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 31, 33-37, 39-48, 50-53, 55, 56, 62, and 65-70 are pending.
3. Claims 31, 33-37, 39-48, 50-53, 55, 56, 62, and 65-70 are examined herein.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 9, 2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
5. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 31-48, 50-54, and 57-60 in the reply filed on October 26, 2016 is acknowledged. Subsequently, the restriction requirement with regard to Groups I and II was withdrawn, and claims 55 and 56 were rejoined and examined together with the elected claims. With regard to Groups I and III, the requirement was still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
6. Given that the previously added claim 70, dependent from claim 53, would have been included with the elected group, it was examined in the previous Office Action.
Claim Objections
7. In claim 44, the term “an quizalofop” should be amended to recite “quizalofop” to clearly refer to a single compound.
In claim 56, the term “as polynucleotide” should be amended to recite “a polynucleotide” to correct a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
8. The following is noted with regard to the claim interpretation. In claim 31, the limitation “mutagenized exclusive of any transgenic or directed mutagenesis techniques,” which, after instant amendments, refers to the “rice ACCase nucleic acid,” is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation that does not affect the structure of the resultant mutant ACCase, which structure is determined by its nucleotide sequence and not its method of production. “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). See MPEP 2113.
Claim 70 is drawn to the method of claim 53, wherein the ACCase-inhibiting herbicide is cycloxydim and said rice exhibits a tolerance to cycloxydim of “under 600 g/ha.” The recitation of the property of tolerance will not limit the structure of the rice plant used in the method of claim 53 and thus will affect its active method steps. The recitation of cycloxydim does limit the method of claim 53 to the application of that herbicide, but will read on any application rate of cycloxydim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Indefiniteness
9. 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.
10. Claims 31, 33-37, 39-48, 50-53, 62 and 65-70 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 claims 31, 37, and 53, the phrase “at least one quizalofop” renders the claims indefinite. Quizalofop is a single compound and not a class of herbicides, whereas the phrase “at least one” indicates a genus. The metes and bounds are unclear.
Given that claims 31, 33-36, 39-48, 50-52, 62 and 65-70 depend from claims 31, 37, or 53, and fail to recite additional limitations overcoming the indefiniteness of the base claims, their metes and bounds are unclear as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Fourth Paragraph
11. 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.
12. Claims 33-35 and 39-41 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 claims upon which they depend, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claims upon which they depend. Applicant’s arguments filed on October 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 33-35 and 39-41 are drawn to the rice plant of claim 31, and to the rice seed of claim 37. Claims 33-35 and 39-41, however, merely specify a property of said plant or seed and do not introduce any further structural limitations to said plant or seed. Thus, claims 33-35 and 39-41 fail to properly further limit the subject matter of the claims from which they depend. It is noted that the term “further” added to claims 34, 35, 40 and 41 do not overcome the grounds for the rejection as the claims continue to recite the property without limiting the structure of said plant or seed.
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 reiterates the argument that the claims are in proper dependent form, because they further specify the phenotype recited in the base claim (page 8 of the Remarks). This is not found persuasive and the rejection is maintained for the reasons of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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, 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.
14. Claim 31, 33-37, 39-41, 53, 55, 56, 62, 65 and 67-70 remain rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Delye et al-1 (Weed Research (2005) 45:323-330), Valverde (Weed Technology (2007) 21:310-323), Delye et al-2 (Pest Manag. Sci. (2008) 64:1179-1186), Hawkes et al (PCT Publication WO 98/54330, published December 3, 1998), Okuzaki et al (Plant Cell Rep. (2004) 22:509-512), Suzuki et al (Mol. Genet. Genomics (2008) 279:213-223), Rutger et al (Crop Science (2005) 45:1170-1171), UniProt Accession Number A2Y2U1 (integrated into database March 20, 2007). Applicant's arguments filed on October 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The claims are drawn to a rice plant, cell, and seed comprising and expressing a non-genetically engineered, randomly mutagenized ACCase nucleic acid encoding a rice plastidic ACCase having a glycine to serine substitution relative to amino acid position 2,107 of SEQ ID NO: 2. The claims are drawn to a method of controlling weeds, and to a rice nucleic acid encoding said mutant ACCase. The sequence information in Figures 18 and 19 indicates that position 2,107 of rice ACCase corresponds to position 2,096 of the Alopecurus myosuroides ACCase.
