Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/797,986

COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR TARGETING, EDITING OR MODIFYING HUMAN GENES

Final Rejection §102§103§112
Filed
Aug 05, 2022
Examiner
LIPPOLIS, ALEXANDRA ROSE
Art Unit
1637
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Danmarks Tekniske Universitet
OA Round
2 (Final)
32%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
4y 2m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 32% of cases
32%
Career Allow Rate
6 granted / 19 resolved
-28.4% vs TC avg
Strong +63% interview lift
Without
With
+63.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 2m
Avg Prosecution
61 currently pending
Career history
80
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.3%
-32.7% vs TC avg
§103
31.2%
-8.8% vs TC avg
§102
22.3%
-17.7% vs TC avg
§112
30.0%
-10.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 19 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §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 . This action is in response to the amendment filed 12/08/2025, in which claims 1, 3, 16, 19, 21, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62 were amended, claims 5, 6, 20 and 23-25 were cancelled, claim 22 was original and claim 121 was newly added. The previous election requirement set in the Office Action mailed on 09/09/2025 established claims 26, 28, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60 and 62 were withdrawn. Claims 1, 3, 16, 19, 21, 22, 30 and 121 are currently pending. Applicant’s arguments have been thoroughly reviewed, but are not persuasive for the reasons that follow. Any rejection and objections not reiterated in this action have been withdrawn. This action is FINAL. Claim Objections The previous objection of claim 20 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s cancellation of the claim filed 12/08/2025. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The previous rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 16, 19-22, 24, 25 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 12/08/2025. The previous rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s cancellation of the claim filed 12/08/2025. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 3, 16, 19, 21, 22, 30 and 121 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(l)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Welstead et al (WO 2017/152015 Al) as evidenced by Ungerer et al (Sci Rep 6, 39681, pgs. 1-9;2016). This rejection was made in the Office action mailed 09/09/2025 and has been rewritten to address the amendment to the claims in the reply filed 12/08/2025. Regarding claims 1 and 30, Welstead teaches an isolated or nonnaturally occurring gRNA molecule, comprising a targeting domain which is complementary with a target domain from one T-cell expressed gene selected from the group consisting of FAS, BID, CTLA4, PDCDl, CBLB, PTPN6, B2M, TRAC and TRBC Gene (Page 8, Lines 17-21).Welstead teaches a T cell target position can be targeted (e.g. altered) by gene editing, e.g., using CRISPR-Cpfl mediated methods to target (e.g. alter) in one or more T cell expressed genes, e.g., B2M (Page 27, Lines 1-4). Welstead teaches when the T cell target knockout position is the B2M coding region, e.g., an early coding region, and more than one gRNA is used to position breaks, e.g., two double stranded breaks, e.g., to create one or more indels, in the target nucleic acid sequence, each guide RNA is independently selected from SEQ ID NOS: 3095-3283 (Page 11, Lines 28-32). Welstead teaches SEQ ID NO: 3119 is 100% identical to instant SEQ ID NO: 625 (See Appendix I). Welstead teaches gRNA where the 5' end is the direct repeat domain with a stem and loop hairpin structure (comprising the modulator nucleic acid of the claim) and the 3' end is a targeting domain (Page 103, Figure 1). Ungerer is only cited to show that the Cpfl is a type V-A nuclease of the class II family of CRISPR systems (Page 1, Paragraph 3). Regarding claim 3, Welstead teaches an isolated or non-naturally occurring gRNA molecule, comprising a targeting domain (spacer sequence of the claim) which is complementary with a target domain from one T-cell expressed gene selected from the group consisting of FAS, BID, CTI.A4, PDCDl, CBLB, PTPN6, B2M, TRAC and TRBC Gene (Page 8, Lines 17-21). Welstead teaches gRNA where the 5' end is the direct repeat domain with a stem and loop hairpin structure (comprising the targeter stem sequence of the claim) and the 3' end is a targeting domain (spacer sequence of the claim) (Page 103, Figure 1). Regarding claims 16 and 19, Welstead teaches the guide RNA is chemically modified with 2'-O-methoxyethyl (Page 82, Lines 20-30). Regarding claim 21, Welstead teaches the use of the Cpfl molecule in conjunction with the gRNA for nuclease acitivity (Page 58, Lines 14-16). Ungerer is only cited to show that the Cpfl is a type V-A nuclease of the class II family of CRISPR systems (Page 1, Paragraph 3). Regarding claim 22, Welstead teaches the Cpfl molecule and gRNA form a Ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complex (Page 71, Lines 12-13). Regarding claim 121, Welstead teaches an isolated or nonnaturally occurring gRNA molecule, comprising a targeting domain which is complementary with a target domain from one T-cell expressed gene selected from the group consisting of FAS, BID, CTLA4, PDCDl, CBLB, PTPN6, B2M, TRAC and TRBC Gene (Page 8, Lines 17-21).Welstead teaches a T cell target position can be targeted (e.g. altered) by gene editing, e.g., using CRISPR-Cpfl mediated methods to target (e.g. alter) in one or more T cell expressed genes, e.g., B2M (Page 27, Lines 1-4). Welstead teaches when the T cell target knockout position is the B2M coding region, e.g., an early coding region, and more than one gRNA is used to position breaks, e.g., two double stranded breaks, e.g., to create one or more indels, in the target nucleic acid sequence, each guide RNA is independently selected from SEQ ID NOS: 3095-3283 (Page 11, Lines 28-32). Welstead teaches SEQ ID NO: 3119 is 100% identical to instant SEQ ID NO: 625 (See Appendix I). Response to Arguments - Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 16, 19-22, 24, 25 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Welstead et al (WO 2017/152015 Al) as evidenced by Ungerer et al (Sci Rep 6, 39681, pgs. 1-9;2016) has been maintained in view of Applicant' s amendment to the claims. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and have not been found persuasive. Applicant argues Welstead fails to teach a combination of a targeter nucleic acid and a modulator nucleic acid which, when combined, are capable of activating a type V-A Cas nuclease as claimed. Applicant continues that Welstead merely discloses single guide nucleic acids and that this is in line with naturally occurring Type V-A CRISPR-Cas systems which lack a tracrRNA and rely on a single crRNA to guide the CRISPR-Cas complex to the target DNA. Applicant argues that the same applies to the remaining dependent claims. These arguments are not found to be persuasive because Welstead teaches an isolated or nonnaturally occurring gRNA molecule, comprising a targeting domain which is complementary with a target domain from one T-cell expressed gene selected from the group consisting of FAS, BID, CTLA4, PDCDl, CBLB, PTPN6, B2M, TRAC and TRBC Gene (Page 8, Lines 17-21). Welstead teaches when the T cell target knockout position is the B2M coding region, e.g., an early coding region, and more than one gRNA is used to position breaks, e.g., two double stranded breaks, e.g., to create one or more indels, in the target nucleic acid sequence, each guide RNA is independently selected from SEQ ID NOS: 3095-3283 (Page 11, Lines 28-32). Welstead teaches SEQ ID NO: 3119 is 100% identical to instant SEQ ID NO: 625 (See Appendix I). Welstead teaches gRNA where the 5' end is the direct repeat domain with a stem and loop hairpin structure (comprising the modulator nucleic acid of the claim) and the 3' end is a targeting domain (Page 103, Figure 1). Ungerer is only cited to show that the Cpfl is a type V-A nuclease of the class II family of CRISPR systems (Page 1, Paragraph 3). Therefore, all of the limitations of claim 1 are anticipated by Welstead as evidenced by Ungerer and the rejection is proper. Conclusion 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 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 ALEXANDRA ROSE LIPPOLIS whose telephone number is (703)756-5450. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 5:00pm EST. 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, JENNIFER A DUNSTON can be reached at (571) 272-2916. 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. /ALEXANDRA ROSE LIPPOLIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1637 /CELINE X QIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1637
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 05, 2022
Application Filed
Sep 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Dec 08, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 12, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599637
A GENETICALLY MODIFIED LACTOBACILLUS AND USES THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600958
METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR MANUFACTURING POLYNUCLEOTIDES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12420073
Biosensor Tattoos and Uses Therefor for Biomarker Monitoring
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 23, 2025
Patent 12410429
COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR GENE TARGETING USING CRISPR-CAS AND TRANSPOSONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 09, 2025
Patent 12378573
Asparaginase Based Selection System for Heterologous Protein Expression in Mammalian Cells
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 05, 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
32%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+63.1%)
4y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 19 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