DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Application
2. Claims 52, 56-71, 73, 75, 76, 80-83, and 86-90 are pending.
3. Claims 56-58, 62, 67-69, 75, 80, 83, and 87 remain withdrawn.
4. Claims 52, 59-61, 63-66, 70, 71, 73, 76, 81, 82, 86, and 88-90 are examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
5. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 9, 2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
6. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-4, 11-14, 18-21, 26-34, 38-40, 42-45, 52-55, 59-61, and 63-66) and positions 1,781 and 2,027 as species, in the reply filed on September 2, 2015 is acknowledged. Applicant’s traversal was not found to be persuasive, and the requirement was still deemed proper and therefore made FINAL. Claims 11-14, 18-21, 35-37, 41, 46-50, 56-58, 62, and 67-69 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
In the previous amendments, Applicant added new claims 86 and 87, directed to a field comprising a plurality of non-genetically-engineered rice plants. In the Restriction Requirement mailed on March 4, 2015, these claims would have been included into a separate group, Group IX. Claims 86 and 87 were thus withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on September 2, 2015.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - New Matter
7. 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.
8. Claims 52, 59-61, 63-66, 70, 71, 73, 76, 81, 82, and 88-90 remain 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant’s argument submitted on October 9, 2025 has been fully considered but it is not persuasive.
In the previous amendments, Applicant added the following limitation to claim 52: “wherein said phenotype of tolerance comprises a phytotoxicity of less than 10% phytotoxicity to the 100 g/ha cycloxydim.” This limitation was previously deemed New Matter. Applicant also previously amended said limitation to recite as follows: “wherein said phenotype of tolerance is determinable by applying said rate of cycloxydim to said rice plant and observing that it possesses less than 10% cytotoxicity.” This amendment does not overcome the instant rejection, and the limitation remains New Matter.
The limitation “less than 10% cytotoxicity” is not found in the language of the originally filed claims (see the claims filed on March 1, 2012). The specification merely recites a test for plants, where one of the steps is analyzing the data to determine if a certain portion of the plants has “less than 10% cytotoxicity.” This test, however, may determine that a plant does not possess said cytotoxicity. As a result, it is not sufficient to provide support for a rice plant, comprising the phenotype, as recited in the amended claim 52.
It is noted that the specification mentions the term “phytotoxicity” twice, both on page 86, in the context of a general description of a “Test for double mutant ACCase genes.” Given that claims 59-61, 63-66, 70, 71, 73, 76, 81, 82, 86, and 88-90 depend from claim 52, they contain New Matter as well.
Response to Arguments
Applicant maintains previously submitted arguments, and cites the previously cited paragraph 0216 of the specification (page 7 of the Remarks).
Applicant’s argument was addressed in the previous Office Actions and remains not persuasive for the reasons of record. Applicant supplied no explanation for how the cited portions of the disclosure provide written support for the specific limitation at issue in the rejection. In addition, the test outlined in paragraph 0216 does not help provide written support as explained above and in several previous Office Actions. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Fourth Paragraph
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
10. Claim 76 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant’s argument submitted on October 9, 2025 has been fully considered but it is not persuasive.
Claim 76 is drawn to the rice plant of claim 52, wherein the “observing” is determined by evaluating visual evidence. This recitation merely specifies how the phenotype, which is already recites as a property of the plant in the base claim, is determined. Claim 76 thus does not introduce any further limitations to the product, the non-genetically-engineered rice plant, recited in claim 52. For that reason, it fails to further limit claim 52.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant maintains the argument that the claim is properly dependent (page 7 of the Remarks). Applicant’s argument was addressed in the previous Office Actions and remains not persuasive for the reasons of record.
Claim Interpretation
11. In the previous amendments, Applicant added the following limitation to claim 52: “wherein the rice plant is free of a directed mutation.” While the specificaiton does mention directed mutagenesis as one of the ways of introducing the claimed substitutions (paragraph 0095), neither the specification nor other portions of the disclosure, including Applicant’s Remarks, explain which structural limitations would be implied by the newly added limitation in the context of the instant claim. The phrase is given its broadest reasonable interpretation as a product-by-process limitation that does not affect the structure of the claimed plant or the mutant ACCase it comprises. See MPEP 2113.
It is noted that the targeted mutagenesis methods of Hawkes and Okuzaki (see below) do not involve the incorporation of a transgene and a plant obtained using said method would be structurally indistinguishable from a plant obtained using mutagenesis and selection. Moreover, the TILLING method of Suzuki would also result in a plant that would read on the instantly claimed non-genetically-engineered rice plant.
