DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first-inventor-to-file provisions of the AIA .
Status
Claims 1-4, 10, 15-16, 18, 24, 28-31, 33-35, 37 and 39-41 as filed on 29 May 2020 were examined and rejected in an Office action posted on 19 May 2021. Applicant responded on 17 August 2021 ("Response"), cancelling claim 3. Claims 1-2, 4, 10, 15-16, 18, 24, 28-31, 33-35, 37 and 39-41 were examined and rejected in an Office action posted on 18 November 2021. Applicant filed an RCE on 1 March 2022 adding claim 42. Claims 1-2, 4, 10, 15-16, 18, 24, 28-31, 33-35, 37, and 39-42 were examined and rejected in an Office action posted on 23 August 2022. Applicant responded on 28 December 2022. Applicant cancelled claims 24, 28, 37 and 40-41 while adding new claim 43. Claims 1-2, 4, 10, 15-16, 18, 29-31, 33-35, 39, and 42-43 were examined and a final rejection was posted on 6 April 2023. Applicant filed an RCE on 7 May 2023. Claims 1-2, 4, 10, 15-16, 18, 29-31, 33-35, 39, and 42-43 were examined and rejected in an Office action posted on 21 September 2023. Applicant responded on 12 December 2023. Claims 1, 4, 10, 16, 18, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 39, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 51, several of them new claims, were the subject of a restriction requirement posted on 14 March 2024. Applicant's response and further developments are discussed in the final rejection posted on 9 September 2024, pages 2-3. In that Office action, claims 1, 4, 10, 16, 18, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 39, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49 and 50 were examined and rejected. An amendment after final on 16 April 2025 resulted in an Advisory Action. Applicant filed a Notice of Appeal on 10 March 2025. Applicant filed an RCE on 24 April 2025 entering a response filed in 10 March 2025 cancelling some claims (43 & 45). Claims 1, 4, 10, 16, 18, 29-31,33, 34, 35, 39, 44 and 47-50 were examined and rejected in a non-final Office action posted on 3 June 2025. Applicant responded on 1 December 2025.
Claims 1, 4, 10, 16, 18, 29-31, 33-35, 39, 44, 47-50 are examined herein.
Examiner’s Notes
Citations to Applicant’s specification are abbreviated herein “Spec.”
Occasionally, “SIN” may be used as an abbreviation “SEQ ID NO” herein.
All references to SEQ ID NO:2 herein refer to instant SEQ ID NO:2.
Claim 10 recites a nucleic acid coding sequence and variants thereof. This might create problems under the written description requirement of 35 USC 112(a). However, the variant of SEQ ID NO:1 must still encode a polypeptide at least 95% sequence identical to SEQ ID NO:2.
35 USC § 103-Based Claim Rejections
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
§ 103. Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, . . . . if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1,4,10,16,18,29-31,33-34, 35, 39, 44 and 47-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi et al., US Patent Publication No. 2006/0123505 A1, published 8 June 2006 in view of Moloney et al., US Patent Publication No. 2012/0255066 A1, published 4 October 2012.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is an independent method claim where the only active steps are
[1] introducing a recombinant construct expressing SEQ ID NO:2 (or a 95%-identical variant thereof) where the polypeptide has the activity of “an Oryza sativa ACYL-COA-BINDING PROTEIN2 (OsACBP2) polypeptide.
[2] Cultivating the plant.
Various characteristics are required by claim 1 (a) a constitutive promoter (b) overexpressing the polypeptide(c) the seeds are required to have improved characteristics – grain size, grain weight, lipid percentage (specific numbers are associated with these characteristics. Overexpressing the protein is not given any particular meaning so it is interpreted as transgenically expressing a transgene encoding a protein where, even if the protein is a native protein, the expression of the transgene increases expression, in other words, ‘over expresses’ it.
As seen in the alignment below, instant SEQ ID NO:2 is sequence-identical to Kikuchi et al.’s SEQ ID NO:29197. Claim 1 of Kikuchi et al. is drawn to a nucleic acid molecule encoding its SEQ ID NO:29197, claim 5 is drawn to a vector, claim 9 is drawn to a plant cell, and claim 13 is drawn to a plant. Instant SEQ ID NO:2 is inherently a O. sativa acyl-CoA-binding protein 2,for example, Spec., para. 0031.. Kikuchi et al. teaches acyl-CoA-binding proteins. Kikuchi et al., para. 0257. The ability of OsACBP2 polypeptide to bind long-chain acyl-CoA esters is thus not disputed.
