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

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

Non-Final OA §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
5 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allowance Rate
550 granted / 702 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
41 currently pending
Career history
732
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
39.4%
-0.6% vs TC avg
§102
13.6%
-26.4% vs TC avg
§112
31.0%
-9.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 702 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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 19 May 2026 has been entered. Claim Status Claims 1, 4-5, 17, 20-21, 29, 34-36, 41, and 43-44 are pending. Claims 1 and 43 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 19 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant urges that the mechanism by which a donor DNA or a polynucleotide modification template are integrated into the genome are the same, a donor DNA is intended to mean a piece of DNA that it intended to facilitate a larger DNA insertion while a polynucleotide modification template can be used to introduce a mutation as small as a single substitution but also encompasses templates that facilitate larger indel mutations. Thus, it appears that Applicant is using the phrase polynucleotide modification template as a broader generic term that encompasses what they intend their meaning of donor DNA to encompass. This claim structure remains confusing at best. It is suggested that the claims be amended to only recite “a polynucleotide modification template” and then add dependent claims to specify features of the polynucleotide modification template to address the intended limitation of “donor DNA.” 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 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 requires, “a donor DNA or a polynucleotide modification template.” It is unclear what the distinct structure of the donor DNA is compared the to the recited polynucleotide modification template, as these phrases are typ8ically 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. 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 6 earlier events
Mar 03, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
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 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12677788
SOYBEAN VARIETY 01098747
2y 8m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12677792
TRANSGENIC SOYBEAN VARIETY '22151688'
2y 7m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12653121
CANOLA HYBRID 21GG2040N
2y 7m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12635651
SOYBEAN CULTIVAR 27301119
2y 3m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12628763
INBRED CORN LINE CB121
3y 0m to grant Granted May 19, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+14.5%)
2y 7m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 702 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