Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/433,835

COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR CONTROLLING PLANT GROWTH

Final Rejection §102§103§112
Filed
Feb 06, 2024
Priority
Sep 05, 2019 — provisional 62/896,312 +2 more
Examiner
KOVALENKO, MYKOLA V
Art Unit
1662
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Plantarc Bio Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
11m
Est. Remaining
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allowance Rate
373 granted / 537 resolved
+9.5% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
573
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.5%
-38.5% vs TC avg
§103
52.2%
+12.2% vs TC avg
§102
9.9%
-30.1% vs TC avg
§112
18.5%
-21.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 537 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Status of the Claims 2. Claims 1-10 are pending and examined. Claim Objections 3. Claims 1, 4-6 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, the term “HPPD” should be spelled out at its first use. The term “sequence similarity” should be amended to recite “sequence identity” to clearly reflect the fact that the percentage refers to structural identity between the sequences. In claims 4-6 and 9, the term “being” should be replaced with a comma and the following phrase: “wherein the crop plant is,” for clarity. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 4. 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. 5. Claims 1-10 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. In claim 1, the recitation “wherein the fungal HPPD enzyme has less than 50% amino acid sequence similarity to an endogenous HPPD enzyme of the plant” renders the claim indefinite, for the following reasons. First, the claim does not supply a reference sequence for the endogenous HPPD enzyme, which makes it unclear relative to what the “sequence similarity” is meant to be determined. Second, the claim already requires that the “fungal HPPD enzyme” have any one of the amino acid sequences set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1, 3, or 5, which is reasonably interpreted to encompass full-length individual sequences and not a genus recited by percent identity. It is thus unclear how or whether the requirement of “50% amino acid sequence similarity” is meant to limit the HPPDs of SEQ ID NO: 1, 3, and 5 recited in the claim. Finally, the phrase “less than”, used in reference to the percent similarity, introduces further ambiguity into the claim language because it does not set the lower limit for the percent identity between the sequences, and the specification does not clarity said limit either. The metes and bounds are thus unclear. Given that claims 2-10 depend from claim 1 and fail to recite additional limitations overcoming its indefiniteness, they are indefinite as well. Claim 7 is indefinite for the following additional reason. The claim is directed to the crop of claim 1 comprising a nucleic acid encoding the exogenous fungal HPPD enzyme of claim 1. However, claim 1 is drawn to a plant “expressing” an exogenous fungal HPPD, which limitation necessarily requires the presence of a nucleic acid molecule encoding the enzyme. It is thus unclear how claim 7 limits the crop of claim 1. Claim Interpretation 6. As set forth above, the claims have been found indefinite. For the purpose of the examination, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation as follows. Claim 1 is read as requiring the expression of the full-length SEQ ID NO: 1, 3, or 5. Claim 10 is drawn to a seed of the plant of claim 1, but the seed is not limited by a filial generation, and is not required to comprise the nucleic acid encoding the exogenous HPPD of SEQ ID NO: 1, 3, or 5. The claim will thus read on any wild-type seed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 7. The 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. 8. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poree et al (US Patent Publication 2015/0159145), in view of Accinelli et al (Crop Protection (2014) 67:243-250) and GenBank Accession Number XM_024916819 (version of April 26, 2018). Poree et al teach a plant comprising a chimeric gene encoding a Rhodococcus sp. HPPD, including wherein the chimeric gene comprises a nucleic acid sequence encoding a transit peptide, so that the chimeric gene encodes the HPPD/transit peptide fusion protein (claims 17-24). Given the evidence in paragraphs 0042, 00112, and 0122, of Poree et al, and the fact that HPPD is a chloroplast enzyme, the term “transit peptide” is reasonably interpreted as synonymous with “chloroplast transit peptide.” Poree et al disclose maize, tobacco, rice, and soybean plants, expressing said HPPD, wherein the expression conferred tolerance to the HPPD inhibitor herbicides tembotrione and isoxaflutole (Examples 5-12; see Tables 6, 7-10). Poree et al teach using chloroplast transit peptides with the HPPDs of their invention (paragraphs 0042, 0112). Poree et al teach as follows: “Homologous nucleotide sequence may also be identified and isolated by hybridization under stringent conditions using as probes identified nucleotide sequences encoding HPPD enzymes according to the invention or parts thereof. Such parts should preferably have a nucleotide sequence comprising at least 40 consecutive nucleotides from the coding region of HPPD encoding genes sequences according to the invention, preferably from the coding region of SEQ ID No. 1, SEQ ID No. 2, SEQ ID No. 3, SEQ ID No. 15, SEQ ID No. 16 or SEQ ID No. 17. The probes may however comprise longer regions of nucleotide sequences derived from the HPPD encoding nucleic acids, such as about 50, 60, 75, 100, 200 or 500 consecutive nucleotides from any of the mentioned HPPD genes. Preferably, the probe should comprise a nucleotide sequence coding for a highly conserved region which may be identified by aligning the different HPPD proteins” (paragraph 0074). Poree et al do not teach an HPPD enzyme comprising SEQ ID NO: 1, 3, or 5 or a nucleic acid encoding said HPPDs. Accinelli et al teach using isolates of the fungus Trichoderma harzianum to successfully degrade bicyclopyrone (BIR), an HPPD inhibitor, resulting in less injury to soybean plants from residual bicyclopyrone in a field that had been treated with said herbicide before planting (Fig. 6 and 7; see also Abstract; Introduction on pg. 243, both col.). Accinelli et al teach that “T. harzianum was effective in reducing BIR carry over risk” (page 249, left col.). Accinelli et al teach as follows: “Although Trichoderma has been known for a long time mainly as a biocontrol fungus, more recently its use as a plant growth promoter and for bioremediation has been considered with increasing interest … Other than being tolerant to a wide number of synthetic compounds, including pesticides, Trichoderma species produce a vast array of extracellular enzymes capable to detoxifying different xenobiotics” (page 249, left col.) GenBank Accession Number XM_024916819 teaches the HPPD from Trichoderma harzianum that has 100% sequence identity to the instant SEQ ID NO: 1. The sequence alignment is set forth below (SEQ ID NO: 1 is the “Query”). Score Expect Method Identities Positives Gaps 870 bits(2248) 0.0 Compositional matrix adjust. 