Kikuchi et al. teaches seed oil increase as one sought-after embodiment (para. 0006). Kikuchi et al. also teaches using the CaMV promoter (para. 0156).
Kikuchi et al. does not teach any specific results of overexpressing instant SEQ ID NO:2 in a rice plant.
Moloney et al. teaches a method of transgenically expressing an acyl-CoA-binding protein in a plant and includes the step of producing a plant. Moloney et al., claims 1 and 19. The title of Moloney et al. is “Transgenic Expression of Acyl-CO-A Proteins in Plants.” The teachings of Moloney et al. includes increasing oil levels by at least 9%. Id. Also, in paragraphs 0037 and 0132, Moloney et al. also discloses an increase of 10%. Moloney et al., para. 0037.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the teachings of Kikuchi et al. to transgenically express instant SEQ ID NO:2 in a plant. It would have also been obvious for an ordinary artisan to take advantage of a increase in grain yield.
Given the level of skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
The level of skill in the art was such that an ordinary artisan at the time Applicant filed this application would find it routine to transgenically express SEQ ID NO:2 in a plant. It was also routine in the art and obvious to select transgenic plants for improved phenotypes such as increased grain size or weight.
In any case, in 2009, the Federal Circuit addressed the question whether a previously undiscovered property of a composition that was otherwise obvious provides a patentable distinction. The Federal Circuit held that it did not, stating that "[e]ven if no prior art of record explicitly discusses the [limitation], the . . . application itself instructs that [the limitation] is not an additional requirement imposed by the claims on the [claimed invention], but rather a property necessarily present in the [claimed invention]." In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1357-58, 90 USPQ2d 1417, 1422 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (as quoted in Par Pharm., Inc. v Twi Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 112 USPQ2d 1945, 1952 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
This is confirmed by the MPEP § 2112 (v) and § 2112.01. "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. MPEP § 2112.01 (citing to In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)). The burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to demonstrate that the product does not necessarily possess the properties of the claimed invention. In re Best, 195 USPQ 433-34.
This is again confirmed in § 2145(11) of the MPEP: "Prima Facie Obviousness Is Not Rebutted by Merely Recognizing Additional Advantages or Latent Properties Present But Not Recognized in the Prior Art." The MPEP clearly states that "mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention." MPEP § 2145 (citing to In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 1022, 201 USPQ 658, 661 (CCPA 1979). This was confirmed by the Federal Circuit in 1991. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991 ); see also General Elec. Co. v. Jewel Incandescent Lamp Co., 326 US 242, 249, 67 USPQ 155, 158 (1945) ("It is not invention to perceive that the product which others had discovered had qualities they failed to detect.").
In the instant application, Applicant does not teach any additional step, feature or structure that is required so that the claimed transgenic plant exhibits one of the phenotypes recited in, e.g. claim 1. Therefore, under, for example, the holding of In re Kubin etc. and further under the MPEP, merely claiming a new property of a composition that is otherwise obvious to make does not impart patentability to the composition.
As discussed above, of the properties of a composition that is obvious to make, or the consequence of a method, as discussed above, does not provide patentable a distinction if the steps of the method would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan.
Further, claim 1 is a method claim were all steps of the method are taught by the prior art. This also applies to claim 35
In view of the above, claims 1 (method), 4 (higher degree of sequence identity), 10 (a polynucleotide sequence encoding the protein), 29 (plant), 30 (plant), 31 (seed), 33 (plant part e.g. a leaf), 34 (progeny plant), 35 (method of expressing e.g. SEQ ID NO:2), and 39 (breeding) are obvious.
Kikuchi et al. also teaches using the CaMV promoter (para. 0156)and thus claim 47 is obvious. Claim 49 is obvious in view of Kikuchi et al.’s paragraph 0148.
Claims 16, 18, 44, 48 and 50, are also obvious because they merely recite a property of a plant / seed expressing SEQ ID NO:2.
Applicant’s Arguments and Response
Applicant traverses the rejection under 35 USC 103 set forth in the prior Office action in the response filed on 1 December 2025 (pp. 8-17).
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant begins by emphasizing the claim amendments. Response, p. 9.
