Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/001,325

NOVEL PROBIOTIC BACTERIA AND METHODS TO CONTROL PATHOGENS IN AQUATIC ANIMALS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Dec 09, 2022
Examiner
SINGH, SATYENDRA K
Art Unit
1657
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Pebble Labs Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
61%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 61% of resolved cases
61%
Career Allow Rate
391 granted / 643 resolved
+0.8% vs TC avg
Strong +66% interview lift
Without
With
+66.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
680
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.8%
-35.2% vs TC avg
§103
35.4%
-4.6% vs TC avg
§102
14.6%
-25.4% vs TC avg
§112
26.8%
-13.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 643 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . DETAILED ACTION Applicant’s response filed on 08/18/2025 is duly acknowledged. Claims 2, 8, 9, 11-14, 17, 19, 21-28 and 31-34 were canceled by applicants. Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 15, 16, 18, 20, 29, 30 and 35-41 as currently presented are pending in this application. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (species A for strain “B. subtilis sp. MM-W1 with ATCC deposit number PTA-126789; directed to “A bacterial strain…” and “A feed…”) in the reply filed on 08/18/2025 (see REM, page 6) is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 35-39 (non-elected invention of Group II) have been withdrawn from further considerations. Upon further considerations and search, the species requirement as previously made by the examiner, has been withdrawn. Both species A and B have been rejoined and examined on their merits in this action hereinafter. Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 15, 16, 18, 20, 29, 30, 40 and 41 (elected Group I, without traverse; directed to directed to “A bacterial strain…” and “A feed…”) have been examined on their merits in this action hereinafter. Priority This application is a 371 of PCT/US2021/037056 (filed on 06/11/2021) which claims domestic benefit from a US PRO 63/038,304 filed on 06/12/2020. Claim Objections 1. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 7 recites the limitations “an EMS-causing bacterial pathogen” in line 2. The abbreviated term “EMS” should be recited in its full form, at least the first time it appears in the claim. Appropriate correction is required. 2. Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15 recites the abbreviation “AI-2”, which should be recited in its full form, at least the first time it appears in a claim. 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. 1. Claims 4 and 10 (as recited) 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. Claim 4 has been reproduced below: PNG media_image1.png 210 693 media_image1.png Greyscale The recitation of claim 4 is confusing and incomplete because- first, it does not end with a period and therefore it is unclear what else is required by the claim after the recitation of components in the last line that ends with “; and”. Secondly, claim 4 ends with a semicolon with a conjunction “and”, which makes claim 4 incomplete in its recitation, and therefore the metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be properly determined by an artisan of ordinary skill in the art, and thus the claim is deemed indefinite. Since, claim 10 directly depends from claim 4, and does not remedy the above points, it is also rejected as being indefinite for the same reasons of record. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 10 appears to recite a Markush group in the form of “selected from the group comprising…” (see line 2), which is ambiguous and confusing because it is unclear what other alternatives are to be included (because of “comprising” language) in the claimed group, and should be amended to recite in its proper form “selected from the group consisting of A, B, C, and D”, for instance. Appropriate correction is required. 2. Claim 30 as presented appears to recite a Markush group (see line 2), but does not end with conjunction “and” before the last component/alternative. The recitation is ambiguous and indefinite because it is unclear what other components were intended to be part of the group of alternatives separated by semicolons. The metes and bounds of the claimed invention does not appear to be properly defined. Claim 30 should be amended to provide for conjunction “and” before the last alternative (for instance, “…reduction in disease condition; and a gene editing function.”). Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. 1. Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 15, 16, 18, 20, 29, 30, 40 and 41 (as presented) 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The invention appears to employ biological materials in the form of specific bacterial strains (Bacillus subtilis sp. MM-W1 with ATCC patent deposit number PTA-126789; and Bacillus subtilis sp. MM-W2 with ATCC patent deposit number PTA-126790; see instant claim 1 and specification, page 1, section “DEPOSIT INFORMATION”, in particular). Since the biological materials are essential to the claimed invention they must be obtainable by a repeatable method set forth in the specification or otherwise readily available to the public. If the biological material is not so obtainable or available, the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112 may be satisfied by a deposit of the biological material. The specification does not disclose a repeatable process to obtain the biological material and it is not apparent if the biological material is readily available to the public. It is noted that applicant has deposited the biological material (instant specification, page 1, section “DEPOSIT INFORMATION”), but there is no indication in the specification as to public availability. If the deposit is made under the Budapest Treaty, then an affidavit or declaration by applicant, or a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number, stating that the specific biological material (in the instant case, the bacterial strains Bacillus subtilis sp. MM-W1 with ATCC patent deposit number PTA-126789; and Bacillus subtilis sp. MM-W2 with ATCC patent deposit number PTA-126790) have been deposited under the Budapest Treaty and that the biological material will be irrevocably and without restriction or condition released to the public upon the issuance of a patent, would satisfy the deposit requirement made herein. If the deposit has not been made under the Budapest Treaty, then in order to certify that the deposit meets the criteria set forth in 37 C.F.R. §1.801-1.809, applicant may provide assurance of compliance by an affidavit or declaration, or by a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number, showing that: (a) during the pendency of this application, access to the invention will be afforded to the commissioner upon request; (b) all restrictions upon availability to the public will be irrevocably removed upon granting of the patent; (c) the deposit will be maintained in a public depository for a period of 30 years or 5 years after the last request or for the effective life of the patent, whichever is longer; (d) a test of the viability of the biological material at the time of deposit will be made (see 37 C.F.R. §1.807); and (e) the deposit will be replaced if it should ever become inviable. Applicant’s attention is also directed to M.P.E.P. § 2400 in general, and specifically to § 2411.05, as well as to 37 C.F.R. §1.809(d), wherein it is set forth that “the specification shall contain the accession number for the deposit, the date of the deposit, the name and address of the depository, and a description of the deposited material sufficient to specifically identify it and to permit examination”. The specification should be amended to include this information, however, applicant is cautioned to avoid the entry of new matter into the specification by adding any other information. Appropriate correction is required. Prior Art and 101 Issues Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 15, 16, 18, 20, 29, 30, 40 and 41 appear to be free of 101 and prior art issues (see instant specification, page 9, 3rd paragraph; and page 39, Table 1, in particular). Conclusion NO claims are currently allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SATYENDRA K. SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-8790. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00- 5:00. 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, LOUISE W HUMPHREY can be reached at 571-272-5543. 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. SATYENDRA K. SINGH Primary Examiner Art Unit 1657 /SATYENDRA K SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1657
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 09, 2022
Application Filed
Oct 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600995
BIOCATALYST AS A CORE COMPONENT OF AN ENZYME-CATALYZED REDOX SYSTEM FOR THE BIOCATALYTIC REDUCTION OF CYSTINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599142
BACTERIOPHAGE, BACTERIAL WILT DISEASE CONTROL AGENT, AND BACTERIAL WILT DISEASE CONTROL METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12584101
COMPOSITIONS AND METHOD OF USE FOR H5 COMPETENT BIFIDOBACTERIUM LONGUM SUBSP. INFANTIS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576118
BACTERIOPHAGES FOR THE TREATMENT OF TUBERCULOSIS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12559784
IN CHEMICO TEST FOR TOXICITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
61%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+66.4%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 643 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