Delye et al-1 teach that in a grass plastidic ACCase, five amino acid residues are involved in resistance to cyclohexanedione (CHD) or aryloxyphenoxypropanoate (APP) herbicides, and that one of these residues is Gly2,096, in the Alopecurus numbering (pg. 324, left col.). Delye et al-1 teach that glycine 2,096 is highly conserved across numerous grass species (Fig. 3). Delye et al-1 et al teach making universal primers that detect the conserved region of the ACCase gene that encompasses Gly2,906, wherein said primers are specific for the plastidic ACCase gene (Abstract; pg. 324, right col., under “Results”). Delye et al-1 teach that using their primers, rapid PCR analysis could be conducted to obtain plastidic ACCase sequences from any grass species using routine molecular biology techniques (pg. 329, right col.).
Delye et al-1 do not teach a rice plant comprising the ACCase with the Gly2,096Ser substitution.
Valverde teaches that the glycine to serine substitution at position 2,096 of hood canarygrass’ ACCase conferred resistance to cycloxydim and several “fop” herbicides, including diclofop, cyhalofop, and fenoxaprop (pg. 316, bottom of left col. - top of right col.). Valverde teaches that the grasses resistant to fenoxaprop showed resistance at 2x the commercially recommended dose (pg. 316, bottom of left col. - top of right col.).
Delye et al-2 teach that the glycine to alanine substitution at position 2,096 confers resistance, in blackgrass, to fenoxaprop, clodinafop, and haloxyfop at field rates; and may also confer resistance to clethodim in the field at reduced field rates (Abstract; Table 2). Delye et al-2 teach applying fenoxaprop at the recommended field application rate of 69 g ai/ha (pg. 1181, left 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 are growing, a herbicide to which said plants have been rendered resistant (Hawkes et al, claims 18 and 19).
Okuzaki et al teach successfully using chimeric oligonucleotide-based site-specific mutagenesis 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.).
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.).
Rutger et al teach the characteristics of nine Indica rice germplasms, including the germplasm called “Indica-1,” along with their 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 is identified as comprising an ACCase central domain. The database entry and the sequence alignment are set forth below:
AC A2Y2U1;
DT 20-MAR-2007, integrated into UniProtKB/TrEMBL.
DT 20-MAR-2007, sequence version 1.
DT 05-OCT-2016, entry version 70.
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; BOP clade;
OC Oryzoideae; Oryzeae; Oryzinae; Oryza.
OX NCBI_TaxID=39946 {ECO:0000313|EMBL:EAY97401.1, ECO:0000313|Proteomes:UP000007015};
RN [1] {ECO:0000313|EMBL:EAY97401.1, ECO:0000313|Proteomes:UP000007015}
RP NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE [LARGE SCALE GENOMIC DNA].
RC STRAIN=cv. 93-11 {ECO:0000313|Proteomes:UP000007015};
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).
CC -!- COFACTOR:
CC Name=biotin; Xref=ChEBI:CHEBI:57586;
CC Evidence={ECO:0000256|SAAS:SAAS00197451};
CC -!- SIMILARITY: Contains ATP-grasp domain.
CC {ECO:0000256|SAAS:SAAS00234164}.
CC -!- SIMILARITY: Contains biotin carboxylation domain.
CC {ECO:0000256|SAAS:SAAS00064021}.
CC -!- SIMILARITY: Contains biotinyl-binding domain.
CC {ECO:0000256|SAAS:SAAS00064091}.
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 STRING; 39946.BGIOSGA018366-PA; -.
DR EnsemblPlants; BGIOSGA018366-TA; BGIOSGA018366-PA; BGIOSGA018366.
DR Gramene; BGIOSGA018366-TA; BGIOSGA018366-PA; BGIOSGA018366.
DR eggNOG; KOG0368; Eukaryota.
DR eggNOG; COG0439; LUCA.
DR eggNOG; COG0511; LUCA.
DR eggNOG; COG4799; LUCA.
DR HOGENOM; HOG000214115; -.
DR OMA; YEGERYK; -.
DR OrthoDB; EOG0936001E; -.
DR Proteomes; UP000007015; Chromosome 5.
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; IPR005481; BC-like_N.
DR InterPro; IPR011764; Biotin_carboxylation_dom.
DR InterPro; IPR005482; Biotin_COase_C.
DR InterPro; IPR000089; Biotin_lipoyl.
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; PF00289; Biotin_carb_N; 1.
DR Pfam; PF00364; Biotin_lipoyl; 1.
DR Pfam; PF01039; Carboxyl_trans; 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:SAAS00449439};
KW Biotin {ECO:0000256|SAAS:SAAS00447274};
KW Complete proteome {ECO:0000313|Proteomes:UP000007015};
KW Ligase {ECO:0000256|SAAS:SAAS00445128};
KW Nucleotide-binding {ECO:0000256|SAAS:SAAS00449848};
KW Reference proteome {ECO:0000313|Proteomes:UP000007015}.
FT DOMAIN 134 641 Biotin carboxylation.
FT {ECO:0000259|PROSITE:PS50979}.
