Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/163,608

PLANT INOCULATION METHOD

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Feb 02, 2023
Examiner
LANGEL, WAYNE A
Art Unit
1736
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Azotic Technologies Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
1275 granted / 1622 resolved
+13.6% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
1668
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
33.6%
-6.4% vs TC avg
§102
2.0%
-38.0% vs TC avg
§112
37.6%
-2.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1622 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . 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. Claim 3 is 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. It is indefinite as to whether the “strain” is required to be the “strain” as recited in claim 1. The word - - the - - should be inserted before “strain” to avoid this rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 he following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bobeck et al (US 11,542,211) ( with reliance on corresponding provisional application No. 62/169,942). Regarding claim 1, Provisional application 62/169,942 discloses Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus as a microbe capable of nitrogen fixation on page 5, lines 10-13 and in section (6) in claim 2. The difference between the composition disclosed in provisional 62/169962, and that recited in applicant’s claims, is that provisional 62/169962 does not disclose that the strain of Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus is a strain deposited with CABI in the United Kingdom under deposit accession number IMI 504958 or under deposit accession number IMI 504998. It would be obvious to provide a strain of Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus having properties identical or similar to the strains recited in applicant’s claim 1 as the nitrogen fixation strains of provisional 62/169962. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since one could determine through routine experimentation which strains would be capable of nitrogen fixation, and there is no evidence on record of unexpected results which would emanate from the use of the strains recited in claim 1, as opposed to other nitrogen fixation strains of Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus. There is no “description support” in applicant’s foreign priority document (United Kingdom GB 1413333.4 which was filed on July 28, 2014) for a strain deposited with CABI in the United Kingdom under deposit accession number IMI 504958 (formerly IMI 504853). Accordingly the earliest effective filing date which can be accorded applicant’s claims is July 28, 2015 (the filing date of grandparent application 15/326996), and Bobeck et al is properly available as prior art since the filing date of its corresponding provisional application pre-dates applicant’s earliest effective filing date. Regarding claim 2, provisional application 62/169942 discloses on page 9, lines 8-11 that the composition can be applied to a plant or plant seed. Regarding claim 3, provisional application 62/169942 discloses on page 9, lines 3-7 that the microbial inoculant is present in a fertilizer composition. Regarding claim 4, provisional application 62/169942 discloses a solvent-based formulation. Such formulation would typically be applied as a spray, especially since provisional application 62/169942 discloses that the composition can be applied to the plant or plant part. Conclusion The articles by Christina Kennedy, Luc F. M. Rouws, L. F. M. Rous, Rodrigo V. Serrato and Euan K. James are made of record for disclosing various strains of Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LANGEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:15 am to 4:15 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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. /WAYNE A LANGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 02, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Mar 30, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 30, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599151
BIOCHARS, BIOCHAR EXTRACTS AND BIOCHAR EXTRACTS HAVING SOLUBLE SIGNALING COMPOUNDS AND METHOD FOR CAPTURING MATERIAL EXTRACTED FROM BIOCHAR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590043
COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR IMPROVING PLANT GROWTH AND ABIOTIC STRESS TOLERANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583802
AUTONOMOUS DEVICE FOR IN-FIELD CONVERSION OF BIOMASS INTO BIOCHAR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583801
PROCESS FOR PRODUCING FERTILIZER FROM A BIOGAS STREAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577179
Methods and Compositions for Soil Regeneration and Improved Soil Hydrology
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
79%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+23.3%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1622 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