Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/768,256

GENETIC TOOLS USEFUL FOR IMPROVING A PLANT'S STRESS TOLERANCE

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Apr 12, 2022
Examiner
BYRNES, DAVID R
Art Unit
1662
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Purdue Research Foundation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
170 granted / 212 resolved
+20.2% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
56 currently pending
Career history
268
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.6%
-36.4% vs TC avg
§103
20.0%
-20.0% vs TC avg
§102
16.8%
-23.2% vs TC avg
§112
49.6%
+9.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 212 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
Detailed Action The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1, 3, 7, 9-10, 12-21 and 23-24 are pending. Claims 15-21 and 23-24 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 3, 7, 9-10 and 12-14 are examined. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/14/2025 has been entered. Withdrawn rejections The rejection of claims 1, 3, 7-10 and 12-14 under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn in light of amendments made by Applicant. The rejection of claims 1, 3, 7-10 and 12-14 under 35 USC 103 is withdrawn in light of amendments made by Applicant. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Written description 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. Claims 1, 3, 7, 9-10 and 12-14 remain 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. This rejection is modified from the rejection applied in the Final Rejection filed 8/5/2025 as applied to claims 1, 3, 7-10 and 12-14 in response to amendments made by Applicant. Claim 1 is drawn to a method of promoting constitutive expression of a mutant CTR1 protein kinase in the nucleus of a plant cell wherein the mutant has the N-terminal domain fragmented or mutated such that it has no protein kinase activity with the intended use of improving the stress tolerance of the plant and recovery from stress. Claim 3 specifies that the mutant is a fragment of CTR1 with the N-terminal domain removed and has protein sequence SEQ ID NO: 3. Claim 7 specifies that the CTR1 protein kinase is a mutant having SEQ ID NO: 2. Claim 9 specifies that the mutant comprises SEQ ID NO: 4. Claim 10 specifies that the mutant comprises SEQ ID NO: 5. Claim 12 specifies that the method improves the plant’s stress tolerance to a Markush group of environmental stresses and biotic stresses. Claim 13 specifies that the plant expresses CTR1 protein kinase and wherein overexpression of corresponding CTR1 mutant in the nucleus increases the plant’s stress tolerance. Claim 14 specifies that the plant comprises a Markush group of plant species. Applicant describes expression of two CTR1 proteins (CTR1-KD and CTR1-KDdead) under the control of 35S promoter localized to the nucleus in a single plant species, Arabidopsis thaliana, with increased drought and salt stress tolerance (page 21, paragraph [0050]; page 27, paragraphs [0074]-[0075]). It is not clear from the disclosure which claimed sequences, i.e., SEQ ID NO:2-5, correspond with the described proteins, CTR1-KD and CTR1-KDdead. Testerink (Testerink, et al. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2007. 58(14):3905-3914) teaches that phosphatidic acid binds to CTR1, inhibiting its kinase activity, disrupting intramolecular interaction between the CTR1-K and CTR1-N terminal regulatory domain and blocked the interaction of CTR1 with ETR1, an ethylene receptor. Testerink teaches that while the PA binding motif in CTR1 is conserved from the earlier known mammalian homolog Raf-1, mutations in this motif did not affect either PA-binding or PA-dependent inhibition of CTR1 activity. Applicant does not describe the genus of methods as broadly claimed. Applicant has not described a representative number of species across the claimed genus of promoting constitutive expression of a mutant CTR1 to improve stress tolerance. While the scope of the claimed invention encompasses any way of constitutive expression of a mutant CTR1, which may include, e.g., transformation, gene editing, introgression, Applicant appears to have only described transforming a plant to express a mutant CTR1. Additionally, scope of claimed methods encompasses a CTR1 with any mutation being expressed in the nucleus of any plant resulting in increased stress tolerance to any stress. Applicant has only described increase tolerance to salinity stress in Arabidopsis thaliana, expressing CTR1-KD and CTR1-KDdead. It is not clear from the disclosure which claimed sequences, i.e., SEQ ID NO:2-5, correspond with the described proteins, CTR1-KD and CTR1-KDdead. The teaching of Testerink demonstrates that the knowledge in the art does not cure the deficiency of the described embodiments. Based on the teachings of Testerink in addition to the lack of teachings in the instant Specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to identify which mutants of a CTR1 protein would result in the function of translocating into the nucleus, loss of kinase activity and increase stress tolerance and in which plants. It is not clear from the Specification whether a protein-protein interaction is required. It is not clear what motifs, conserved domains or individual amino acids and structures are required or not required in the N-terminal domain. The scope of the claimed invention comprises many embodiments but Applicant has only described two structures comprising modified CTR1 proteins for use with the claimed methods. Therefore, Applicant has not described a structure function relationship which would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize which members within the claimed genus are capable of being used in the claimed methods. Therefore, Applicant has not met the written description requirement for the scope of the claimed invention. Applicant’s arguments regarding rejection under 35 USC 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement Applicant's Remarks filed 11/14/2025 do not include arguments specific to the rejection of record under 35 USC 112(a). Conclusion Claims 1, 3, 7, 9-10 and 12-14 remain rejected. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R BYRNES whose telephone number is (571)270-3935. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 5:00 M-F. 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, Bratislav Stankovic can be reached at (571) 270-0305. 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. /DAVID R BYRNES/Examiner, Art Unit 1662
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 12, 2022
Application Filed
Jan 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Apr 22, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 25, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Nov 14, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 17, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590316
USE OF beta-1,3-GLUCAN SYNTHASE LIKE 5 IN IMPROVING CLUBROOT DISEASE RESISTANCE AND RELATED PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT IN CRUCIFEROUS CROPS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584142
TRANSGENIC PLANTS HAVING ALTERED BIOMASS COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575518
Lettuce Variety Warbler
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12529068
POTYVIRUS RESISTANCE GENES AND METHODS OF USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12501869
LETTUCE VARIETY 'KINLAR'
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+19.2%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 212 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