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 .
Claim Status
1. Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 9, 14, and 16-19 are pending and examined to the extent of the elected species of bifunctional fructose-1,6-bisphosphatases/sedoheptulose-1,7-bisphosphatase (FBP/SBPase; SEQ ID NO:39) and cytochrome c6 protein (SEQ ID NO:95).
Claims 2, 10, and 15 are cancelled.
Claims 4, 7-8, 11-13, and 20 remain withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention or non-elected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made with traverse in the reply filed on October 01, 2024. The restriction requirement was deemed proper and made FINAL in the Non-Final Rejection dated December 03, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/14/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered to the extent of the English translations provided. A signed copy is attached.
Response to Arguments – Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
3. Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed 07/14/2026 have overcome the rejections of record.
Response to Arguments – Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
4. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Written Description
5. Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 9, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Issue No. 1: Applicant has not described the overexpression of a combination of a sufficient number of bifunctional fructose-1,6-bisphosphatases/sedoheptulose-1,7-bisphosphatase and cytochrome c6 polypeptides to reasonably convey possession of the claimed invention.
Issue No. 2: Applicant has not described a sufficient number of plant species overexpressing the combination of a bifunctional fructose-1,6-bisphosphatases/sedoheptulose-1,7-bisphosphatase and a cytochrome c6 protein to reasonably convey possession of the claimed invention.
The claims all require a genetically altered plant, plant part, or plant cell comprising overexpression of both a bifunctional fructose-1,6-bisphosphatases/sedoheptulose-1,7-bisphosphatase and a cytochrome c6 protein.
The claims encompass all plants, all bifunctional fructose-1,6-bisphosphatases/sedoheptulose-1,7-bisphosphatases and all cytochrome c6 proteins. The limitations regarding all plants, all bifunctional fructose-1,6-bisphosphatases/sedoheptulose-1,7-bisphosphatases and all cytochrome c6 proteins are broad and lack adequate written description.
Applicant describes five N. tabacum cv. Petit Havana lines transformed to overexpress both Synechococcus elongatus FBP/SBPase and a Porphyra umbilicalis cytochrome c6 (SBC1, SBC2, SBC3, SBC4, and SBC6) and three N. tabacum cv. Samsun lines transformed to overexpress both an Arabidopsis SBPase and a Porphyra umbilicalis cytochrome c6 (1, 2, and 3; Table 1; pp. 55-56). The described N. tabacum cv. Petit Havana lines and N. tabacum cv. Samsun lines demonstrated significantly increased CO2 assimilation rates (Figure 7) and photosystem two (PSII) operating efficiency at an irradiance of 600 µmol m-2s-1 or 650 µmol m-2s-1 (Figure 2), respectively, compared to control plants.
Applicant describes the expression of only a single FBP/SBPase and a single cytochrome c6 in only one plant species. Considering cyanobacteria alone, there are over 5000 species (p. 01, “1. Cyanobacteria”, second paragraph; Allaf et al., Microorganisms. 2022 Mar 24; 10(4):696 (U)) each expressing an FBP/SBPase (Abstract; Jiang et al., BMC Evolutionary Biology. 2012; 12:208 (V)) and cytochrome c6 protein (Abstract; Torrado et al., Biochim Biophys Acta Bioenerg. 2019 Jan; 1860(1):60-68 (W)). Furthermore, the specific function of these proteins appears to be sequence-dependent. For example, the art (Molina-Heredia et al., Nature. 2003; 424:33–34 (X)) teaches that while heterologously expressed Arabidopsis cytochrome c6 can replace plastocyanin from Synechocystis or Arabidopsis in reconstitution experiments in vitro, Arabidopsis cytochrome c6 cannot carry out the same function as Arabidopsis plastocyanin or as cytochrome c6 from the alga Monoraphidium braunii (Abstract). While the art is well-developed with regard to the structure of cytochrome c6 proteins, neither Applicant nor the art teach any structure within these proteins as being sufficient or required to confer any specific function or activity of the protein as relates to the nature of the instant invention.