The limitation “less than 10% phytotoxicity” to the 100 g/ha cycloxydim, recited in claim 52, is given its broadest reasonable interpretation as encompassing any type of phytotoxicity however determined, and any cycloxydim application regimen, as long as the “phytotoxicity” is less than 10% and the application dose of cycloxydim is 100 g ai/ha. The term would encompass any values below 10%.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
13. Claims 52, 59-61, 63-66, 73, 76, 81-82, 86, and 88-90 remain rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yu et al (Plant Physiology (2007) 145:547-558), in view of Delye et al (Plant Physiology (2005) 137:794-806), Delye et al (Pest Manag. Sci. (2008) 64:1179-1186), Collavo, A. (PhD Dissertation, University of Padova, January 2008), Suzuki et al (Mol. Genet. Genomics (2008) 279:213-223), Hawkes et al (PCT Publication WO 98/54330, published December 3, 1998), Okuzaki et al (Plant Cell Rep. (2004) 22:509-512), Rutger et al (Crop Science (2005) 45:1170-1171), and UniProt Accession Number A2Y2U1 (integrated into database March 20, 2007). Applicant’s argument submitted on October 9, 2025 has been fully considered but it is not persuasive.
The claims are directed to a non-genetically engineered rice plant expressing a non-transgenic, mutagenized or recombinant ACCase, comprising an amino acid sequence that differs from a wild-type ACCase at position 1,781 and a second position, 2,027, wherein said rice has tolerance to 100 g/ha of cycloxydim and has increased tolerance to haloxyfop and tepraloxydim, wherein the ACCase comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 2, with the I1,781L and W2,027C substitutions.
Yu et al teach Lolium rigidum plants that comprise a number of combinations of ACCase mutant alleles, including I1,781L/W2,027C (Abstract; pg. 548, Table III on pg. 550; pg. 554, right col.). Yu et al teach that that the I1,781L mutation is known to be associated with resistance to aryloxyphenoxypropionates (APP) and cyclohexanediones (CHD) herbicides, excluding clethodim; while the W2,027C mutation confers resistance only to APP herbicides (pg. 548, left col.). Yu et al teach that the I1,781L mutation conferred resistance to field levels of clethodim in Lolium only in plants homozygous for said mutation (pg. 556, left col.). Yu et al teach that a combination of the 1,781L/2,027C alleles confer resistance to clethodim at the field rate (paragraph spanning pages 554-555; Table III).
Yu et al do not teach a rice plant comprising an ACCase with two mutations: at positions 1,781 and 2,207. Yu et al do not teach the instant SEQ ID NO: 2.
Delye et al (2005) teach that in grasses, a residue homologous to residue Ile-1,781 in the carboxyl-transferase (CT) domain of ACCase is one of the critical determinants of sensitivity to APPs and CHD’s (Abstract). Delye et al (2005) teach that W2,027 is also involved in sensitivity to ACCase inhibitors and is “very likely involved in CT activity,” along with another residue (Abstract; pg. 795, left col.). Delye et al (2005) teach the tryptophan to cysteine substitution at position 2,027 of the ACCase, which conferred resistance to APPs in blackgrass (pg. 795, right col.). Delye et al teach that residue W2,027 is “absolutely conserved in all 31 homomeric ACCase sequences known so far” (pg. 802, left col.) Delye et al (2005) teach that the I1,781L substitution confers resistance to cycloxydim, while the W2,207C substitution conferred resistance to haloxyfop (Table 1).
Collavo teaches that the I1,781L substitution confers resistance to tepraloxydim and cycloxydim in A. myosuroides (Table II on pg. 22). Collavo teaches adjuvants, including surfactants, used in a herbicidal composition (page 40; Table IV; page 57, Table XIII).
Delye et al (2008) teach that the I1,781L substitutions confer tolerance to 200 g /ha of cycloxydim in Alopecurus myosuroides plants (Tables 2 and 3; page 1181, left col.). Delye et al teach assessing herbicide sensitivity 2-3 weeks after treatment and teach that “plants alive and producing new green leaves at the time herbicide sensitivity was assessed subsequently grew vigorously and were classified as resistant” (pg. 1180, right col.).
Suzuki et al teach using high-performance modified Targeting Induced Local Lesions in Genomes (“TILLING”) on rice mutant pools as an efficient method of identifying any gene mutation in rice (Suzuki et al, pg. 1, Abstract; pg. 214, left and top of right col.).
Hawkes et al teach a chimeric oligonucleotide-based method of producing herbicide resistant plants by modifying in a plant cell, in situ, an endogenous gene responsible for herbicide resistance, including the ACCase gene (Hawkes et al, claims 1, 6, 8). Hawkes et al teach applying said method to rice (Hawkes et al, claim 16). Hawkes et al teach using the resultant plants in a method of controlling weeds, which comprises applying to the field where said plants a growing a herbicide to which said plants have been rendered resistant (Hawkes et al, claims 18 and 19).
