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 87, 91-93, 97, 98, 107, 109-110, 115, and 117-119 are pending and examined.
3. All rejection of claims 123 and 124 are moot in view of their cancelation by Applicant.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
4. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 25, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
5. In claim 93, the phrase “and mixtures” should be amended to recite --or a mixture-- in order to clearly indicate that the “mixture” is recited in the alternative with the individual herbicides. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Indefiniteness
6. 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.
7. Claims 87, 91-93, and 107 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.
Claim 87 is drawn to a mutagenized rice AHAS polypeptide in a rice plant, said polypeptide comprising SEQ ID NO: 2. The wording of the claim makes it unclear whether the claimed subject matter is meant to be limited to the AHAS polypeptide or to also encompass a plant comprising said polypeptide. On the one hand, the structure of a polypeptide is limited by the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 2, and this is how the scope of the claim is reasonably interpreted for the purpose of the examination (see below). On the other, the claim recites the detailed phenotype that the plant possesses “as a result” of the presence of said polypeptide, and that the polypeptide be expressed “from an AHASL nucleic acid of line IMINTA 16.” It is also noted that the claims of the parent application are expressly directed to a rice seed and plant comprising a nucleic acid encoding the full-length SEQ ID NO: 2.
It is thus unclear whether the instant claim is meant to encompass any structures beyond SEQ ID NO: 2. Given that claims 91-93 and 107 depend from claim 87 and fail to recite additional limitations overcoming its indefiniteness, they are indefinite as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Fourth Paragraph
8. 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.
9. Claims 91-93 and 107 remain 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. The rejection has been modified in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claims. Applicant's arguments filed on September 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 91-93 are directed to the mutagenized rice AHAS polypeptide of claim 87, wherein the rice plant in which said polypeptide is located “is treated” with the herbicides recited in claims 91-93. These claims, however, merely recite the characteristics of the location of the polypeptide of claim 87, and do not impart any further structural limitation to said polypeptide. The structure of the polypeptide recited in claim 87 is defined by the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 2. That structure is not affected by its location. For this reason, claims 91-93 fail to properly further limit the claim from which they depend.
Claim 107 is directed to the mutagenized rice AHAS polypeptide of claim 87, wherein the phenotype of a plant comprising said polypeptide is defined in a manner recited in claim 107. The wherein clauses of claim 107 merely recite a way of determining a property, and do not introduce any structural limitations to the polypeptide of claim 87. It is well established that “a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2112.01. The claim thus fails to properly further limit the subject matter of the claim from which it depends. 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 previously submitted arguments, including the argument that the “functional language does not in and of itself render a claim improper” and the argument directed to “the theory of inherency” (pages 5-6 of the Remarks).
Applicant’s argument was considered in detail in the previous Office Actions and remains unpersuasive for the reasons of record. The Examiner maintains that each limitation of the claims at issue was considered. There is no dispute that “functional language” (or product-by-process language) may not render a claim “improper.” The issue here, however, is whether the subject matter of the dependent claims, drawn to a polypeptide is further limited relative to the polypeptide recited in the base claim. For the reasons set forth above, it is not so limited. This is the basis for the instant rejection and Applicant has not supplied any arguments or evidence addressing this reasoning.
The Examiner also maintains that the structure and, therefore, patentability of a polypeptide is determined by its amino acid sequence, not location or source. Thus, the dependent claims are drawn to precisely the same structure as the independent claim drawn to said polypeptide. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
10. The following is noted with regard to claim interpretation. Claim 87 is drawn to a mutagenized rice polypeptide in a rice plant, said polypeptide comprising SEQ ID NO: 2 and being endogenous to said plant. The structure of said polypeptide is limited by the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 2. The previously added limitation “in a rice plant,” as well as the “wherein” clauses, recite either the location of the polypeptide, its property of tolerance, or a property of a rice plants comprising said polypeptide. Those clauses do not limit the structure and, therefore, the patentability, of the polypeptide. The recitation that “said polypeptide being expressed” from the AHASL nucleic acid of the plants of line IMINTA 16 or their progeny, or the AHASL nucleic acid be “free of any site-directed mutations” do not impart any structural limitations to the claimed polypeptide.