Applicant cites to the results of the method in changing the seed phenotype.
Claim 1, however, is a method claim. The only steps of the method are transforming a plant and growing the plant. To practice that method, an ordinary artisan only needs a construct encoding SEQ ID NO:2 under the control of a constitutive promoter. That was routine in the art at the time of filing Kikuchi et al. Transforming a plant with that construct was also routine. Further, cultivating a transgenic plant was also routine.
Applicant states that Kikuchi et al. does not reach “any specific cDNA related to Oryza sativa, ACBP family members, or seed development.” (Response, p. 10 (just above quote below.)
This is not true. Paragraphs 0004 to 0006 of Kikuchi et al. is full of references to rice genes. Kikuchi et al.’s sequence listing identifies it as a O. sativa gene. Further, the gene was known in the prior art to be the ACBP2 protein.
See the alignment at the end of the argument and response, SEQ ID NO:2 was known in the prior art as the ACBP2 from rice. See, for example, one of the articles cited below associated with the alignment. Meng et al. (2010) New Phytol 189:1170-84.
Continuing, at the bottom of page 10, Applicant states that
a skilled artisan starting from Kikuchi [et al.], would face a library of tens of thousands of unrelated genes, with no direction as to which gene could regulate Oryza sativa grain development or storage, and/or lipid biosynthesis. Kikuchi [et al.]'s disclosure therefore provides, at best, a theoretical possibility of expressing a gene in plants, not a roadmap for specifically selecting ACBPJ or predicting its function in Oryza sativa.
While it is true that Kikuchi et al. teaches thousands of individual sequences, that, however, does not devalue one of the species. The Federal Circuit in the In re Gleave decision considered the issue as to whether a claim that individually lists hundreds of sequences is prior art with regard to a subsequent patent application that singles out a particular sequence. In re Gleave, 560 F3d 1331, 90 USPQ2d 1235, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The party arguing against the validity of the reference as prior art, Gleave, presented the same argument that Appellant presents – merely listing numerous sequences somehow does not individually teach each sequence. Id. The Federal Circuit, however, held that a claim listing individually sequences still fully describes each individual sequence. Id., p. 1241. Even though the prior art listed hundreds of individual sequences, it still reads on each individual embodiment. Id., p. 1240.
Although Kikuchi et al. admittedly teaches thousands of sequences, it still specifically and distinctly teaches each individual sequence.
The MPEP confirms this approach: "[a] reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments.” MPEP § 2123 (citing to Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)). Section 2123 continues that "[t]he prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed . . ." MPEP § 2123 (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
On page 9, Applicant emphasizes the claim amendments regarding the beneficial phenotypes.
On the top of page 10, Applicant focuses on the teachings of Moloney et al.
Applicant presents a very constricted view of the teachings of Moloney et al. For example, on page 9 (ll. 7-9) Applicant characterizes Table 1 as being a list of exclusively “ACBP1“ proteins (formatting as in Response).
This not accurate. First, most of the ACBPs are not numbered. Second, approximately in the middle of the second column on page 20 is an ACBP 2, which is directly relevant to Applicant’s assertion.
On page 12 Applicant focuses on the details of Moloney et al.’s teachings.
However, in paragraph 0146, Moloney et al. states
The following examples are intended to exemplify embodiments of the disclosure, and not to limit the claimed disclosure in any manner.
Further, at least Moloney et al.’s paragraphs 0008 and 0011 generically reference all ACBPs.
The MPEP confirms the approach taken in analyzing the references for a rejection under 35 USC 103: "[a] reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments.” MPEP § 2123 (citing to Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)). Section 2123 continues that "[t]he prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed . . ." MPEP § 2123 (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
Additionally, Applicant’s argument at the stop of page 13, discussing alleged difficulties in using dicot promoters in rice suggests the use of a constitutive promoter in a monocot such as rice. Kikuchi et al. teaches the use of a constitutive promoter such as the well-known 35S promoter. Moloney et al. identifies the 35S promoter as a constitutive promoter (p. 14, rt. col., approximately line 21).
Additionally, Applicant fails to establish the relevance of PUFA and MUFA (e.g. Response, p. 12 (top)) to the rejection or the claim limitations.
Moloney et al.’s discussion of an observed change regarding one embodiment hardly constitutes a ‘teaching away’ from any use of constitutive promoters.