415/415(100%) 415/415(100%) 0/415(0%) Query 1 MSPSAISNSPEQRPANNNGTTPDNFAIQPPADFTGYDHVTWWVGNAKQAAAYYTTLFGFE 60 MSPSAISNSPEQRPANNNGTTPDNFAIQPPADFTGYDHVTWWVGNAKQAAAYYTTLFGFE Sbjct 1 MSPSAISNSPEQRPANNNGTTPDNFAIQPPADFTGYDHVTWWVGNAKQAAAYYTTLFGFE 60 Query 61 TTAYRGLETGSRYFASYVVCNNGVRFVFTSPLRSEAHLPEDETISDSERKLLKEIHAHLE 120 TTAYRGLETGSRYFASYVVCNNGVRFVFTSPLRSEAHLPEDETISDSERKLLKEIHAHLE Sbjct 61 TTAYRGLETGSRYFASYVVCNNGVRFVFTSPLRSEAHLPEDETISDSERKLLKEIHAHLE 120 Query 121 RHGDAVKDVAFEVDNVEAVYNKAVAEGAIA VQGPTATKDDHGSVTTAVICTYGDTTHTLI 180 RHGDAVKDVAFEVDNVEAVYNKAVAEGAIA VQGPTATKDDHGSVTTAVICTYGDTTHTLI Sbjct 121 RHGDAVKDVAFEVDNVEAVYNKAVAEGAIA VQGPTATKDDHGSVTTAVICTYGDTTHTLI 180 Query 181 NRRGYTGPFLPGFRAGKERTSSVEMPNVPLARIDHCVGNQSWNEMVSACAFYEQCLSFHR 240 NRRGYTGPFLPGFRAGKERTSSVEMPNVPLARIDHCVGNQSWNEMVSACAFYEQCLSFHR Sbjct 181 NRRGYTGPFLPGFRAGKERTSSVEMPNVPLARIDHCVGNQSWNEMVSACAFYEQCLSFHR 240 Query 241 FWSVDDSQICTEFSALNSIVMASPNNLVKMPINEPAPGKKKSQIEEYVIFNSGPGVQHIA 300 FWSVDDSQICTEFSALNSIVMASPNNLVKMPINEPAPGKKKSQIEEYVIFNSGPGVQHIA Sbjct 241 FWSVDDSQICTEFSALNSIVMASPNNLVKMPINEPAPGKKKSQIEEYVIFNSGPGVQHIA 300 Query 301 LLTPDIITSVSALRARGVEFINVPTTYYDTMRQRLKTEKRNWQLKEDLDTIQRLNILIDY 360 LLTPDIITSVSALRARGVEFINVPTTYYDTMRQRLKTEKRNWQLKEDLDTIQRLNILIDY Sbjct 301 LLTPDIITSVSALRARGVEFINVPTTYYDTMRQRLKTEKRNWQLKEDLDTIQRLNILIDY 360 Query 361 DEAGYLLQLFTKPLMDRPTVFIEIIQRNNFEGFGAGNFKSLFEAIEREQAERGNL 415 DEAGYLLQLFTKPLMDRPTVFIEIIQRNNFEGFGAGNFKSLFEAIEREQAERGNL Sbjct 361 DEAGYLLQLFTKPLMDRPTVFIEIIQRNNFEGFGAGNFKSLFEAIEREQAERGNL 415 GenBank Accession Number XM_024916819 also teaches a nucleic acid sequence encoding said HPPD, which has 99% identity to the instant SEQ ID NO: 2 and differs from it at two nucleotides. The sequence alignment is set forth below (SEQ ID NO: 2 is the “Query”). Score Expect Identities Gaps Strand 2294 bits(1242) 0.0 1246/1248(99%) 0/1248(0%) Plus/Plus Query 1 ATGTCCCCTTCTGCTATCAGCAACTCCCCAGAGCAGCGACCTGCAAACAACAACGGCACC 60 |||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Sbjct 1 ATGTCCCCGTCTGCTATCAGCAACTCCCCAGAGCAGCGACCTGCAAACAACAACGGCACC 60 Query 61 ACCCCCGACAACTTCGCTATCCAGCCTCCCGCCGACTTCACCGGCTATGACCACGTAACG 120 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Sbjct 61 ACCCCCGACAACTTCGCTATCCAGCCTCCCGCCGACTTCACCGGCTATGACCACGTAACG 120 Query 121 TGGTGGGTTGGCAACGCCAAGCAGGCGGCCGCTTATTACACCACCCTCTTTGGGTTCGAG 180 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Sbjct 121 TGGTGGGTTGGCAACGCCAAGCAGGCGGCCGCTTATTACACCACCCTCTTTGGGTTCGAG 180 Query 181 ACTACGGCCTATCGTGGACTCGAGACTGGAAGCCGATACTTCGCTTCCTATGTCGTCTGC 240 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Sbjct 181 ACTACGGCCTATCGTGGACTCGAGACTGGAAGCCGATACTTCGCTTCCTATGTCGTCTGC 240 Query 241 AACAATGGCGTCCGCTTCGTCTTCACGTCGCCTCTGCGATCGGAGGCTCACCTCCCTGAA 300 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Sbjct 241 AACAATGGCGTCCGCTTCGTCTTCACGTCGCCTCTGCGATCGGAGGCTCACCTCCCTGAA 300 Query 301 GATGAGACCATCTCTGATTCTGAGCGGAAGCTCCTGAAGGAGATTCACGCTCACCTCGAG 360 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Sbjct 301 GATGAGACCATCTCTGATTCTGAGCGGAAGCTCCTGAAGGAGATTCACGCTCACCTCGAG 360 Query 361 AGACACGGCGATGCCGTCAAGGACGTTGCCTTTGAAGTTGACAACGTCGAGGCCGTATAC 420 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Sbjct 361 AGACACGGCGATGCCGTCAAGGACGTTGCCTTTGAAGTTGACAACGTCGAGGCCGTATAC 420 Query 421 AACAAGGCCGTGGCTGAGGGCGCCATCGCCGTCCAAGGCCCAACCGCCACCAAGGATGAT 480 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Sbjct 421 AACAAGGCCGTGGCTGAGGGCGCCATCGCCGTCCAAGGCCCAACCGCCACCAAGGATGAT 480 Query 481 CACGGCTCCGTCACCACGGCCGTCATCTGCACCTATGGCGATACCACCCACACTCTCATC 540 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Sbjct 481 CACGGCTCCGTCACCACGGCCGTCATCTGCACCTATGGCGATACCACCCACACTCTCATC 540 Query 541 AACCGCCGGGGCTACACGGGACCTTTCCTGCCCGGCTTCCGCGCCGGCAAGGAGCGCACC 600 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Sbjct 541 AACCGCCGGGGCTACACGGGACCTTTCCTGCCCGGCTTCCGCGCCGGCAAGGAGCGCACC 600 Query 601 TCGTCCGTGGAGATGCCCAACGTGCCCCTTGCCCGCATCGACCACTGCGTCGGCAACCAG 660 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Sbjct 601 TCGTCCGTGGAGATGCCCAACGTGCCCCTTGCCCGCATCGACCACTGCGTCGGCAACCAG 660 Query 661 TCGTGGAACGAAATGGTCTCGGCCTGCGCCTTTTACGAGCAGTGCCTGTCCTTCCACCGT 720 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Sbjct 661 TCGTGGAACGAAATGGTCTCGGCCTGCGCCTTTTACGAGCAGTGCCTGTCCTTCCACCGT 720 Query 721 TTCTGGTCCGTCGACGACTCCCAGATCTGCACCGAGTTCTCGGCCCTCAACTCCATCGTC 780 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Sbjct 721 TTCTGGTCCGTCGACGACTCCCAGATCTGCACCGAGTTCTCGGCCCTCAACTCCATCGTC 780 Query 781 ATGGCCTCGCCCAACAACCTCGTCAAGATGCCCATCAACGAGCCCGCCCCGGGCAAGAAG 840 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Sbjct 781 ATGGCCTCGCCCAACAACCTCGTCAAGATGCCCATCAACGAGCCCGCCCCGGGCAAGAAG 840 Query 841 AAGTCCCAGATCGAGGAGTACGTCATCTTCAACTCCGGCCCGGGCGTCCAGCACATCGCC 900 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Sbjct 841 AAGTCCCAGATCGAGGAGTACGTCATCTTCAACTCCGGCCCGGGCGTCCAGCACATCGCC 900 Query 901 CTCCTCACCCCGGACATCATCACCTCCGTCTCGGCCCTCCGCGCCCGCGGCGTCGAGTTC 960 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Sbjct 901 CTCCTCACCCCGGACATCATCACCTCCGTCTCGGCCCTCCGCGCCCGCGGCGTCGAGTTC 960 Query 961 ATCAACGTGCCCACCACTTACTACGACACCATGCGCCAGCGCCTCAAGACGGAGAAGCGC 1020 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Sbjct 961 ATCAACGTGCCCACCACTTACTACGACACCATGCGCCAGCGCCTCAAGACGGAGAAGCGC 1020 Query 1021 AACTGGCAGCTCAAGGAGGACCTGGACACCATCCAGCGCCTCAACATCCTCATCGACTAC 1080 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Sbjct 1021 AACTGGCAGCTCAAGGAGGACCTGGACACCATCCAGCGCCTCAACATCCTCATCGACTAC 1080 Query 1081 GACGAGGCCGGCTACCTCCTGCAGCTCTTCACCAAGCCGCTCATGGACCGCCCTACCGTC 1140 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Sbjct 1081 GACGAGGCCGGCTACCTCCTGCAGCTCTTCACCAAGCCGCTCATGGACCGCCCTACCGTC 1140 Query 1141 TTCATTGAGATTATCCAGAGAAACAACTTTGAGGGCTTCGGCGCCGGCAACTTCAAGAGC 1200 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Sbjct 1141 TTCATTGAGATTATCCAGAGAAACAACTTTGAGGGCTTCGGCGCCGGCAACTTCAAGAGC 1200 Query 1201 TTGTTCGAGGCCATTGAGCGCGAGCAGGCCGAGCGAGGAAACTTGTAA 1248 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||| Sbjct 1201 TTGTTCGAGGCCATTGAGCGCGAGCAGGCCGAGCGAGGAAACCTGTAA 1248 At the time of filing, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the teachings of Poree et al, using the teachings of Accinelli et al and GenBank Accession Number XM_024916819, and obtain an expression construct encoding the HPPD of the GenBank Accession Number XM_024916819, including wherein the HPPD is fused to a chloroplast transit peptide. Given the conserved nature of a number of known HPPD domains, as taught by Poree et al, one would have been able to predictably identify the protein of GenBank Accession Number XM_024916819 as an HPPD, as well as to isolate its coding sequence. Moreover, one would have recognized that the amino acid sequence would have made obvious at least one nucleic acid sequence encoding it, due to the properties of the genetic code. It would have been obvious to exogenously express said construct in any crop plant, including any monocot or dicot crop such as corn or soybean, as taught by Poree et al. It would have been obvious to use, in said expression construct, the nucleic acid of GenBank Accession Number XM_024916819, which would be considered an obvious variant of the instant SEQ ID NO: 2, given that both encode the same protein. One would have been motivated to combine said teachings, and to specifically select the HPPD from Trichoderma harzianum given the teachings of Accinelli et al regarding the ability of said fungus to inactivate bicyclopyrone, an HPPD inhibitor. One would have also been motivated to arrive at the claimed invention given the desirability of obtaining HPPD inhibitor tolerant plants, as illustrated by the teachings of Poree et al. Given the teachings of Accinelli et al, the fact that the HPPD T. harzianum was known in the prior art, and in view of the routine nature of the molecular biology methods involved, one would have had reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the claimed plant, including wherein the plant is tolerant to at least one HPPD inhibitor. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 9. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 10. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Poree et al (US Patent Publication 2015/0159145). The claim is drawn to a seed of the plant of claim 1, wherein the seed is not limited by a filial generation and is not required to comprise the nucleic acid encoding the fungal HPPDs of SEQ ID NO: 1, 3, or 5. The claim will thus read on any seed. The teachings of Poree et al are set forth above. In addition, Poree et al teach seeds, including those of tobacco (Example 4). In view of the above claim interpretation, any seed of Poree et al will read and anticipate the limitations of claim 10. Relevant Prior Art 11. While the following art was not cited in the above rejections, it is made of record as it is relevant to the claimed subject matter. Choudhury et al, Biodegradation of topramezone by a Trichoderma isolate in soil, Weeds -Journal of Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society (2019) 1:43-54, published August 2019. Choudhury et al teach that Trichoderma isolates degraded 85% of topramezone without 30 days of incubation, which is much faster than the reported half-life of the herbicide (Abstract). Conclusion 12. No claims are allowed. 13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MYKOLA V KOVALENKO whose telephone number is (571)272-6921. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:00-5:30 PST. 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, SHUBO (JOE) ZHOU can be reached on (571)272-0724. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 14. 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. /MYKOLA V. KOVALENKO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1662
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 06, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103, §112
Mar 02, 2026
Response Filed
May 26, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12628757
WHEAT VARIETY 6PDHJ97B
2y 4m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12630835
NUCLEIC ACID CONSTRUCTS, PLANTS WITH INCREASED TUBER YIELD, AND METHODS FOR INCREASING TUBER YIELD IN A PLANT
2y 9m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12624366
CORN EVENT MON 87411
3y 10m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12616138
PLANTS AND SEEDS OF HYBRID CORN VARIETY CH010497
2y 4m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12616141
PLANTS AND SEEDS OF HYBRID CORN VARIETY CH010489
2y 4m to grant Granted May 05, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+25.5%)
3y 3m (~11m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 537 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