Similarly, the “wherein” clauses in claims 91-93 and 107 fail to further limit the structure of the polypeptide of claim 87. It is noted that a polypeptide that reads on the polypeptide of the instant claims will read on it regardless of whether it is located in a plant or not. See MPEP 2111.04; MPEP 2113.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. Claims 87, 91-93, 97, 98, 107, 109, 110, 115 and 117-119 remain rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Croughan (U.S. Patent Publication 2003/0217381, published November 20, 2003), in view of Kolkman et al (2004, Theoretical and Applied Genetics 109:1147-1159), Kmiec et al (US Patent Publication 2003/0236208, published December 25, 2003), Okuzaki et al (Plant Cell Rep. (2004) 22:509-512), and Battista (May 2002, Better Crops International Vol. 16, Special Supplement, pages 41-42).
This rejection has been modified in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Applicant's arguments filed on September 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The claims are drawn to a “mutagenized” rice AHAS polypeptide comprising SEQ ID NO: 2. The claims are drawn to a method of controlling weeds. The instant specification provides evidence that the rice AHAS polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 2 was obtained by mutagenizing the AHAS gene of rice cultivar IRGA 417 (Example 1).
Croughan teaches mutant nucleotide sequences encoding an imidazolinone and sulfonylurea resistant acetohydroxyacid synthase large subunit (AHASL), isolated from mutant rice plants (Abstract; paragraph 0044 on pg. 4). Croughan teaches using said nucleotide sequences to transform rice plants to render them tolerant to AHAS-inhibiting herbicides. Croughan teaches rice plants comprising said nucleotide sequences (Abstract; paragraph 0045 on pg. 5; see also Table 8 on page 18). Croughan teaches that at the time of the instant invention mutations at Ala205 (equivalent to Ala179 of the instant claims) to encode Asp (D), Thr (T), Val (V) or Asn (N) were known in the art (paragraph 0037 on pg. 4).
Croughan teaches, at SEQ ID NO: 17, the amino acid sequence of the wild-type AHAS protein from the wild-type Cypress rice, which sequence is encoded by the corresponding nucleic acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 14 (paragraph 0144, pg. 19). The amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 17 of Croughan has 99.5% sequence identity to the instant SEQ ID NO: 2. The sequence alignment between SEQ ID NO: 17 of Croughan and the instant SEQ ID NO: 2 is set forth below.
; Sequence 17, Application US/10258842
; Publication No. US20030217381A1
; GENERAL INFORMATION:
; APPLICANT: Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and
; APPLICANT: Mechanical College
; APPLICANT: Croughan, Timothy
; TITLE OF INVENTION: RESISTANCE TO ACETOHYDROXYACID SYNTHASE-INHIBITING HERBICIDES
; FILE REFERENCE: 98A9.2-PCT Croughan
; CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/10/258,842
; CURRENT FILING DATE: 2002-10-28
; PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US 60/203,434
; PRIOR FILING DATE: 2000-05-10
; NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 25
; SOFTWARE: PatentIn version 3.0; and WordPerfect version 8
; SEQ ID NO 17
; LENGTH: 644
; ORGANISM: Oryza sativa
; OTHER INFORMATION: Inferred complete AHAS sequence, wild type var. Cypress
Query Match 99.5%; Score 3312; DB 4; Length 644;
Best Local Similarity 99.4%;
Matches 640; Conservative 2; Mismatches 2; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 MATTAAAAAATLSAAATAKTGRKNHQRHHVFPARGRVGAAAVRCSAVSPVTPPSPAPPAT 60
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 MATTAAAAAATLSAAATAKTGRKNHQRHHVLPARGRVGAAAVRCSAVSPVTPPSPAPPAT 60
Qy 61 PLRPWGPAEPRKGADILVEALERCGVSDVFAYPGGASMEIHQALTRSPVITNHLFRHEQG 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 PLRPWGPAEPRKGADILVEALERCGVSDVFAYPGGASMEIHQALTRSPVITNHLFRHEQG 120
Qy 121 EAFAASGYARASGRVGVCVATSGPGATNLVSALADALLDSVPMVAITGQVPRRMIGTDVF 180
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |
Db 121 EAFAASGYARASGRVGVCVATSGPGATNLVSALADALLDSVPMVAITGQVPRRMIGTDAF 180
Qy 181 QETPIVEVTRSITKHNYLVLDVEDIPRVIQEAFFLASSGRPGPVLVDIPKDIQQQMAVPV 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 QETPIVEVTRSITKHNYLVLDVEDIPRVIQEAFFLASSGRPGPVLVDIPKDIQQQMAVPV 240
Qy 241 WDTSMNLPGYIARLPKPPATELLEQVLRLVGESRRPILYVGGGCSASGDELRRFVELTGI 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 WDTSMNLPGYIARLPKPPATELLEQVLRLVGESRRPILYVGGGCSASGDELRRFVELTGI 300
Qy 301 PVTTTLMGLGNFPSDDPLSLRMLGMHGTVYANYAVDKADLLLAFGVRFDDRVTGKIEAFA 360
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 301 PVTTTLMGLGNFPSDDPLSLRMLGMHGTVYANYAVDKADLLLAFGVRFDDRVTGKIEAFA 360
Qy 361 SRAKIVHIDIDPAEIGKNKQPHVSICADVKLALQGLNALLDQSTTKTSSDFSAWHNELDQ 420
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 361 SRAKIVHIDIDPAEIGKNKQPHVSICADVKLALQGLNALLDQSTTKTSSDFSAWHNELDQ 420
Qy 421 QKREFPLGYKTFGEEIPPQYAIQVLDELTKGEAIIATGVGQHQMWAAQYYTYKRPRQWLS 480
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 421 QKREFPLGYKTFGEEIPPQYAIQVLDELTKGEAIIATGVGQHQMWAAQYYTYKRPRQWLS 480
Qy 481 SAGLGAMGFGLPAAAGASVANPGVTVVDIDGDGSFLMNIQELALIRIENLPVKVMVLNNQ 540
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 481 SAGLGAMGFGLPAAAGASVANPGVTVVDIDGDGSFLMNIQELALIRIENLPVKVMVLNNQ 540
Qy 541 HLGMVVQWEDRFYKANRAHTYLGNPECESEIYPDFVTIAKGFNIPAVRVTKKSEVRAAIK 600
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 541 HLGMVVQWEDRFYKANRAHTYLGNPECESEIYPDFVTIAKGFNIPAVRVTKKSEVRAAIK 600
Qy 601 KMLDTPGPYLLDIIVPHQEHVLPMIPSGGAFKDMILDGDGRTVY 644
|||:||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||:|
Db 601 KMLETPGPYLLDIIVPHQEHVLPMIPSGGAFKDMILDGDGRTMY 644
The amino acid sequence of Croughan differs from the instant SEQ ID NO: 2 at amino acid position 31, 179, 604, and 643. Position 179 is the only difference that lies within the art recognized conserved Domain D “AFQETP.” The other differences do not lie within the domains of a plant acetohydroxyacid synthase large subunit that are involved in herbicide tolerance. Given that the cultivar from which SEQ ID NO: 14 was isolated, Cypress, is identified as wild-type by Croughan, the differences at positions 31, 604, and 643 appear functionally silent, representing natural variance within the rice species.