FT DOMAIN 287 481 ATP-grasp. {ECO:0000259|PROSITE:PS50975}.
FT DOMAIN 768 842 Lipoyl-binding. {ECO:0000259|PROSITE:
FT PS50968}.
FT DOMAIN 1874 2187 COA_CT_CTER. {ECO:0000259|PROSITE:
FT PS50989}.
SQ SEQUENCE 2327 AA; 257716 MW; C0BE5AA19910D26C CRC64;
Query Match 100.0%; Score 12047; DB 32; 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 2327a
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 method of 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 the Gly2,096Ser mutation in the chloroplast ACCase gene, as taught by and Delye et al-1, Delye et al-2, and Valverde; including wherein the ACCase gene encodes the amino acid sequence of UniProt Accession Number A2Y2U1.
The mutant rice ACCase nucleic acid thus obtained would read on the instantly claimed rice ACCase nucleic acid, and a rice plant or seed comprising said mutant ACCase would read on the instantly claimed plants or seeds. The resultant plant would be considered non-transgenic, in view of the teachings of Hawkes et al and Suzuki et al. It would have also been obvious to isolate the mutant ACCase nucleic acid, for example, using the universal primers of Delye et al-1, and obtain a transgenic rice plant or seed expressing said nucleic acid.
The resistance of said plant or seed to specific herbicides, and the phenotype of tolerance to cycloxydim relative to different ACCase substitutions, would be a property naturally flowing from the structure of the ACCase comprising the Gly2,096Ser substitution. “The fact that appellant 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.” Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Moreover, given the teachings of Valverde, the resistance to at least one APP (“fop”) and at least one CHD (“dim”) herbicides would not have been unexpected.
It would have been also obvious to apply, to said resultant rice plant, an herbicidal composition comprising any of the herbicides to which the Gly2,096Ser confers tolerance, including those taught by Valverde, and including cycloxydim in order to control weeds in its vicinity, as taught by Hawkes et al (instant claims 53, 69 and 70). Such a plant will read on a rice plant treated with an “herbicidal composition” (instant claim 62). Applying an herbicide by spraying an aqueous solution would have been obvious as a matter of standard industry practice and in view of the teachings of Hawkes et al. This would also read on “spreading the herbicidal composition onto said rice plant” (instant claim 68). The resultant method of weed control using said plant would read on the steps of the method of the instant claims.
One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the above teachings given the agronomic desirability of herbicide resistant rice, the importance of glycine 2,096 for ACCase inhibitor resistance, and in view of the fact that the Gly2,096Ser mutation confers resistance to a number of ACCase inhibitors. Given the teachings of Hawkes et al, Suzuki et al, and Okuzaki et al, and given the highly conserved nature of the glycine at position 2,096 in grass ACCases, one would have had reasonable expectation of success.
15. Claims 42-48 and 50-52 remain rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Delye et al-1 (Weed Research (2005) 45:323-330), Valverde (Weed Technology (2007) 21:310-323), Delye et al-2 (Pest Manag. Sci. (2008) 64:1179-1186), Hawkes et al (PCT Publication WO 98/54330, published December 3, 1998), Okuzaki et al (Plant Cell Rep. (2004) 22:509-512), Suzuki et al (Mol. Genet. Genomics (2008) 279:213-223), Rutger et al (Crop Science (2005) 45:1170-1171), UniProt Accession Number A2Y2U1 (integrated into database March 20, 2007), as applied to claim 37, and further in view of Shaner et al (US Patent 6,281,168). Applicant's arguments filed on October 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The claims are drawn to the rice seed of claim 37, wherein the seed further comprises a seed treatment and to a method of treating a rice seed, and using that seed in a method of weed control.
The teachings of Delye et al-1 Delye et al-2, Hawkes et al, Okuzaki et al, Suzuki et al, Rutger et al, and UniProt Accession Number A2Y2U1 are set forth above.
The references do not teach a rice seed that has been treated with an herbicidal composition.
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.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify a rice seed comprising the Gly2,096Ser substitution, using the teachings of Shaner et al and apply an ACCase inhibitor to the seeds comprising said mutant ACCase gene. It would have been obvious to use said treated seeds in a method of pre-emergence weed control, in view of the teachings of Shaner et al. Similarly, using the seeds and plants having the ACCase with the Gly2,096Ser substitution in a method of weed control, wherein the herbicide is applied after planting (claim 51), would have been obvious as a matter of standard industry practice and in view of the teachings of Hawkes et al. It would have been obvious to use, in said methods, any of the standard “fop” or “dim” herbicides, including quizalofop, fenoxaprop, and diclofop, as taught by Valverde.
One would have been motivated to combine said teachings given the express teachings of Shaner et al, and in view of the fact that coating herbicide tolerant crop seeds with an herbicide is a routine method of pre-emergence weed control.
16. Claim 66 remains rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Delye et al-1 (Weed Research (2005) 45:323-330), Valverde (Weed Technology (2007) 21:310-323), Delye et al-2 (Pest Manag. Sci. (2008) 64:1179-1186), Hawkes et al (PCT Publication WO 98/54330, published December 3, 1998), Okuzaki et al (Plant Cell Rep. (2004) 22:509-512), Suzuki et al (Mol. Genet. Genomics (2008) 279:213-223), Rutger et al (Crop Science (2005) 45:1170-1171), UniProt Accession Number A2Y2U1 (integrated into database March 20, 2007), as applied to claim 31, and further in view of Ellis et al (Weed Technology (2003) 17:452-460). Applicant's arguments filed on October 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The claim is drawn to the treated rice plant of claim 62, treated with a composition comprising an ACCase inhibiting herbicide and an herbicide of a different class.
The teachings of Delye et al-1 Delye et al-2, Hawkes et al, Okuzaki et al, Suzuki et al, Rutger et al, and UniProt Accession Number A2Y2U1 are set forth above.
The references do not teach a rice plant comprising the combination of herbicides recited in the claim.
Ellis et al teach studying the effects of herbicide drift of glyphosate and glufosinate on rice plants growing in a field, by applying the herbicides in the vicinity of said plants and evaluating the effects of the herbicides on the plants (Abstract; pg. 452 through 453 left col.; pages 455 left col. - 457, right col.).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been prima facie obvious to use the rice plant made prima facie obvious by the teachings of Delye et al-1 Delye et al-2, Hawkes et al, Okuzaki et al, Suzuki et al, Rutger et al, and UniProt Accession Number A2Y2U1 in the method of Ellis et al, and apply a small amount of glyphosate or glufosinate to the surface of said plant, including wherein the plant had been previously treated with an ACCase inhibitor in a method made obvious by Hawkes et al. The resultant rice plant will comprise on its surface a combination of the herbicides that would read on the subject matter of claim 66. One would have been motivated to do so in view of the teachings of Ellis et al, in order to study the effects of the herbicide drift on rice plants.
Response to Arguments
Applicant maintains the previously submitted arguments, including the arguments directed to the teachings of Hawkes and Okuzaki (page 8-9 of the Remarks).
Applicant’s arguments were addressed in the previous Office Actions and remain unpersuasive for the reasons of record. This includes the arguments directed to the property of herbicide tolerance conferred by the ACCase substitution at issue, reasonable expectation of success, the teachings of Hawkes and Okuzaki, as well as to the patentable weight of limitations recited in “wherein” and “whereby” clauses.
Applicant’s argument directed to the teachings of Valverde remains not persuasive either. First, the fact that Valverde does not expressly teach a cultivated crop plant comprising the Gly2,096Ser substitution, would not affect the obviousness analysis, given the conserved nature of the position in grasses. See, for example, Delye et al-1, who teach that glycine 2,096 is highly conserved across numerous grass species.
Second, in the paragraph bridging the columns on page 316, Valverde states as this: “Ruiz-Santaella et al. (2006) reported that a diclofop-resistant biotype of hood canarygrass (also cross-resistant to cycloxydim, cyhalofop, fenoxaprop, and other graminicides) had a diclofop-insensitive ACCase derived from the substitution of Gly by Ser at position 2096. This is a new mutation conferring resistance not previously reported in other species.” Applicant has not supported the allegation regarding the Ruiz-Santaella article: Applicant has not cited any portions of the Ruiz-Sanaella contradicting the express teaching of Valverde nor supplied a copy of the reference.
The teachings of Valverde are consistent with those of Delye et al-2 regarding the glycine to alanine substitution at position 2,096, which confers resistance to fenoxaprop, clodinafop, and haloxyfop at field rates; and may also confer resistance to clethodim in the field at reduced field rates (Abstract; Table 2).
Moreover, Applicant’s argument remains not persuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claims - claim 31, for example, merely requires that a rice plant comprising the Gly2,096Ser substitution have “increased tolerance” to at least one fop or dim herbicide. This property would not have been unexpected as set forth in the rejection above and as discussed in the previous Office Action. See MPEP 716.02.
Applicant’s argument directed to the “field of endeavor” remains not persuasive either. Applicant’s statements attacking the teachings of Hawkes and Okuzaki are beside the point of the instant obviousness analysis. Using the methods of Hawkes or Okuzaki, at the time of invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have predictably arrived at a rice plant whose structure that would read on the structure of the rice plant of the instant claims. This, along with the teachings of the other cited art, is sufficient to support the prima facie finding of obviousness. Applicant has supplied no factual evidence to the contrary. The rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
17. No claims are allowed.
18. 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