MPEP § 2163 states that the written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. A “representative number of species” means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. See, e.g., AbbVie Deutschland GMBH v. Janssen Biotech, 759 F.3d 1285, 111 USPQ2d 1780 (Fed. Cir. 2014). When there is substantial variation within a genus, as here in which the genus comprises over 300,000 distinct plant species, 5000 distinct FBP/SBPase polypeptides, and 5000 distinct cytochrome c6 polypeptides, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. A single plant species expressing one FBP/SBPase polypeptide and one cytochrome c6 polypeptide does not provide adequate written description for all such polypeptides.
Accordingly, the claims lack adequate written description.
Response to Arguments – Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 5-6, 9, and 16-19 are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al., (Plant Biotechnology Journal. 2014; 12(9):1217-30 (previously cited)) in view of Simkin et al., (Plant Biotechnology Journal. 2017; 15:805–816 (previously cited)) as evidenced by Chida et al. (Plant and Cell Physiology. 2007; 48(7):948-957 (previously cited)) and Sade et al. (Plant Physiology. 2010; 152(1):245–254 (previously cited)), Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed 07/14/2026 have been carefully considered but are not persuasive and do not overcome the rejections of record.
Applicant argues primarily that: A) the Examiner has allegedly failed to establish a proper motivation to combine; and B) a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicant argues that Singh does not provide a specific motivation to combine FBP/SBPase with cytochrome c6 (p. 09). This argument is not persuasive because the motivation to combine is not required to be stated explicitly in the prior art. See MPEP 2143. The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. In Ball Aerosol v. Ltd. Brands, 555 F.3d 984, 89 USPQ2d 1870 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit offered additional instruction as to the need for an explicit analysis. The Federal Circuit explained that the Supreme Court’s requirement for an explicit analysis does not require record evidence of an explicit teaching of a motivation to combine in the prior art.
Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. Though Singh teaches the overexpression of either FBPase/SBPase or cytochrome c6 alone as being sufficient to improve photosynthesis, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that this would not provide motivation for a person of ordinary skill to express the elements taught by Singh in combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve photosynthesis due to the global economic and ecologic incentives to do so. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would assume, with a reasonable expectation of success, that combining two elements (e.g., FBPase/SBPase or cytochrome c6 ) reported to enhance a phenotype alone (e.g., photosynthesis) would have predictable results (e.g., combinatorial improvement of the phenotype) absent any suggestion, teaching, or evidence to the contrary. When combined with Simkin 2017’s teachings regarding improving photosynthesis by overexpressing FBP/SBPase in combination with other proteins, there is sufficient motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to co-express an FBP/SBPase with additional factors to further improve photosynthesis. Furthermore, Singh’s disclosure of the heterologous expression of 17 photosynthesis-related proteins (p. 1219, Table 1) provides a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success from which to choose.
Applicant’s arguments that Simkin does not supply the motivation to combine cytochrome c6 with FBP/SBPase (pp. 9-10) and that one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to combine GDC-H and cytochrome c6 due to the alleged fundamental differences between GDC-H and cytochrome c6 (pp. 10-12; pp. 13-14) are not persuasive. Applicant’s discussion on the role of GDC-H in photorespiration is appreciated (p. 10). While the Examiner concedes that photosynthesis and photorespiration are distinct pathways, GDC-H functions in an electron transport process that interacts with proteins that function in the Calvin cycle/photosynthesis pathway (e.g., Rubisco; Simkin 2017; Abstract). The Office also notes that regardless of Simkin’s alleged silence regarding electron transport proteins, Singh teaches the role of GDC in electron transport (Singh; p. 1224, Figure 3). Even if they differ in cellular compartment and function in distinct metabolic pathways as asserted by Applicant (p. 12), it is well-established in the art that GDC-H has electron transport activity (p. 336, “Glycine-cleavage system”, first paragraph; Nzila et al., Trends Parasitology. 2005 Jun;21(6):292-8 (Y)). Additionally, Simkin 2017 teaches that simultaneous increase of both FBP/SBPase and electron transport enzymes leads to a cumulative impact on photosynthetic yield (p. 806, left column, second paragraph). In particular, Simkin 2017 teaches that plants over-expressing SBPase and FBPA with GDC-H displayed higher photosynthetic electron transport rates (p. 810, right column, first full paragraph), growth (p. 808, “Increased SBPase and FBPA activity and over-expression of the glycine decarboxylase-H protein stimulates growth in low light”), and biomass/yield (pp. 808-809, “Impact of light intensity on biomass and seed yield”) compared to plants over-expressing SBPase and FBPA alone. Accordingly, Simkin 2017 teaches co-expressing FBP/SBPase with additional factors to increase the impact on photosynthesis and provides motivation for one of ordinary skill to combine the expression of an FBP/SBPase with a protein that increases photosynthetic electron transport to increase growth and yield.