Okuzaki et al teach successfully using the method of chimeric oligonucleotide-based site-specific mutagenesis method to introduce herbicide resistance-conferring point mutations into rice genome (Okuzaki et al, Abstract; pg. 512, left col.). Okuzaki et al teach that the “[chimeric oligonucleotide]-directed gene targeting is feasible in rice and creates opportunities for ... the manipulation of agricultural traits in rice” (pg. 512, left col.).
Rutger et al teach the characteristics of rice germplasm called “Indica-1” including its seeds (Rutger et al, Table 1 on pg. 1171).
UniProt Accession Number A2Y2U1 (integrated into database March 20, 2007) teaches an amino acid sequence from Oryza sativa subsp. indica that has 100% sequence identity to the instant SEQ ID NO: 2, and identified as having acetyl-CoA carboxylase activity. The database entry and the sequence alignment are set forth below:
A2Y2U1_ORYSI
ID A2Y2U1_ORYSI Unreviewed; 2327 AA.
AC A2Y2U1;
DT 20-MAR-2007, integrated into UniProtKB/TrEMBL.
DT 20-MAR-2007, sequence version 1.
DT 29-OCT-2014, entry version 53.
DE SubName: Full=Putative uncharacterized protein {ECO:0000313|EMBL:EAY97401.1};
GN ORFNames=OsI_19330 {ECO:0000313|EMBL:EAY97401.1};
OS Oryza sativa subsp. indica (Rice).
OC Eukaryota; Viridiplantae; Streptophyta; Embryophyta; Tracheophyta;
OC Spermatophyta; Magnoliophyta; Liliopsida; Poales; Poaceae; BEP clade;
OC Ehrhartoideae; Oryzeae; Oryza.
OX NCBI_TaxID=39946 {ECO:0000313|EMBL:EAY97401.1};
RN [1] {ECO:0000313|EMBL:EAY97401.1}
RP NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE.
RX PubMed=15685292; DOI=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030038;
RA Yu J., Wang J., Lin W., Li S., Li H., Zhou J., Ni P., Dong W., Hu S.,
RA Zeng C., Zhang J., Zhang Y., Li R., Xu Z., Li S., Li X., Zheng H.,
RA Cong L., Lin L., Yin J., Geng J., Li G., Shi J., Liu J., Lv H., Li J.,
RA Wang J., Deng Y., Ran L., Shi X., Wang X., Wu Q., Li C., Ren X.,
RA Wang J., Wang X., Li D., Liu D., Zhang X., Ji Z., Zhao W., Sun Y.,
RA Zhang Z., Bao J., Han Y., Dong L., Ji J., Chen P., Wu S., Liu J.,
RA Xiao Y., Bu D., Tan J., Yang L., Ye C., Zhang J., Xu J., Zhou Y.,
RA Yu Y., Zhang B., Zhuang S., Wei H., Liu B., Lei M., Yu H., Li Y.,
RA Xu H., Wei S., He X., Fang L., Zhang Z., Zhang Y., Huang X., Su Z.,
RA Tong W., Li J., Tong Z., Li S., Ye J., Wang L., Fang L., Lei T.,
RA Chen C., Chen H., Xu Z., Li H., Huang H., Zhang F., Xu H., Li N.,
RA Zhao C., Li S., Dong L., Huang Y., Li L., Xi Y., Qi Q., Li W.,
RA Zhang B., Hu W., Zhang Y., Tian X., Jiao Y., Liang X., Jin J., Gao L.,
RA Zheng W., Hao B., Liu S., Wang W., Yuan L., Cao M., McDermott J.,
RA Samudrala R., Wang J., Wong G.K., Yang H.;
RT "The genomes of Oryza sativa: a history of duplications.";
RL PLoS Biol. 3:266-281(2005).
RN [2] {ECO:0000313|EMBL:EAY97401.1}
RP NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE.
RA Wang J., Li R., Fan W., Huang Q., Zhang J., Zhou Y., Hu Y., Zi S.,
RA Li J., Ni P., Zheng H., Zhang Y., Zhao M., Hao Q., McDermott J.,
RA Samudrala R., Kristiansen K., Wong G.K.-S.;
RT "Improved gene annotation of the rice (Oryza sativa) genomes.";
RL Submitted (SEP-2006) to the EMBL/GenBank/DDBJ databases.
RN [3] {ECO:0000313|EMBL:EAY97401.1}
RP NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE.
RA Wang J., Li R., Fan W., Huang Q., Zhang J., Zhou Y., Hu Y., Zi S.,
RA Li J., Ni P., Zheng H., Zhang Y., Zhao M., Hao Q., McDermott J.,
RA Samudrala R., Kristiansen K., Wong G.K.-S.;
RL Submitted (DEC-2008) to the EMBL/GenBank/DDBJ databases.
CC -!- COFACTOR: Biotin. {ECO:0000256|SAAS:SAAS00086582}.
CC -!- SIMILARITY: Contains ATP-grasp domain.
