Prosecution Insights
Last updated: September 17, 2026
Application No. 18/084,462

BREEDING WITH CANNABIS VARIETIES

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Dec 19, 2022
Priority
Mar 15, 2013 — provisional 61/801,528 +6 more
Examiner
ABRAHAM, AMJAD A
Art Unit
1663
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Nexus Agriscience Inc.
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
32%
Grant Probability
At Risk
2-3
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
67%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 32% of cases
32%
Career Allowance Rate
106 granted / 334 resolved
-28.3% vs TC avg
Strong +35% interview lift
Without
With
+35.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
12 currently pending
Career history
345
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.9%
-38.1% vs TC avg
§103
52.2%
+12.2% vs TC avg
§102
15.9%
-24.1% vs TC avg
§112
22.6%
-17.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 334 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . Examiner Notes Summary of rejections/objections made in the last office action (CNTF dated 11/4/2025). Claim Objections Withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments of claims 20, 23, and 31 to include the required deposit information. Specification Objection Withdrawn due to applicant’s specification amendment on 8/11/2026. Enablement (Deposit) Rejection Withdrawn as applicant has perfected their deposit by submitting the correct statements in the remarks dated 8/11/26 and the claim and specification amendments on 8/11/26 in conjunction with the BP4 forms. Double patenting rejections Double patenting rejections in view of 10411216, 9095554, and 9642317 are withdrawn due to the approved terminal disclaimers on 5/1/26. Claim summary Claims 20-38 are pending. Prosecution has been reopened to address a missed Double Patenting Rejection Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 20-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,441,617 (See IDS on 5/5/26). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claim sets use CBD5 (AKA CBD05) deposited in NCMA (Accession # 201904001) as the source material to create a progeny cannabis plant. Outside of using the starting material, the remaining process steps in claims 20-38 are notoriously well known (examiner takes Official Notice) breeding steps for making a further generation of a cannabis plant and would have been obvious in view of 10,441,617 claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMJAD A ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7058. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 830 AM to 500 PM. 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 A Abraham can be reached at 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. AMJAD A. ABRAHAM SPE AU 1663 Art Unit 1663 /Amjad Abraham/SPE, Art Unit 1663
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 19, 2022
Application Filed
Apr 08, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP
May 01, 2026
Response Filed
Aug 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12690539
PLANTS AND SEEDS OF HYBRID CORN VARIETY CH010505
2y 7m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12677777
PLANTS AND SEEDS OF HYBRID CORN VARIETY CH010504
2y 6m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12660782
SOYBEAN VARIETY 01106494
2y 7m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12648534
SOYBEAN CULTIVAR 24370074
2y 7m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Patent 12648537
SOYBEAN CULTIVAR 26060745
2y 2m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
32%
Grant Probability
67%
With Interview (+35.3%)
3y 4m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 334 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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