Even if a person of ordinary skill in the art would not see the GDC-H protein of Simkin 2017 as interchangeable with the cytochrome c6 protein taught by Singh, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to express combinations of photosynthesis/Calvin cycle proteins because Singh teaches that overexpression of FBPase/SBPase or cytochrome c6 alone as being sufficient to improve photosynthesis and Simkin 2017 teaches that overexpressing photosynthesis/Calvin cycle proteins (e.g., FBPase/SBPase) in combination with other proteins would produce a cumulative positive impact on photosynthesis.
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).
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to overexpress Calvin cycle proteins known to improve photosynthesis when overexpressed with electron transport proteins known to improve photosynthesis when overexpressed. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1, 5-6, 9, and 16-19 are maintained. See rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, below.
7. Regarding the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Singh et al., (Plant Biotechnology Journal. 2014;12(9):1217-30 (previously cited)) in view of Simkin et al., (Plant Biotechnology Journal. 2017; 15:805–816 (previously cited)), and further in view of Smith et al., (Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 2012; 65(1):339-344 (previously cited)), Applicant’s amendments filed October 06, 2025 have been fully considered but have not overcome the rejections of record; therefore, these rejections is maintained.
Applicant argues that neither Smith nor Liu remedy the alleged deficiencies of Singh and Simkin (2017) and that the combination of Singh, Simkin 2017, Smith, and Liu fail to provide a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to specifically combine overexpression of FBP/SBPase and cytochrome c6 (p. 14). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because Singh and Simkin 2017 provide motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to overexpress the combination of FBP/SBPase and cytochrome c6, as discussed above. Furthermore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the generic cytochrome c6 protein of Singh with the specific cytochrome c6 protein of Smith to produce the genetically altered plant with enhanced photosynthetic electron transport taught by Singh.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
8. Regarding the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Singh et al., (Plant Biotechnology Journal. 2014;12(9):1217-30 (previously cited)) in view of Simkin et al., (Plant Biotechnology Journal. 2017; 15:805–816 (previously cited)), and further in view of Liu et al., (US-2010/0218275-A1, published 08/26/2010 (previously cited)), Applicant’s amendments filed October 06, 2025 have been fully considered but do not overcome the rejections of record and this rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that neither Smith nor Liu remedy the alleged deficiencies of Singh and Simkin (2017) and that the combination of Singh, Simkin 2017, Smith, and Liu fail to provide a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to specifically combine overexpression of FBP/SBPase and cytochrome c6 (p. 14). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because Singh and Simkin 2017 provide motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to overexpress the combination of FBP/SBPase and cytochrome c6, as discussed above. Furthermore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the generic FBP/SBPase taught by Singh with the specific cyanobacterial FBP/SBPase taught by Liu to produce a genetically altered plant with enhanced photosynthetic capacity, because both Singh and Liu teach the importance of FBP/SBPase in CO2 assimilation and the cyanobacterial FBP/SBPase taught by Liu is demonstrated to increase resistance to abiotic stress, which would further promote plant growth.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Singh et al., (Plant Biotechnology Journal. 2014;12(9):1217-30 (previously cited)) in view of Simkin et al., (Plant Biotechnology Journal. 2017; 15:805–816 (previously cited)), and further in view of Liu et al., (US-2010/0218275-A1, published 08/26/2010 (previously cited)) is maintained. However, upon further consideration, the Examiner has determined that Simkin 2017 serves as a more appropriate primary reference in the following rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
10. Claims 1, 5-6, 9, and 16-19 are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simkin et al., (Plant Biotechnology Journal. 2017; 15:805–816 (previously cited)) in view of Singh et al., (Plant Biotechnology Journal. 2014; 12(9):1217-30 (previously cited)) as evidenced by Chida et al. (Plant and Cell Physiology. 2007; 48(7):948-957 (previously cited)) and Sade et al. (Plant Physiology. 2010; 152(1):245–254 (previously cited)).