On page 14 Applicant provides experimental results from the inventors but doesn’t relate a causal relationship between the graph and Applicant’s arguments.
On page 16, Applicant brings in negative results from another ACBP but this thread of the argument is a straw man argument. ‘Predicting” that SEQ ID NO:2 will bring about an improved phenotype does not correspond to any limitation in the claims. Further it is not required under the holding of In re Gleave as discussed above.
Clearly rice grain size and yield is an important aim of biotechnology research. See, e.g. Applicant’s “BACKGROUND” section (paras. 0003 & 0004).
Kikuchi et al. provides a large invaluable contribution to the public in teaching thousands of cDNA sequences of rice. An ordinary artisan would not take advantage of “industrially useful . . . plants” (abstract). Furthermore, as seen above, Kikuchi et al.'s claims focus on transgenic plants. Also, Kikuchi et al. teaches seed oil increase as one sought-after embodiment (para. 0006).
Much of Applicant’s arguments seem to concern a mental step –“select”- that is not part of the claim set. For example, top of page 11.
Further, the seed of a rice plant is of inherent interest to an ordinary artisan.
Also at the top of page 11, Applicant attacks Moloney et al. as if it is the primary reference.
In response to this aspect of Applicant’s arguments against Moloney et al. individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In asserting there is not a prima facie case of obviousness, Applicant ignores the articulated reasoning behind the above rejection. Kikuchi et al. teaches an ordinary artisan to make the plant; Moloney et al. focuses attention on the gene / protein in question. It would have been obvious to such an artisan to take advantage of beneficial phenotypes such as increased grain yield and grain weight as recited at the end of claim 1.
undercutting Applicant’s arguments is that the claims don’t focus on one improvement. Instead the claims read on one of three improvements.
Also pointed out above, Moloney et al. teaches a method of transgenically expressing an acyl-CoA binding protein in a plant and includes the step of producing a plant. Moloney et al., claims 1 and 19. The title of Moloney et al. is "Transgenic Expression of Acyl-CO-A Proteins in Plants." The teachings of Moloney et al. includes increasing oil levels by at least 9%. Id. Also, in paragraphs 0037 and 0132, Moloney et al. also teaches an increase of 10%. Moloney et al., para. 0037.
Thus the values claimed don’t seem particularly surprising.
Thus Kikuchi et al. teaches making the plant and Moloney et al. teaches the value of focusing on the gene in question to improve one of the beneficial phenotypes recited by Applicant’s claims.
Further, it is obvious for an ordinary artisan to observe and take advantage of an increased yield. Especially grain yield in rice.
Therefore Applicant’s argument fails to persuade.
ACBP2_ORYSJ
ID ACBP2_ORYSJ Reviewed; 91 AA.
AC Q5VRM0;
DT 25-OCT-2017, integrated into UniProtKB/Swiss-Prot.
DT 07-DEC-2004, sequence version 1.
DT 10-FEB-2021, entry version 122.
DE RecName: Full=Acyl-CoA-binding domain-containing protein 2 {ECO:0000305};
DE Short=Acyl-CoA binding protein 2 {ECO:0000303|PubMed:21128943};
DE Short=OsACBP2 {ECO:0000303|PubMed:21128943};
GN Name=ACBP2 {ECO:0000303|PubMed:21128943};
GN OrderedLocusNames=Os06g0115300 {ECO:0000312|EMBL:BAF18525.1},
GN LOC_Os06g02490 {ECO:0000305};
GN ORFNames=OsJ_19900 {ECO:0000312|EMBL:EAZ35610.1},
GN OSJNBa0019F11.14 {ECO:0000312|EMBL:BAD67905.1},
GN P0541H01.36 {ECO:0000312|EMBL:BAD67765.1};
OS Oryza sativa subsp. japonica (Rice).
OC Eukaryota; Viridiplantae; Streptophyta; Embryophyta; Tracheophyta;
OC Spermatophyta; Magnoliopsida; Liliopsida; Poales; Poaceae; BOP clade;
OC Oryzoideae; Oryzeae; Oryzinae; Oryza; Oryza sativa.
OX NCBI_TaxID=39947;
RN [1]
RP NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE [LARGE SCALE GENOMIC DNA].
RC STRAIN=cv. Nipponbare;
RX PubMed=16100779; DOI=10.1038/nature03895;
RG International rice genome sequencing project (IRGSP);
RT "The map-based sequence of the rice genome.";
RL Nature 436:793-800(2005).
RN [2]
RP GENOME REANNOTATION.
RC STRAIN=cv. Nipponbare;
RX PubMed=18089549; DOI=10.1093/nar/gkm978;
RG The rice annotation project (RAP);
RT "The rice annotation project database (RAP-DB): 2008 update.";
RL Nucleic Acids Res. 36:D1028-D1033(2008).
RN [3]
RP GENOME REANNOTATION.
RC STRAIN=cv. Nipponbare;
RX PubMed=24280374; DOI=10.1186/1939-8433-6-4;
RA Kawahara Y., de la Bastide M., Hamilton J.P., Kanamori H., McCombie W.R.,
RA Ouyang S., Schwartz D.C., Tanaka T., Wu J., Zhou S., Childs K.L.,
RA Davidson R.M., Lin H., Quesada-Ocampo L., Vaillancourt B., Sakai H.,
RA Lee S.S., Kim J., Numa H., Itoh T., Buell C.R., Matsumoto T.;
RT "Improvement of the Oryza sativa Nipponbare reference genome using next
RT generation sequence and optical map data.";
RL Rice 6:4-4(2013).
RN [4]
RP NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE [LARGE SCALE GENOMIC DNA].
RC STRAIN=cv. Nipponbare;
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., Cong L.,
RA Lin L., Yin J., Geng J., Li G., Shi J., Liu J., Lv H., Li J., Wang J.,
RA Deng Y., Ran L., Shi X., Wang X., Wu Q., Li C., Ren X., Wang J., Wang X.,
RA Li D., Liu D., Zhang X., Ji Z., Zhao W., Sun Y., Zhang Z., Bao J., Han Y.,
RA Dong L., Ji J., Chen P., Wu S., Liu J., Xiao Y., Bu D., Tan J., Yang L.,
RA Ye C., Zhang J., Xu J., Zhou Y., Yu Y., Zhang B., Zhuang S., Wei H.,
RA Liu B., Lei M., Yu H., Li Y., Xu H., Wei S., He X., Fang L., Zhang Z.,
RA Zhang Y., Huang X., Su Z., Tong W., Li J., Tong Z., Li S., Ye J., Wang L.,
RA Fang L., Lei T., Chen C.-S., Chen H.-C., Xu Z., Li H., Huang H., Zhang F.,
RA Xu H., Li N., Zhao C., Li S., Dong L., Huang Y., Li L., Xi Y., Qi Q.,
RA Li W., Zhang B., Hu W., Zhang Y., Tian X., Jiao Y., Liang X., Jin J.,
RA Gao L., Zheng W., Hao B., Liu S.-M., Wang W., Yuan L., Cao M.,
RA McDermott J., Samudrala R., Wang J., Wong G.K.-S., Yang H.;
RT "The genomes of Oryza sativa: a history of duplications.";
RL PLoS Biol. 3:266-281(2005).
RN [5]
RP NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE [LARGE SCALE MRNA].
RC STRAIN=cv. Nipponbare;
RX PubMed=12869764; DOI=10.1126/science.1081288;
RG The rice full-length cDNA consortium;
RT "Collection, mapping, and annotation of over 28,000 cDNA clones from
RT japonica rice.";
RL Science 301:376-379(2003).
RN [6]
RP FUNCTION, TISSUE SPECIFICITY, INDUCTION, GENE FAMILY, AND NOMENCLATURE.
RX PubMed=21128943; DOI=10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03546.x;
RA Meng W., Su Y.C., Saunders R.M., Chye M.L.;
RT "The rice acyl-CoA-binding protein gene family: phylogeny, expression and
RT functional analysis.";
RL New Phytol. 189:1170-1184(2011).
RN [7]
RP FUNCTION, AND SUBCELLULAR LOCATION.
RX PubMed=24738983; DOI=10.1111/nph.12809;
RA Meng W., Hsiao A.S., Gao C., Jiang L., Chye M.L.;
RT "Subcellular localization of rice acyl-CoA-binding proteins (ACBPs)
RT indicates that OsACBP6::GFP is targeted to the peroxisomes.";
RL New Phytol. 203:469-482(2014).