Croughan teaches nucleic acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 14, which encodes said SEQ ID NO: 17, and which is 99.2% identical to the nucleic acid sequence of the instant SEQ ID NO: 1. The sequence alignment is set forth below:
; Sequence 14, Application US/10258842
; Publication No. US20030217381A1
; APPLICANT: Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and
; APPLICANT: Mechanical College
; APPLICANT: Croughan, Timothy
; TITLE OF INVENTION: RESISTANCE TO ACETOHYDROXYACID SYNTHASE-INHIBITING HERBICIDES
; FILE REFERENCE: 98A9.2-PCT Croughan
; CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/10/258,842
; CURRENT FILING DATE: 2002-10-28
; PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US 60/203,434
; PRIOR FILING DATE: 2000-05-10
; NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 25
; SOFTWARE: PatentIn version 3.0; and WordPerfect version 8
; SEQ ID NO 14
; ORGANISM: Oryza sativa
; OTHER INFORMATION: Complete AHAS sequence, wild type, cultivar Cypress
Query Match 99.2%; Score 1945.4; DB 8; Length 1986;
Best Local Similarity 99.7%;
Matches 1949; Conservative 0; Mismatches 6; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 7 ATGGCTACGACCGCCGCGGCCGCGGCCGCCACCTTGTCCGCCGCCGCGACGGCCAAGACC 66
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 ATGGCTACGACCGCCGCGGCCGCGGCCGCCACCTTGTCCGCCGCCGCGACGGCCAAGACC 60
Qy 67 GGCCGTAAGAACCACCAGCGACACCACGTCTTTCCCGCTCGAGGCCGGGTGGGGGCGGCG 126
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 GGCCGTAAGAACCACCAGCGACACCACGTCCTTCCCGCTCGAGGCCGGGTGGGGGCGGCG 120
Qy 127 GCGGTCAGGTGCTCGGCGGTGTCCCCGGTCACCCCGCCGTCCCCGGCGCCGCCGGCCACG 186
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 GCGGTCAGGTGCTCGGCGGTGTCCCCGGTCACCCCGCCGTCCCCGGCGCCGCCGGCCACG 180
Qy 187 CCGCTCCGGCCGTGGGGGCCGGCCGAGCCCCGCAAGGGCGCGGACATCCTCGTGGAGGCG 246
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 CCGCTCCGGCCGTGGGGGCCGGCCGAGCCCCGCAAGGGCGCGGACATCCTCGTGGAGGCG 240
Qy 247 CTGGAGCGGTGCGGCGTCAGCGACGTGTTCGCCTACCCGGGCGGCGCGTCCATGGAGATC 306
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 CTGGAGCGGTGCGGCGTCAGCGACGTGTTCGCCTACCCGGGCGGCGCGTCCATGGAGATC 300
Qy 307 CACCAGGCGCTGACGCGCTCCCCGGTCATCACCAACCACCTCTTCCGCCACGAGCAGGGC 366
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 301 CACCAGGCGCTGACGCGCTCCCCGGTCATCACCAACCACCTCTTCCGCCACGAGCAGGGC 360
Qy 367 GAGGCGTTCGCGGCGTCCGGGTACGCGCGCGCGTCCGGCCGCGTCGGGGTCTGCGTCGCC 426
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 361 GAGGCGTTCGCGGCGTCCGGGTACGCGCGCGCGTCCGGCCGCGTCGGGGTCTGCGTCGCC 420
Qy 427 ACCTCCGGCCCCGGGGCAACCAACCTCGTGTCCGCGCTCGCCGACGCGCTGCTCGACTCC 486
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 421 ACCTCCGGCCCCGGGGCAACCAACCTCGTGTCCGCGCTCGCCGACGCGCTGCTCGACTCC 480
Qy 487 GTCCCGATGGTCGCCATCACGGGCCAGGTCCCCCGCCGCATGATCGGCACCGACGTCTTC 546
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||
Db 481 GTCCCGATGGTCGCCATCACGGGCCAGGTCCCCCGCCGCATGATCGGCACCGACGCCTTC 540
Qy 547 CAGGAGACGCCCATAGTCGAGGTCACCCGCTCCATCACCAAGCACAATTACCTTGTCCTT 606
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 541 CAGGAGACGCCCATAGTCGAGGTCACCCGCTCCATCACCAAGCACAATTACCTTGTCCTT 600
Qy 607 GATGTGGAGGACATCCCCCGCGTCATACAGGAAGCCTTCTTCCTCGCGTCCTCGGGCCGT 666
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 601 GATGTGGAGGACATCCCCCGCGTCATACAGGAAGCCTTCTTCCTCGCGTCCTCGGGCCGT 660
Qy 667 CCTGGCCCGGTGCTGGTCGACATCCCCAAGGACATCCAGCAGCAGATGGCTGTGCCAGTC 726
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 661 CCTGGCCCGGTGCTGGTCGACATCCCCAAGGACATCCAGCAGCAGATGGCTGTGCCAGTC 720
Qy 727 TGGGACACCTCGATGAATCTACCGGGGTACATTGCACGCCTGCCCAAGCCACCCGCGACA 786
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 721 TGGGACACCTCGATGAATCTACCGGGGTACATTGCACGCCTGCCCAAGCCACCCGCGACA 780
Qy 787 GAATTGCTTGAGCAGGTCTTGCGTCTGGTTGGCGAGTCACGGCGCCCGATTCTCTATGTC 846
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 781 GAATTGCTTGAGCAGGTCTTGCGTCTGGTTGGCGAGTCACGGCGCCCGATTCTCTATGTC 840
Qy 847 GGTGGTGGCTGCTCTGCATCTGGTGATGAATTGCGCCGGTTTGTTGAGCTGACCGGCATC 906
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 841 GGTGGTGGCTGCTCTGCATCTGGTGATGAATTGCGCCGGTTTGTTGAGCTGACCGGCATC 900
Qy 907 CCAGTTACAACCACTCTGATGGGCCTCGGCAATTTCCCCAGTGATGATCCGTTGTCCCTG 966
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 901 CCAGTTACAACCACTCTGATGGGCCTCGGCAATTTCCCCAGTGATGATCCGTTGTCCCTG 960
Qy 967 CGCATGCTTGGGATGCATGGCACGGTGTACGCAAATTATGCGGTGGATAAGGCTGACCTG 1026
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 961 CGCATGCTTGGGATGCATGGCACGGTGTACGCAAATTATGCGGTGGATAAGGCTGACCTG 1020
Qy 1027 TTGCTTGCATTTGGCGTGCGGTTTGATGATCGTGTGACAGGGAAAATTGAGGCTTTTGCA 1086
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1021 TTGCTTGCATTTGGCGTGCGGTTTGATGATCGTGTGACAGGGAAAATTGAGGCTTTTGCA 1080
Qy 1087 AGCAGGGCCAAGATTGTGCACATTGACATTGATCCAGCGGAGATTGGAAAGAACAAGCAA 1146
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1081 AGCAGGGCCAAGATTGTGCACATTGACATTGATCCAGCGGAGATTGGAAAGAACAAGCAA 1140
Qy 1147 CCACATGTGTCAATTTGCGCAGATGTTAAGCTTGCTTTACAGGGCTTGAATGCTCTGCTA 1206
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1141 CCACATGTGTCAATTTGCGCAGATGTTAAGCTTGCTTTACAGGGCTTGAATGCTCTGCTA 1200
Qy 1207 GACCAGAGCACAACAAAGACAAGTTCTGATTTTAGTGCGTGGCACAATGAGTTGGACCAG 1266
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1201 GACCAGAGCACAACAAAGACAAGTTCTGATTTTAGTGCATGGCACAATGAGTTGGACCAG 1260
Qy 1267 CAGAAGAGGGAGTTTCCTCTGGGGTACAAGACTTTTGGTGAAGAGATCCCACCGCAATAT 1326
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1261 CAGAAGAGGGAGTTTCCTCTGGGGTACAAGACTTTTGGTGAAGAGATCCCACCGCAATAT 1320
Qy 1327 GCTATTCAGGTGCTGGATGAGCTGACGAAAGGGGAGGCAATCATCGCTACTGGTGTTGGA 1386
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1321 GCTATTCAGGTGCTGGATGAGCTGACGAAAGGGGAGGCAATCATCGCTACTGGTGTTGGA 1380
Qy 1387 CAGCACCAGATGTGGGCGGCACAATATTACACCTACAAGCGGCCACGGCAGTGGCTGTCT 1446
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1381 CAGCACCAGATGTGGGCGGCACAATATTACACCTACAAGCGGCCACGGCAGTGGCTGTCT 1440
Qy 1447 TCGGCTGGTCTGGGCGCAATGGGATTTGGGCTGCCTGCTGCAGCTGGTGCTTCTGTGGCT 1506
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1441 TCGGCTGGTCTGGGCGCAATGGGATTTGGGCTGCCTGCTGCAGCTGGTGCTTCTGTGGCT 1500
Qy 1507 AACCCAGGTGTCACAGTTGTTGATATTGATGGGGATGGTAGCTTCCTCATGAACATTCAG 1566
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1501 AACCCAGGTGTCACAGTTGTTGATATTGATGGGGATGGTAGCTTCCTCATGAACATTCAG 1560
Qy 1567 GAGTTGGCATTGATCCGCATTGAGAACCTCCCGGTGAAGGTGATGGTGTTGAACAACCAA 1626
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1561 GAGTTGGCATTGATCCGCATTGAGAACCTCCCGGTGAAGGTGATGGTGTTGAACAACCAA 1620
Qy 1627 CATTTGGGTATGGTTGTGCAATGGGAGGATAGGTTTTACAAGGCAAATAGGGCGCATACA 1686
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1621 CATTTGGGTATGGTTGTGCAATGGGAGGATAGGTTTTACAAGGCAAATAGGGCGCATACA 1680
Qy 1687 TACTTGGGCAACCCAGAATGTGAGAGTGAGATATATCCAGATTTTGTGACTATTGCTAAA 1746
|||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1681 TACTTGGGCAACCCAGAATGTGAGAGCGAGATATATCCAGATTTTGTGACTATTGCTAAA 1740
Qy 1747 GGGTTCAATATTCCTGCAGTCCGTGTAACAAAGAAGAGTGAAGTCCGTGCCGCCATCAAG 1806
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1741 GGGTTCAATATTCCTGCAGTCCGTGTAACAAAGAAGAGTGAAGTCCGTGCCGCCATCAAG 1800
Qy 1807 AAGATGCTCGATACCCCAGGGCCATACTTGTTGGATATCATCGTCCCACACCAGGAGCAT 1866
||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1801 AAGATGCTCGAGACCCCAGGGCCATACTTGTTGGATATCATCGTCCCACACCAGGAGCAT 1860
Qy 1867 GTGCTGCCTATGATCCCAAGTGGGGGCGCATTCAAGGACATGATCCTGGATGGTGATGGC 1926
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1861 GTGCTGCCTATGATCCCAAGTGGGGGCGCATTCAAGGACATGATCCTGGATGGTGATGGC 1920
Qy 1927 AGGACTGTGTATTAATCTATAATCTGTATGTTGGC 1961
|||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1921 AGGACTATGTATTAATCTATAATCTGTATGTTGGC 1955
Croughan teaches an art-standard method of making mutant rice plants and selecting such for herbicide tolerance (Example 28, beginning at paragraph 0075, on pg. 8). Croughan teaches isolating nucleic acids encoding mutated, herbicide-resistant AHASL (comprising a substitution at position 627) from a plant derived by mutating said Cypress rice (Example 36 beginning at paragraph 0147 on pg. 20). Croughan teaches isolating AHAS enzyme from the herbicide resistant rice plants (paragraphs 0112-0113 and Table 5 on pg. 15). Croughan teaches using said isolated AHAS DNA sequences, under the control of an appropriate promoter, to transform crop plants (paragraphs 0171-0175 on pg. 22). Croughan teaches that plants suitable for transformation are both monocots and dicots; such as rice, maize, wheat, rye, barley, sunflower, alfalfa, canola, soybean, peanut, tobacco, tomato and potato (paragraph 0185 on pg. 23).
Croughan teaches methods of producing transformed plants and cells, comprising transforming plant cells with a transformation vector comprising said resistant AHASL nucleic acids, using selection media to select for AHAS-inhibitor resistant cells, and subsequently regenerating herbicide-resistant plants from those cells (paragraphs 0176-0180 on pg. 22). Croughan teaches obtaining seeds from AHASL-inhibitor resistant rice plants (Examples 1-15, paragraphs 0061-0068 on pg. 7).
Croughan teaches imidazolinone and sulfonylurea herbicides by trade names, generic names and chemical names, including for example, 2-(4-isopropyl-4-methyl-5-oxo-2-imidazolin-2-yl)-5-methylnicotinic acid (page 27, paragraph 0225; see also paragraphs 0213-0214 on pg. 25-26). Croughan teaches applying an imidazolinone herbicide as a pre-emergence application. Croughan teaches spraying rice seedlings, post-emergence, with an herbicide solution (paragraphs 0079-0082). Croughan teaches treating seed with an AHAS-inhibiting herbicide (paragraph 0093 on pg. 13).
Croughan teaches a process for controlling weeds in the vicinity of rice plants comprising resistant AHAS, comprising applying a herbicide to the weeds and to the plant, wherein the herbicide normally inhibits acetohydroxyacid synthase at the levels of the herbicides that would normally inhibit the growth of a plant of the same species (claim 14). Croughan teaches that red rice is a known weed of cultivated rice, and teaches that AHAS inhibiting herbicides can successfully control red rice (paragraph 0003-0006; 0046-0047).
Croughan does not teach the instant SEQ ID NO: 2.
Kolkman et al teach the Ala205Val mutation in sunflower AHASL conferring resistance to imazethapyr and chlorimuron (pg. 1153, right column, 1st paragraph). Kolkman et al teach that Ala205 is conserved in AHAS enzymes in numerous species (pg. 1157, left col.).
Kmiec et al teach how to make predictable mutations in a plant AHASL gene in a plant cell. Kmiec et al teach making a mutagenized plant comprising a modified AHAS large subunit polynucleotide encoding an herbicide-tolerant AHAS protein at claims 10 and 11 (see also Table 11 on pages 19-28).
Okuzaki et al teach successfully using site-specific oligonucleotide-based mutagenesis to introduce point mutations into the rice AHAS gene (Abstract and Introduction). Okuzaki et al teach that the oligonucleotide-directed gene targeting is thought to be less complicated in rice than in tobacco or maize (pg. 512, right col).
Battista teaches that rice cultivar IRGA 417 was a publicly available commercial variety at the time of Applicants' invention (page 41, 3d paragraph).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Croughan using the teachings of Kolkman et al, and introduce an aspartate or valine at amino acid position 179 relative to SEQ ID NO: 2, in a rice acetohydroxyacid synthase large subunit to produce an herbicide-tolerant rice plant - either using the selection method of Croughan or the site-directed mutagenesis method of Kmiec et al and Okuzaki et al. It would have been prima facie obvious to obtain a rice AHASL1 nucleic acid encoding said AHASL1 mutant comprising an aspartate or valine at position 179. The nucleic acid thus obtained would have been a functional equivalent to the instant SEQ ID NO: 1 that encodes SEQ ID NO: 2.
Moreover, it would have been prima facie obvious to apply said methods to any commercial rice variety, including IRGA 417 of Battista et al. Given the conserved nature of the AHASL domain in which position 179 is located, by applying the mutagenesis and selection method of Croughan or the targeted mutagenesis method of Kmiec et al and Okuzaki et al, and selecting for the presence of the A179V substitution, one would have obtained a rice plant comprising a nucleic acid encoding the protein of the full-length SEQ ID NO: 2, and, thus, said protein as well.
The resistance to specific rates of the recited imidazolinone herbicides would have been inherent in the prima facie obvious structure of the mutant AHASL protein. The fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In addition, it would not have been unexpected, given the teachings of Kolkman et al regarding the Ala205Val substitution.