The disclosure and teachings of Simkin 2017 and Singh are as previously discussed (Non-Final Rejection dated December 03, 2024).
With regard to claim 1, Simkin 2017 teaches a genetically altered plant, plant part, or plant cell wherein the plant, plant part, or plant cell comprises overexpression of an FBPase and an SBPase protein (p. 806, “Production and selection of Arabidopsis transformants”) and overexpression of the electron transport protein GDC-H (p. 806, “Production and selection of Arabidopsis transformants”).
Simkin 2017 does not teach a cytochrome c6 protein.
Singh teaches a genetically altered plant, plant part, or plant cell wherein the plant, plant part, or plant cell comprises overexpression of a bifunctional fructose-1,6,-bisphosphatase/sedoheptulose-1,7-bisphosphatase (FBP/SBPase) protein (pp. 1218-1220, “Regeneration of Ribulose-1, 5-bisphosphate”) and a genetically altered plant, plant part, or plant cell wherein the plant, plant part, or plant cell comprises overexpression of a cytochrome c6 protein (p. 1221, left column, first partial paragraph).
The combination of Simkin 2017 and Singh teaches a genetically altered plant comprising overexpression of an FBP/SBPase protein and overexpression of a photosynthetic electron transport protein wherein the photosynthetic electron transport protein is a cytochrome c6 protein.
The level of ordinary skill in the plant transformation art is high and the use of transformed plant cells to express a gene or polynucleotide of interest is well-known in the art, as evidenced by Simkin 2017 and Singh. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill before the instant effective filing date to use the proteins taught by Singh in the method taught by Simkin 2017 to produce a genetically altered plant overexpressing FBP/SBPase and cytochrome c6. One would have been motivated to do so as Singh teaches transformation of FBPase, SBPase, and FBP/SBPase proteins (pp. 1218-1220, “Regeneration of Ribulose-1, 5-bisphosphate”) and cytochrome c6 proteins (p. 1221, left column, first partial paragraph) into various plants to promote plant growth and photosynthesis and that photosynthetic electron transport is the rate-limiting step in CO2 assimilation (p. 1220, right column, first full paragraph). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce a plant overexpressing both of the recited proteins, because Simkin 2017 teaches that co-expression of FBP/SBPase proteins and electron transport proteins results in a cumulative increase in plant growth and seed yield (Abstract). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success and without any surprising or unexpected results.
With regard to claim 5, in addition to the teachings above, Singh teaches the localization of the cytochrome c6 protein to the thylakoid lumen (pp. 1220-1221, “Light reactions and canopy architecture”); the cited Chida et al., 2007 discloses a plasmid containing an algal cytochrome c6 linked to a plastocyanin signal peptide, which targets the protein to the thylakoid lumen (p. 949, “Development of transgenic Arabidopsis having Porphyra Cyt c6”).
With regard to claim 6, in addition to the teachings above, Singh teaches a transit peptide that localizes the cytochrome c6 protein to the thylakoid lumen, and wherein the transit peptide comprises a plastocyanin signal peptide (pp. 1220-1221, “Light reactions and canopy architecture”); the cited Chida et al., 2007 discloses a plasmid containing an algal cytochrome c6 linked to a plastocyanin signal peptide (p. 949, “Development of transgenic Arabidopsis having Porphyra Cyt c6”).
With regard to claim 9, in addition to the teachings above, Singh teaches a plant promoter operably linked to the nucleic acid sequence encoding the cytochrome c6 protein, wherein said promoter comprises a constitutive promoter (p. 1219, Table 1; pp. 1220-1221, “Light reactions and canopy architecture”).
With regard to claim 16, in addition to the teachings above, