Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/062,858

NOVEL CRISPR-CAS SYSTEMS FOR GENOME EDITING

Final Rejection §102§112
Filed
Dec 07, 2022
Examiner
KEOGH, MATTHEW R
Art Unit
1663
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
543 granted / 692 resolved
+18.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
719
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.8%
-34.2% vs TC avg
§103
23.1%
-16.9% vs TC avg
§102
20.6%
-19.4% vs TC avg
§112
38.1%
-1.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 692 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Claim Status Claims 1-10, 17-20, 22, 28-31 are pending. Claims 1-8 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 9-10, 17-20, 22, 28-31 are examined on the merits. Response to Arguments - Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 7 July 2025 have overcome the rejection of record. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Lack of Written Description The following is a quotation 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. Claims 9-10, 17-20, 22, 28-30 remain rejected and claim 31 is 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims are broadly drawn to products comprising a type V Cas-alpha polypeptide having DNA binding activity comprising the motifs GxxxG, ExL, CxnC, and Cxn(C or H) wherein N=2 to11. It does not seem that the recited motifs alone are sufficient to confer DNA binding ability or even be considered a type V Cas nuclease. It is critical to recognize that the none of the claims require an overall identity to a single SEQ ID NO that encodes a full-length Cas-alpha endonuclease. Without such a scaffold, the potential structures encompassed by the broad scope of the claims is quite amorphous. The Examiner does recognize that the RuvC subdomains are required that their approximate location relative to one another is specified. This is not nearly enough structural limitations being claimed for a poorly characterized class of Cas endonucleases. Claim 9 states that polypeptide can be up to 799 amino acids in length. A total of 8 amino acids are specified by the recited RuvC subdomains. This means that about 1% of the polypeptide is specified. The instant disclosure describes many putative Cas endonuclease that have been identified by in silico means (Example 1). Functional assays were conducted to confirm function of the putative nuclease and determine their PAM motif preferences in subsequent examples. These descriptions are insufficient, because despite the extensive examples, they do not overcome the extreme breadth (nearly limitless) of the claims. Given the broad scope of the claimed genus, the lack of working examples and the failure to describe the structures required to confer the claimed function, one of skill in the art would not have recognized that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus at the time of filing. Response to Arguments - Lack of Written Description Applicant's arguments filed 7 July 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant urges that the claims have been amended to more closely claim the RuvC subdomains and as currently claimed, no longer encompass the APOBEC deaminase that was previously cited. This argument is not persuasive, because the claims still recite very few structural limitations, to the point that it would be nearly impossible to adequately describe such a large an amorphous scope. Conclusion No claims are allowed. 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 extension fee 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 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

Dec 07, 2022
Application Filed
Feb 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Jul 07, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 20, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593795
SOYBEAN CULTIVAR 28020129
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593799
SOYBEAN CULTIVAR 20160221
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590313
METHODOLOGIES AND COMPOSITIONS FOR CREATING TARGETED RECOMBINATION AND BREAKING LINKAGE BETWEEN TRAITS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588631
SOYBEAN CULTIVAR 26120229
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588626
PLANTS AND SEEDS OF HYBRID CORN VARIETY CH010510
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+13.9%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 692 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