CC {ECO:0000256|SAAS:SAAS00065547}.
CC -!- SIMILARITY: Contains biotin carboxylation domain.
CC {ECO:0000256|SAAS:SAAS00086541}.
CC -!- SIMILARITY: Contains biotinyl-binding domain.
CC {ECO:0000256|SAAS:SAAS00086554}.
CC -----------------------------------------------------------------------
CC Copyrighted by the UniProt Consortium, see http://www.uniprot.org/terms
CC Distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs License
CC -----------------------------------------------------------------------
DR EMBL; CM000130; EAY97401.1; -; Genomic_DNA.
DR ProteinModelPortal; A2Y2U1; -.
DR SMR; A2Y2U1; 120-640.
DR STRING; 39947.LOC_Os05g22940.1; -.
DR Gramene; A2Y2U1; -.
DR eggNOG; COG0511; -.
DR HOGENOM; HOG000214115; -.
DR GO; GO:0003989; F:acetyl-CoA carboxylase activity; IEA:InterPro.
DR GO; GO:0005524; F:ATP binding; IEA:UniProtKB-KW.
DR GO; GO:0004075; F:biotin carboxylase activity; IEA:InterPro.
DR GO; GO:0046872; F:metal ion binding; IEA:InterPro.
DR GO; GO:0006633; P:fatty acid biosynthetic process; IEA:InterPro.
DR Gene3D; 3.30.1490.20; -; 1.
DR Gene3D; 3.30.470.20; -; 1.
DR Gene3D; 3.40.50.20; -; 1.
DR Gene3D; 3.90.226.10; -; 3.
DR InterPro; IPR013537; AcCoA_COase_cen.
DR InterPro; IPR011761; ATP-grasp.
DR InterPro; IPR013815; ATP_grasp_subdomain_1.
DR InterPro; IPR013816; ATP_grasp_subdomain_2.
DR InterPro; IPR011764; Biotin_carboxylation_dom.
DR InterPro; IPR005482; Biotin_COase_C.
DR InterPro; IPR000089; Biotin_lipoyl.
DR InterPro; IPR005481; CarbamoylP_synth_lsu_N.
DR InterPro; IPR000022; Carboxyl_trans.
DR InterPro; IPR005479; CbamoylP_synth_lsu-like_ATP-bd.
DR InterPro; IPR029045; ClpP/crotonase-like_dom.
DR InterPro; IPR011763; COA_CT_C.
DR InterPro; IPR016185; PreATP-grasp_dom.
DR InterPro; IPR011054; Rudment_hybrid_motif.
DR InterPro; IPR011053; Single_hybrid_motif.
DR Pfam; PF08326; ACC_central; 1.
DR Pfam; PF02785; Biotin_carb_C; 1.
DR Pfam; PF00364; Biotin_lipoyl; 1.
DR Pfam; PF01039; Carboxyl_trans; 1.
DR Pfam; PF00289; CPSase_L_chain; 1.
DR Pfam; PF02786; CPSase_L_D2; 1.
DR SMART; SM00878; Biotin_carb_C; 1.
DR SUPFAM; SSF51230; SSF51230; 1.
DR SUPFAM; SSF51246; SSF51246; 1.
DR SUPFAM; SSF52096; SSF52096; 2.
DR SUPFAM; SSF52440; SSF52440; 1.
DR PROSITE; PS50975; ATP_GRASP; 1.
DR PROSITE; PS50979; BC; 1.
DR PROSITE; PS50968; BIOTINYL_LIPOYL; 1.
DR PROSITE; PS50989; COA_CT_CTER; 1.
DR PROSITE; PS00867; CPSASE_2; 1.
PE 4: Predicted;
KW ATP-binding {ECO:0000256|SAAS:SAAS00065654};
KW Biotin {ECO:0000256|SAAS:SAAS00086520};
KW Ligase {ECO:0000256|SAAS:SAAS00087068};
KW Nucleotide-binding {ECO:0000256|SAAS:SAAS00065530}.
SQ SEQUENCE 2327 AA; 257716 MW; C0BE5AA19910D26C CRC64;
Query Match 100.0%; Score 12047; DB 19; Length 2327;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 2327; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 MTSTHVATLGVGAQAPPRHQKKSAGTAFVSSGSSRPSYRKNGQRTRSLREESNGGVSDSK 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 MTSTHVATLGVGAQAPPRHQKKSAGTAFVSSGSSRPSYRKNGQRTRSLREESNGGVSDSK 60
Qy 61 KLNHSIRQGLAGIIDLPNDAASEVDISHGSEDPRGPTVPGSYQMNGIINETHNGRHASVS 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 KLNHSIRQGLAGIIDLPNDAASEVDISHGSEDPRGPTVPGSYQMNGIINETHNGRHASVS 120
Qy 121 KVVEFCTALGGKTPIHSVLVANNGMAAAKFMRSVRTWANDTFGSEKAIQLIAMATPEDLR 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 KVVEFCTALGGKTPIHSVLVANNGMAAAKFMRSVRTWANDTFGSEKAIQLIAMATPEDLR 180
Qy 181 INAEHIRIADQFVEVPGGTNNNNYANVQLIVEIAERTGVSAVWPGWGHASENPELPDALT 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 INAEHIRIADQFVEVPGGTNNNNYANVQLIVEIAERTGVSAVWPGWGHASENPELPDALT 240
Qy 241 AKGIVFLGPPASSMHALGDKVGSALIAQAAGVPTLAWSGSHVEVPLECCLDSIPDEMYRK 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 AKGIVFLGPPASSMHALGDKVGSALIAQAAGVPTLAWSGSHVEVPLECCLDSIPDEMYRK 300
Qy 301 ACVTTTEEAVASCQVVGYPAMIKASWGGGGKGIRKVHNDDEVRTLFKQVQGEVPGSPIFI 360
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 301 ACVTTTEEAVASCQVVGYPAMIKASWGGGGKGIRKVHNDDEVRTLFKQVQGEVPGSPIFI 360
Qy 361 MRLAAQSRHLEVQLLCDQYGNVAALHSRDCSVQRRHQKIIEEGPVTVAPRETVKELEQAA 420
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 361 MRLAAQSRHLEVQLLCDQYGNVAALHSRDCSVQRRHQKIIEEGPVTVAPRETVKELEQAA 420
Qy 421 RRLAKAVGYVGAATVEYLYSMETGEYYFLELNPRLQVEHPVTEWIAEVNLPAAQVAVGMG 480
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 421 RRLAKAVGYVGAATVEYLYSMETGEYYFLELNPRLQVEHPVTEWIAEVNLPAAQVAVGMG 480
Qy 481 IPLWQIPEIRRFYGMNHGGGYDLWRKTAALATPFNFDEVDSKWPKGHCVAVRITSEDPDD 540
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 481 IPLWQIPEIRRFYGMNHGGGYDLWRKTAALATPFNFDEVDSKWPKGHCVAVRITSEDPDD 540
Qy 541 GFKPTGGKVKEISFKSKPNVWAYFSVKSGGGIHEFADSQFGHVFAYGTTRSAAITTMALA 600
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 541 GFKPTGGKVKEISFKSKPNVWAYFSVKSGGGIHEFADSQFGHVFAYGTTRSAAITTMALA 600
Qy 601 LKEVQIRGEIHSNVDYTVDLLNASDFRENKIHTGWLDTRIAMRVQAERPPWYISVVGGAL 660
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 601 LKEVQIRGEIHSNVDYTVDLLNASDFRENKIHTGWLDTRIAMRVQAERPPWYISVVGGAL 660
Qy 661 YKTVTANTATVSDYVGYLTKGQIPPKHISLVYTTVALNIDGKKYTIDTVRSGHGSYRLRM 720
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 661 YKTVTANTATVSDYVGYLTKGQIPPKHISLVYTTVALNIDGKKYTIDTVRSGHGSYRLRM 720
Qy 721 NGSTVDANVQILCDGGLLMQLDGNSHVIYAEEEASGTRLLIDGKTCMLQNDHDPSKLLAE 780
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 721 NGSTVDANVQILCDGGLLMQLDGNSHVIYAEEEASGTRLLIDGKTCMLQNDHDPSKLLAE 780
Qy 781 TPCKLLRFLVADGAHVDADVPYAEVEVMKMCMPLLSPASGVIHVVMSEGQAMQAGDLIAR 840
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 781 TPCKLLRFLVADGAHVDADVPYAEVEVMKMCMPLLSPASGVIHVVMSEGQAMQAGDLIAR 840
Qy 841 LDLDDPSAVKRAEPFEDTFPQMGLPIAASGQVHKLCAASLNACRMILAGYEHDIDKVVPE 900
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 841 LDLDDPSAVKRAEPFEDTFPQMGLPIAASGQVHKLCAASLNACRMILAGYEHDIDKVVPE 900
Qy 901 LVYCLDTPELPFLQWEELMSVLATRLPRNLKSELEGKYEEYKVKFDSGIINDFPANMLRV 960
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 901 LVYCLDTPELPFLQWEELMSVLATRLPRNLKSELEGKYEEYKVKFDSGIINDFPANMLRV 960
Qy 961 IIEENLACGSEKEKATNERLVEPLMSLLKSYEGGRESHAHFVVKSLFEEYLYVEELFSDG 1020
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 961 IIEENLACGSEKEKATNERLVEPLMSLLKSYEGGRESHAHFVVKSLFEEYLYVEELFSDG 1020
Qy 1021 IQSDVIERLRLQHSKDLQKVVDIVLSHQSVRNKTKLILKLMESLVYPNPAAYRDQLIRFS 1080
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1021 IQSDVIERLRLQHSKDLQKVVDIVLSHQSVRNKTKLILKLMESLVYPNPAAYRDQLIRFS 1080
