Fridays. 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. /MATTHEW R KEOGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 8 earlier events
Sep 03, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 19, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Feb 19, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
May 19, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
May 20, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
May 28, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Aug 28, 2026
Response Filed
Sep 16, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12747445
METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR INCREASING HARVESTABLE YIELD VIA EDITING GA20 OXIDASE GENES TO GENERATE SHORT STATURE PLANTS
6y 1m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12740530
INBRED CORN LINE KL20746C1
2y 6m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12733605
INBRED CORN LINE KL20745C1
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12735716
OPTIMAL MAIZE LOCI
2y 4m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12729383
OPTIMAL SOYBEAN LOCI
2y 3m to grant Granted Sep 08, 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

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+14.5%)
2y 7m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 711 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