RN [8]
RP X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHY (2.30 ANGSTROMS), AND FUNCTION.
RX PubMed=28471368; DOI=10.1107/s2059798317004193;
RA Guo Z.H., Chan W.H.Y., Kong G.K.W., Hao Q., Chye M.L.;
RT "The first plant acyl-CoA-binding protein structures: the close homologues
RT OsACBP1 and OsACBP2 from rice.";
RL Acta Crystallogr. D 73:438-448(2017).
CC -!- FUNCTION: Binds medium- and long-chain acyl-CoA esters with high
CC affinity. Can interact in vitro with linolenoyl-CoA (PubMed:21128943).
CC Binds palmitoyl-CoA and linoleoyl-CoA in vitro (PubMed:28471368). Binds
CC phosphatidic acid (PA) and phosphatidylcholine (PC) in vitro. May play
CC a role in the biosynthesis of phospholipids (PubMed:24738983).
CC {ECO:0000269|PubMed:21128943, ECO:0000269|PubMed:24738983,
CC ECO:0000269|PubMed:28471368}.
CC -!- SUBCELLULAR LOCATION: Cytoplasm, cytosol {ECO:0000269|PubMed:24738983}.
CC -!- TISSUE SPECIFICITY: Highly expressed in leaves. Expressed at low levels
CC in roots and seeds. {ECO:0000269|PubMed:21128943}.
CC -!- INDUCTION: Down-regulated by cold stress, wounding and infection with
CC the rice blast fungus Magnaporthe oryzae.
CC {ECO:0000269|PubMed:21128943}.
CC -!- SIMILARITY: Belongs to the ACBP family. {ECO:0000305}.
CC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC Copyrighted by the UniProt Consortium, see https://www.uniprot.org/terms
CC Distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) License
CC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR EMBL; AP001389; BAD67765.1; -; Genomic_DNA.
DR EMBL; AP002837; BAD67905.1; -; Genomic_DNA.
DR EMBL; AP008212; BAF18525.1; -; Genomic_DNA.
DR EMBL; AP014962; BAS95836.1; -; Genomic_DNA.
DR EMBL; CM000143; EAZ35610.1; -; Genomic_DNA.
DR EMBL; AK058833; BAG86809.1; -; mRNA.
DR RefSeq; XP_015641745.1; XM_015786259.1.
DR PDB; 5H3I; X-ray; 2.30 A; A/B/C/D=1-91.
DR PDB; 6KF8; X-ray; 3.60 A; A/C/D/F/I/K=1-91.
DR PDBsum; 5H3I; -.
DR PDBsum; 6KF8; -.
DR SMR; Q5VRM0; -.
DR STRING; 4530.OS06T0115300-01; -.
DR PaxDb; Q5VRM0; -.
DR PRIDE; Q5VRM0; -.
DR EnsemblPlants; Os06t0115300-01; Os06t0115300-01; Os06g0115300.
DR GeneID; 4339921; -.
DR Gramene; Os06t0115300-01; Os06t0115300-01; Os06g0115300.
DR KEGG; osa:4339921; -.
DR eggNOG; KOG0817; Eukaryota.
DR HOGENOM; CLU_118853_4_1_1; -.
DR InParanoid; Q5VRM0; -.
DR OMA; DINIACP; -.
DR OrthoDB; 1588000at2759; -.
DR Proteomes; UP000000763; Chromosome 6.
DR Proteomes; UP000007752; Chromosome 6.
DR Proteomes; UP000059680; Chromosome 6.
DR GO; GO:0005829; C:cytosol; IEA:UniProtKB-SubCell.
DR GO; GO:0005886; C:plasma membrane; IEA:EnsemblPlants.
DR GO; GO:0000062; F:fatty-acyl-CoA binding; IEA:EnsemblPlants.
DR GO; GO:0031210; F:phosphatidylcholine binding; IEA:EnsemblPlants.
DR GO; GO:0006869; P:lipid transport; IEA:EnsemblPlants.
DR GO; GO:0050826; P:response to freezing; IEA:EnsemblPlants.
DR GO; GO:0001666; P:response to hypoxia; IEA:EnsemblPlants.
DR Gene3D; 1.20.80.10; -; 1.
DR InterPro; IPR000582; Acyl-CoA-binding_protein.
DR InterPro; IPR035984; Acyl-CoA-binding_sf.
DR InterPro; IPR014352; FERM/acyl-CoA-bd_prot_sf.
DR Pfam; PF00887; ACBP; 1.
DR PRINTS; PR00689; ACOABINDINGP.
DR SUPFAM; SSF47027; SSF47027; 1.
DR PROSITE; PS51228; ACB_2; 1.
PE 1: Evidence at protein level;
KW 3D-structure; Cytoplasm; Lipid-binding; Reference proteome.
FT CHAIN 1..91
FT /note="Acyl-CoA-binding domain-containing protein 2"
FT /id="PRO_0000442032"
FT DOMAIN 3..88
FT /note="ACB"
FT /evidence="ECO:0000255|PROSITE-ProRule:PRU00573"
FT REGION 30..34
FT /note="Acyl-CoA binding"
FT /evidence="ECO:0000250|UniProtKB:P07107"
FT BINDING 15
FT /note="Acyl-CoA"
FT /evidence="ECO:0000250|UniProtKB:P07107"
FT BINDING 52
FT /note="Acyl-CoA"
FT /evidence="ECO:0000250|UniProtKB:P07107"
FT BINDING 56
FT /note="Acyl-CoA"
FT /evidence="ECO:0000250|UniProtKB:P07107"
FT BINDING 75
FT /note="Acyl-CoA"
FT /evidence="ECO:0000250|UniProtKB:P07107"
FT HELIX 3..15
FT /evidence="ECO:0000244|PDB:5H3I"
FT HELIX 23..37
FT /evidence="ECO:0000244|PDB:5H3I"
FT HELIX 51..62
FT /evidence="ECO:0000244|PDB:5H3I"
FT TURN 63..65
FT /evidence="ECO:0000244|PDB:5H3I"
FT HELIX 68..87
FT /evidence="ECO:0000244|PDB:5H3I"
SQ SEQUENCE 91 AA; 10249 MW; F9A94BC03C6FB226 CRC64;
Query Match 100.0%; Score 467; DB 1; Length 91;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 91; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 MGLQEEFEEFAEKAKTLPDTISNEDKLLLYGLYKQATVGPVTTGRPGIFNLKDRYKWDAW 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 MGLQEEFEEFAEKAKTLPDTISNEDKLLLYGLYKQATVGPVTTGRPGIFNLKDRYKWDAW 60
Qy 61 KAVEGKSKEEAMADYITKVKQLLEEASASTS 91
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 KAVEGKSKEEAMADYITKVKQLLEEASASTS 91
US-10-449-902-29197
; Sequence 29197, Application US/10449902
; Publication No. US20060123505A1
; GENERAL INFORMATION:
; APPLICANT: National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences.
; APPLICANT: Bio-oriented Technology Research Advancement Institution.
; APPLICANT: The Institute of Physical and Chemical Research.
; APPLICANT: Foundation for Advancement of International Science.
; TITLE OF INVENTION: FULL-LENGTH PLANT cDNA AND USES THEREOF
; FILE REFERENCE: MOA-A0205Y1-US
; CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/10/449,902
; CURRENT FILING DATE: 2003-05-29
; PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: JP 2002-203269
; PRIOR FILING DATE: 2002-05-30
; PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: JP 2002-383870
; PRIOR FILING DATE: 2002-12-11
; NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 56791
; SOFTWARE: PatentIn Ver. 2.1
; SEQ ID NO 29197
; LENGTH: 91
; TYPE: PRT
; ORGANISM: Oryza sativa
US-10-449-902-29197
Query Match 100.0%; Score 467; DB 5; Length 91;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 91; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 MGLQEEFEEFAEKAKTLPDTISNEDKLLLYGLYKQATVGPVTTGRPGIFNLKDRYKWDAW 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 MGLQEEFEEFAEKAKTLPDTISNEDKLLLYGLYKQATVGPVTTGRPGIFNLKDRYKWDAW 60
Qy 61 KAVEGKSKEEAMADYITKVKQLLEEASASTS 91
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 KAVEGKSKEEAMADYITKVKQLLEEASASTS 91
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL T BOGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-2805. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800 to 1830 Mtn.
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, Amjad Abraham can be reached at 571-270-0708. 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.
/RUSSELL T BOGGS/ Examiner, Art Unit 1663