Qy 1081 SLNHKAYYKLALKASELLEQTKLSELRARIARSLSELEMFTEESKGLSMHKREIAIKESM 1140
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1081 SLNHKAYYKLALKASELLEQTKLSELRARIARSLSELEMFTEESKGLSMHKREIAIKESM 1140
Qy 1141 EDLVTAPLPVEDALISLFDCSDTTVQQRVIETYIARLYQPHLVKDSIKMKWIESGVIALW 1200
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1141 EDLVTAPLPVEDALISLFDCSDTTVQQRVIETYIARLYQPHLVKDSIKMKWIESGVIALW 1200
Qy 1201 EFPEGHFDARNGGAVLGDKRWGAMVIVKSLESLSMAIRFALKETSHYTSSEGNMMHIALL 1260
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1201 EFPEGHFDARNGGAVLGDKRWGAMVIVKSLESLSMAIRFALKETSHYTSSEGNMMHIALL 1260
Qy 1261 GADNKMHIIQESGDDADRIAKLPLILKDNVTDLHASGVKTISFIVQRDEARMTMRRTFLW 1320
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1261 GADNKMHIIQESGDDADRIAKLPLILKDNVTDLHASGVKTISFIVQRDEARMTMRRTFLW 1320
Qy 1321 SDEKLSYEEEPILRHVEPPLSALLELDKLKVKGYNEMKYTPSRDRQWHIYTLRNTENPKM 1380
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1321 SDEKLSYEEEPILRHVEPPLSALLELDKLKVKGYNEMKYTPSRDRQWHIYTLRNTENPKM 1380
Qy 1381 LHRVFFRTLVRQPSVSNKFSSGQIGDMEVGSAEEPLSFTSTSILRSLMTAIEELELHAIR 1440
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1381 LHRVFFRTLVRQPSVSNKFSSGQIGDMEVGSAEEPLSFTSTSILRSLMTAIEELELHAIR 1440
Qy 1441 TGHSHMYLHVLKEQKLLDLVPVSGNTVLDVGQDEATAYSLLKEMAMKIHELVGARMHHLS 1500
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1441 TGHSHMYLHVLKEQKLLDLVPVSGNTVLDVGQDEATAYSLLKEMAMKIHELVGARMHHLS 1500
Qy 1501 VCQWEVKLKLDCDGPASGTWRIVTTNVTSHTCTVDIYREMEDKESRKLVYHPATPAAGPL 1560
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1501 VCQWEVKLKLDCDGPASGTWRIVTTNVTSHTCTVDIYREMEDKESRKLVYHPATPAAGPL 1560
Qy 1561 HGVALNNPYQPLSVIDLKRCSARNNRTTYCYDFPLAFETAVRKSWSSSTSGASKGVENAQ 1620
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1561 HGVALNNPYQPLSVIDLKRCSARNNRTTYCYDFPLAFETAVRKSWSSSTSGASKGVENAQ 1620
Qy 1621 CYVKATELVFADKHGSWGTPLVQMDRPAGLNDIGMVAWTLKMSTPEFPSGREIIVVANDI 1680
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1621 CYVKATELVFADKHGSWGTPLVQMDRPAGLNDIGMVAWTLKMSTPEFPSGREIIVVANDI 1680
Qy 1681 TFRAGSFGPREDAFFEAVTNLACEKKLPLIYLAANSGARIGIADEVKSCFRVGWSDDGSP 1740
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1681 TFRAGSFGPREDAFFEAVTNLACEKKLPLIYLAANSGARIGIADEVKSCFRVGWSDDGSP 1740
Qy 1741 ERGFQYIYLSEEDYARIGTSVIAHKMQLDSGEIRWVIDSVVGKEDGLGVENIHGSAAIA S 1800
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1741 ERGFQYIYLSEEDYARIGTSVIAHKMQLDSGEIRWVIDSVVGKEDGLGVENIHGSAAIA S 1800
Qy 1801 AYSRAYKETFTLTFVTGRTVGIGAYLARLGIRCIQRLDQPIILTGYSALNKLLGREVYSS 1860
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1801 AYSRAYKETFTLTFVTGRTVGIGAYLARLGIRCIQRLDQPIILTGYSALNKLLGREVYSS 1860
Qy 1861 HMQLGGPKIMATNGVVHLTVSDDLEGVSNILRWLSYVPAYIGGPLPVTTPLDPPDRPVAY 1920
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1861 HMQLGGPKIMATNGVVHLTVSDDLEGVSNILRWLSYVPAYIGGPLPVTTPLDPPDRPVAY 1920
Qy 1921 IPENSCDPRAAIRGVDDSQGKWLGGMFDKDSFVETFEGWAKTVVTGRAKLGGIPVGVIAV 1980
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1921 IPENSCDPRAAIRGVDDSQGKWLGGMFDKDSFVETFEGWAKTVVTGRAKLGGIPVGVIAV 1980
Qy 1981 ETQTMMQTIPADPGQLDSREQSVPRAGQVWFPDSATKTAQALLDFNREGLPLFILANWRG 2040
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1981 ETQTMMQTIPADPGQLDSREQSVPRAGQVWFPDSATKTAQALLDFNREGLPLFILANWRG 2040
Qy 2041 FSGGQRDLFEGILQAGSTIVENLRTYNQPAFVYIPMAAELRGGAWVVVDSKINPDRIECY 2100
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 2041 FSGGQRDLFEGILQAGSTIVENLRTYNQPAFVYIPMAAELRGGAWVVVDSKINPDRIECY 2100
Qy 2101 AERTAKGNVLEPQGLIEIKFRSEELQDCMSRLDPTLIDLKAKLEVANKNGSADTKSLQEN 2160
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 2101 AERTAKGNVLEPQGLIEIKFRSEELQDCMSRLDPTLIDLKAKLEVANKNGSADTKSLQEN 2160
Qy 2161 IEARTKQLMPLYTQIAIRFAELHDTSLRMAAKGVIKKVVDWEESRSFFYKRLRRRISEDV 2220
