Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-11, 18-19 and 22-24 are pending.
Claims 23-24 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-11, 18-19 and 22 are examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/26/2025 has been entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code, e.g., on page 41 in lines 18 and 19 of the Specification filed 3/5/2024). Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification (pages 58-65 of the Specification filed 3/5/2024) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant appears to have inadvertently recited “MAPKKKK” in the 4th recitation of “MAPKKK”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 remains objected to because in numbering Markush groups, Applicant uses "i" and "ii" then changes to "c". Applicant should use consistent increments for numbering, e.g., i, ii, iii. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang (Huang et al. The Plant Journal. 77(4):577-588. 2014) taken with evidence from Ichimura (Ichimura et al. Trends in Plant Sci. 7:301–308. 2002).
Applicant claims a method of increasing the amount or activity of a Raf-like mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase kinase (MAPKKK) delta B3 family enzyme in a plant by inserting a nucleic acid encoding a truncated MAPKKK M3K delta B3 family enzyme operably linked to a transcriptional regulatory element capable of expressing the nucleic acid in the plant (claim 1). It is noted that Applicant recites intended uses for the method in the preamble of claim 1 but these are not given patentable weight because they do not require any limitations on the claimed method.
Claim 2 requires the transcriptional regulatory element is a promoter.
Claim 4 requires the plant cell is from a dicotyledonous or monocotyledonous plant.
Claim 6 requires the heterologous M3K δ B3 family enzyme expressing nucleic acid is contained in an expression vector.
Claim 8 requires the promoter comprises a constitutive promoter.
Claim 11 requires the M3K δ B3 family enzyme-expressing nucleic acid is stably integrated into the plant cell.
Claim 19 requires the promoter comprises a CAMV 35 promoter.
Claim 22 requires the element of claim 2 comprises a plant or tree promoter.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6 and 11, Huang discloses transforming an Arabidopsis plant with an expression vector to express SIS8. Huang discloses that At1g73660 is the SIS8 gene (page 579, column right, first paragraph). Ichimura provides that At1g73660 is a RAF-like MAPKKK of subgroup B3 (page 306, right column, paragraph 3). Huang discloses the SIS8 gene comprises a a predicted 1.5-kb promoter but expresses only the coding region of the SIS8 gene, therefore, the nucleic acid expressed by Huang reads on being a truncated a truncated MAPKKK M3K delta B3 family enzyme.
Regarding claims 2, 8 and 19, Huang discloses transforming the plant to express SIS8 under control of the CaMV 35S promoter (page 579, column right, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 22, Huang discloses cloning At1g73660, including the predicted 1.5-kb promoter into a vector to transform a sis8-1 mutant (page 579, column right, first paragraph).
Therefore, claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 10-11, 19 and 22 are anticipated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (Huang et al. The Plant Journal. 77(4):577-588. 2014) taken with evidence from Ichimura (Ichimura et al. Trends in Plant Sci. 7:301–308. 2002) as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 19 and 22 above, and further in view of Virk (Virk et al. PLoS ONE. 10(7): e0133975. 2015) taken with evidence from Rao (Rao et al. DNA Research. 17(3):139-153. 2010).
Claim 5 requires the plant is from a Markush group including a rice plant and claim 18 requires the plant is a crop plant. A rice plant is interpreted as reading on a crop plant.
Huang does not teach the plant being a rice plant.
Virk teaches that a RAF-like MAPKKK, Raf43, is necessary for tolerance to abiotic stresses (page 18, paragraph 3)
Virk teaches that Raf43 is related to SIS8 as identified in Arabidopsis as both are Raf-like MAPKKKs (page 18, paragraph 2). Virk teaches that the function of most Raf-like MAPKKKs in plants were unknown.
Rao provides that members of MAPKKK subfamilies share structural similarities between Arabidopsis and rice (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to express SIS8 in rice based on the teachings and suggestions of Huang in view of Virk. One would have been motivated to do so at least to determine the effect of expression of SIS8 in rice. One would have expected to successfully express SIS8 in rice.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (Huang et al. The Plant Journal. 77(4):577-588. 2014) taken with evidence from Ichimura (Ichimura et al. Trends in Plant Sci. 7:301–308. 2002) as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 19 and 22 above, and further in view of Min (Min et al. Plant Biotechnology Reports. 9:443-449. 2015).
Claim 10 requires the nucleic acid is contained in an episome.
Huang does not teach the nucleic acid is contained in an episome.
Min teaches an episomal vector delivery system for use in plants (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to express nucleic acid of Huang using the episomal vector delivery system taught by Min. One would have been motivated to do so given that Min teaches successful transformation in plants using this system. One would have expected successfully expressing the nucleic acid of Huang using the episomal vector delivery system taught by Min.
Applicant’s arguments regarding rejection under 35 USC 103
Applicant's arguments filed 9/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 9/26/2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-11, 18-19 and 22 as set forth in the instant Office action. The arguments are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-11, 18-19 and 22 remain rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R BYRNES whose telephone number is (571)270-3935. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 5:00 M-F.
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.
/DAVID R BYRNES/ Examiner, Art Unit 1662