It would have been further obvious to use the resultant nucleic acid to transform a dicot or a monocot plant, including rice, as taught by Croughan, in order to confirm resistance to imidazolinones and sulfonylureas. Obtaining cells, plant parts, or seeds of said resistant plants, and treating the seeds pre-emergence with AHAS-inhibiting sulfonylurea or imidazolinone herbicides would have been also obvious as a matter of standard industry practice, and in view of the teachings of Croughan. Using the resultant AHAS-inhibitor resistant plants in a method for controlling weeds, including red rice, and including wherein the herbicide is applied in a sprayable solution comprising a solvent would have been obvious as a matter of standard industry practice and given the suggestion of Croughan, including the teachings of specific herbicides to be used.
One would have been motivated to combine the above teachings given that Kolkman et al teach that the alanine to valine substitution at a position corresponding to position 179 confers resistance to imidazolinones and sulfonylureas, and given the desirability of AHAS-herbicide resistant crops. Because Okuzaki et al teach successfully using site-specific oligonucleotide-based mutagenesis to introduce point mutations into the rice AHAS gene, given that Croughan reduced the invention to practice, and given the highly conserved nature of the AHASL amino acid position corresponding to position 179 of SEQ ID NO: 2, one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant reiterates the previously submitted arguments, including the argument that “the Office Action improperly discounts the elements “having been obtained by random chemical mutagenesis and being free of site-directed mutation” and that the “examination [of the presently claimed subject matter] must take into account the relevant field of art to which it belongs” (pages 6-9 of the Remarks). Applicant argues that “a claim is not limited by only its structure. Rather, a claim can be defined through structural, functional, process or property limitations. In fact, the courts have found that there is nothing inherently wrong with defining some part of an invention in functional terms. Functional language does not, in and of itself, render a claim improper” (page 7 of the Remarks).
Applicant’s arguments were considered in detail in the previous Office Action and remain unpersuasive for the reasons of record. All of the rebuttal evidence was fully considered. This includes the evidence submitted in the Declaration of Dr. Mankin, which evidence was considered in the previous Office Action, mailed on January 4, 2024, but found insufficient to overcome the rejection.
Claim 87 is directed to a polypeptide. The combined teachings of the cited art would have made that polypeptide obvious, which is also why, contrary to Applicant’s position, the cited art is directly relevant to the claimed invention. The obviousness of the actual structure i.e., the amino acid sequence of said polypeptide is not disputed by Applicant. It is well-established that the patentability of a product is determined by the product itself not its product of making. See MPEP 2113. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted)
The Examiner further maintains that Applicant’s argument and the statements in the Declaration of Dr. Mankin directed to the property of a plant are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Claim 87 is not directed to a plant, nor a composition comprising a plant, but to a polypeptide comprising SEQ ID NO: 2. Reciting a location of said polypeptide as “in a … rice plant” does not change the scope of the claim. The Examiner maintains that any properties of a chemical compound, such as a polypeptide, are inherent in its structure: “a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2112.01. Applicant cited no legal authority to the contrary, and failed to address this analysis. As set forth in the rejection above, using the methods available at the time of invention, one would have predictably arrived at the full-length SEQ IS NO: 2.
The Examiner maintains that Applicant‘s invention amounts to introducing a known herbicide tolerance AHASL substitution located in one of the conserved domains of the enzyme into the AHASL of a different crop species, rice. The feasibility of doing so was expressly confirmed by Okuzaki et al, who not only teach successfully using site-specific oligonucleotide-based mutagenesis to introduce point mutations into the rice AHASL gene, but also teach that the oligonucleotide-directed gene targeting is thought to be less complicated in rice than in tobacco or maize (pg. 512, right col).
Moreover, the specific substitution at issue, A205V, was not only known in the prior art but also used commercially to confer tolerance to AHAS inhibitors. The rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
13. No claims are allowed.
14. 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, BRATISLAV STANKOVIC can be reached at (571)270-0305. 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