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 2161 IEARTKQLMPLYTQIAIRFAELHDTSLRMAAKGVIKKVVDWEESRSFFYKRLRRRISEDV 2220
Qy 2221 LAKEIRAVAGEQFSHQPAIELIKKWYSASHAAEWDDDDAFVAWMDNPENYKDYIQYLKAQ 2280
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 2221 LAKEIRAVAGEQFSHQPAIELIKKWYSASHAAEWDDDDAFVAWMDNPENYKDYIQYLKAQ 2280
Qy 2281 RVSQSLSSLSDSSSDLQALPQGLSMLLDKMDPSRRAQLVEEIRKVLG 2327
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 2281 RVSQSLSSLSDSSSDLQALPQGLSMLLDKMDPSRRAQLVEEIRKVLG 2327
At the time the invention was made, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the mutagenesis method Suzuki et al or the method of Hawkes et al, to modify a rice plant (or its seed or cells), including the Indica-1 variety of Rutger et al, and obtain a rice plant (or its seeds or cells) that comprises, on a plastidic ACCase, the mutations encoding the I1,781L and the W2,027C substitutions, as taught by Yu et al and Delye et al (2005), including on the ACCase gene encoding the SEQ ID NO: 2 taught by UniProt Accession Number A2Y2U1. The plants and seeds produced by applying the method of Suzuki et al or Hawkes et al to Indica-1 rice would read on the instantly claimed plants and seeds (instant claims 52, 59-61, 73, 81, and 82). The resultant mutant ACCase would be considered non-transgenic and “mutagenized.” In addition, a plant comprising said ACCase would be considered “non-genetically engineered,” given that said methods do not involve incorporation of a transgene.
Given the teachings of Yu et al, Delye et al (2005), Delye et al (2008), and Collavo, one would reasonably expect that the resultant plants would be resistant to both APP’s and CHD’s, including haloxyfop, cycloxydim, and tepraloxydim. The specific rate of resistance to cycloxydim would have been expected given the express teachings of Delye et al (2008). Moreover, given the teachings of Delye et al (2008), on would reasonably expect less than 10% phytotoxicity to 100 g/ha of cycloxydim, in at least some of the tolerant plants (instant claim 52). Obtaining a food, industrial, or veterinary product from the resultant rice plant would have been obvious as a matter of standard industry practice (instant claims 63-66).
It would have been obvious to apply cycloxydim, haloxyfop, or tepraloxydim to the resultant plants, either to control weeds in their vicinity or to confirm herbicide tolerance, thus arriving at a rice plant comprising an “herbicide composition” on a leaf, including wherein the composition comprises an ACCase inhibiting herbicide (instant claims 88 and 91). Given that the resultant plants would be tolerant to said herbicides, at last some of the plants comprising “herbicide residue” would show no burn, no change in leaf morphology, wilt or yellowing (instant claim 76). Using a surfactant, such as those taught by Collavo, in an herbicidal composition would have been obvious as well. Said surfactants would reasonably read on the “wetting agent” and “tackifier” of the instant claims 89 and 90.
One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the above teachings given the agronomic desirability of herbicide resistant rice. One would have been motivated to specifically combine the I1,781L and the W2,027C substitutions on a rice ACCase because that combination would result into the rice plant being resistant to both, APP and CHD ACCase inhibitors, including field levels of clethodim. Given that Hawkes et al reduced their invention to practice, given the teachings of Suzuki et al and Okuzaki et al, and given the conserved nature of positions 1,781 and 2,027 in grass ACCases, one would have had reasonable expectation of success.
