Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/924,916

DE-REPRESSION OF NITROGEN FIXATION IN GRAM-POSITIVE MICROORGANISMS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Nov 11, 2022
Examiner
FERNANDEZ, SUSAN EMILY
Art Unit
1651
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Pivot Bio Inc.
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
52%
Grant Probability
Moderate
2-3
OA Rounds
4y 0m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 52% of resolved cases
52%
Career Allow Rate
285 granted / 548 resolved
-8.0% vs TC avg
Strong +60% interview lift
Without
With
+60.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 0m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
589
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.0%
-34.0% vs TC avg
§103
40.8%
+0.8% vs TC avg
§102
11.0%
-29.0% vs TC avg
§112
30.3%
-9.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 548 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 1-36, 39-44, and 46-190 are cancelled. Claims 191-209 are new. Claims 37, 38, 45, and 191-209 are pending and examined on the merits. Claim Objections Claims 199-201 and 206 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claims 199-201, the word “mutation” should be inserted after the recitation “L114P” in line 2 of each of the claims for consistency which the other members of the group (e.g., “a R994H mutation” in claim 199). The first letters of the words “Larvae” and “Pulvifaciens” in line 6 of claim 206 should be lowercase. Claim 206 recites “Paenibacillus polymyxa” twice at lines 3 and 8. One of the two recitations should be deleted. The recitation “Paenibacillus odorifier” in lines 9-10 of claim 206 is a misspelling of the known species Paenibacillus odorifer. See the abstract of Beno (mSphere. 2020. 5(1): e00739-19. Published January 22, 2020). The recitation “odorifier” should be replaced with “odorifer.” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. Claims 197-204 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. Claims 197-201 are each rendered indefinite by the recitation “or at a homologous amino acid position in a homologous GlnR protein.” The recitation in each of claims 197-201 is preceded by a list of amino acid substitutions at multiple amino acid positions. However, the recitation regarding a homologous amino acid position is directed to an amino acid substitution at a single amino acid position. It is unclear which one of the amino acid positions in SEQ ID NO: 16 is being referred to by said recitation. It is unclear whether said recitation is referring to preceding position. For instance, with respect to claim 198, it is unclear whether said recitation is referring to an amino acid substitution in a homologous GlnR protein at an amino acid position homologous to amino acid position 133 of SEQ ID NO: 16. Since claim 197 is indefinite, then its dependent claims, claims 198-204, are rendered indefinite. Thus, claims 197-204 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). 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 37, 38, 191-195, 197-201, 203, and 205-209 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. Claims 37 and 205-209 require the broad genus of one or more bacteria capable of fixing nitrogen irrespective of exogenous nitrogen levels at a rate at least equivalent to a rate of nitrogen fixation in a wild-type gram-positive diazotrophic bacterium in the absence of exogenous nitrogen. Though claims 38, 191-195, 197-201, and 203 more narrowly require that the one or more bacteria comprise one or more engineered gram-positive diazotrophic bacteria comprising a heterologous promoter operably linked to a nif operon and/or a mutant GlnR protein, the genus of the one or more bacteria is still broad. However, the specification as filed does not provide a representative number of species of the claimed genus to adequately describe the claimed genus, nor would one of skill in the art be able to visualize or recognize the identity of the members of the claimed genus. With respect to the one or more bacteria of claim 38, Applicant describes the heterologous promoter linked to a nif operon at least in Figure 9 and paragraph [0091] (in particular, a heterologous promoter comprising a nucleic acid sequence selected from any one of SEQ ID NOs: 1-11). Applicant also describes the mutant GlnR protein at paragraph [0094] (in particular, a GlnR protein comprising an amino acid sequence selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO: 17-19). The bacteria engineered to comprise the heterologous promoter and mutant GlnR protein as described in paragraphs [0091] and [0094] are shown in Figure 10. On the other hand, the claims recite a genus that is vast, encompassing any bacteria that can perform the recited nitrogen fixing, including bacteria that are normally not capable of performing the recited nitrogen fixing but have been genetically modified to do so. However, Applicant does not describe the structures that are required for obtaining the claimed function of fixing nitrogen irrespective of exogenous nitrogen levels at a rate at least equivalent to a rate of nitrogen fixation in a wild-type gram-positive diazotrophic bacterium in the absence of exogenous nitrogen. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize bacteria that can perform the recited function from other bacteria that would not, based upon their structural composition. In view of these teachings, Applicant appears to be claiming the invention on the basis of function alone. “A definition by function alone "does not suffice" to sufficiently describe a coding sequence "because it is only an indication of what the gene does, rather than what it is." Eli Lilly, 119 F.3 at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. See also Fiers, 984 F.2d at 1169-71, 25 USPQ2d at 1605-06 (discussing Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharma. Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 18 USPQ2d 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). (MPEP 2163). The limited number of species described by Applicant are insufficient to describe the recited genus by virtue of example. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, filed September 24, 2025, have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to the rejections of the last Office Action. Therefore, those rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of further consideration of the claimed subject matter and as necessitated by the amendments to the claims. Conclusion Claims 45, 196, 202, and 204 are allowed. Claims 37-38,191-195,197-201,203 and 205-209 are not allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUSAN EMILY FERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3444. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30am - 7pm. 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, Melenie Gordon can be reached at 571-272-8037. 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. Sef /SUSAN E. FERNANDEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 1651
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 11, 2022
Application Filed
Jul 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Sep 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 24, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600997
FERMENTATIVE PRODUCTION OF SIALYLATED SACCHARIDES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590971
PREPARING LIVE MICROBIAL SAMPLES AND MICROORGANISMS FOR SUBSEQUENT MASS SPECTROMETRIC MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12559741
HIGH DENSITY DISTRIBUTED THREE-DIMENSIONAL ELECTRODE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12551517
PROBIOTICS FOR COGNITIVE AND MENTAL HEALTH
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12544468
METHOD FOR DECOMPOSING PERACETIC ACID AND METHOD FOR CULTURING MICROORGANISMS USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
52%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+60.5%)
4y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 548 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