14. Claims 70 and 71 remain rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yu et al (Plant Physiology (2007) 145:547-558), Delye et al (Plant Physiology (2005) 137:794-806), Delye et al (Pest Manag. Sci. (2008) 64:1179-1186), Collavo, A. (PhD Dissertation, University of Padova, January 2008), Suzuki et al (Mol. Genet. Genomics (2008) 279:213-223), Hawkes et al (PCT Publication WO 98/54330, published December 3, 1998), Okuzaki et al (Plant Cell Rep. (2004) 22:509-512), Rutger et al (Registration of Nine Indica Germplasms of Rice, Crop Science (2005) 45:1170-1171), and UniProt Accession Number A2Y2U1 (integrated into database March 20, 2007), as applied to claim 61 above, and further in view of Shaner et al (US Patent 6,281,168, issued on August 28, 2001). Applicant’s argument submitted on October 9, 2025 has been fully considered but it is not persuasive.
Claim 70 is drawn to the seed of claim 61, wherein the seed is treated with an agronomically acceptable composition. Claim 71 is drawn to the seed of claim 70, wherein the composition comprises an ACCase inhibitor.
The teachings of Yu et al, Delye et al (2005), Delye et al (2008), Collavo, Suzuki et al, Okuzaki et al, Hawkes et al, Rutger et al, and UniProt Accession Number A2Y2U1 have been set forth above. These references do not expressly teach a rice seed comprising seed treatment, wherein seed treatment comprises a herbicidal composition with an ACCase inhibiting herbicides.
Shaner et al teach applying a mixture that comprises herbicidally effective amounts of an ACCase inhibitor to rice seeds (Shaner et al, claims 1, 2, 6, and 13). In addition, applying herbicides to the seeds of herbicide-resistant plants is one of the art-standard approaches to pre-emergence herbicide application. Applying ACCase inhibitors, such as those of Delye et al or Yu et al, to the ACCase inhibitor-resistant seeds made obvious by the combination of the above references would have been prima facie obvious in view of the teachings of Shaner et al and as a matter of routine industry practice.
Response to Arguments.
Applicant maintains previously submitted arguments, including the argument directed to the number of references and the teachings of Hawkes and Okuzaki (pages 7-9 of the Remarks). Applicant argues that the rejection “fails to make a proper determination of the relevant field of endeavor” and that the cited art is not “analogous” (page 9 of the Remarks).
Applicant’s arguments, including those directed to the recited phenotype, the impermissible hindsight, number of references, the teachings of Yu et al, Dr. Mankin’s Declarations, and the In re Stepan and Ex parte Christensen decisions, were addressed in detail in the previous Office Actions and remain unpersuasive for the reasons of record.
The argument directed to the teachings of Okuzaki and Hawkes was also previously addressed and remains unpersuasive as well. The Examiner maintains that the method of Okuzaki and Hawkes would have resulted in a mutated rice plant that would read on the structure of the plant of the instant claims. The limitation “free of a directed mutation” was addressed above.
The Examiner maintains that Applicant’s invention amounts to introducing two substitutions at conserved ACCase residues, whose herbicide-resistance properties were well-known in the prior art, into the ACCase of another grass species, rice. Methods of introducing mutations into rice genes were also known in the art at the time the invention was made. Using those methods to obtain a rice plant or seed comprising the ACCase with the I1,781L and W2,027C substitutions would have been an obvious and readily achievable way of obtaining a rice plant resistant to ACCase inhibitors. One would have been motivated to specifically combine the I1,781L and the W2,027C substitutions because that combination would result into the rice plant being resistant to both, APP and CHD ACCase inhibitors, including field levels of clethodim. The claimed levels of tolerance to the ACCase inhibitors would not have been unexpected in view of the cited art, as set forth in the rejection above.
In addition, the two residues at issue, I1,781 and W2,027, are located in the CT domain of the plastidic ACCase, which domain is highly conserved in all grasses, in which the enzyme has been studied, including rice. This is well-known in the art and it taught, for example, by Delye et al (2005) (page 804, bottom of left col.). Delye et al (2005) also teach that “Residue Trp-2,027 is absolutely conserved in all 31 homomeric ACCase sequences known so far” (page 802, left col.; emphasis added).
Applicant’s argument directed to the cited art being from the “the field of endeavor,” it is not persuasive either. The combined teachings of the cited art make prima facie obvious a non-genetically engineered rice plant that would meet all of the structural limitations of the instantly claimed plant. The cited art is thus not only analogous but directly relevant to the claimed invention. The rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
15. No claims are allowed.
16. All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
17. 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.
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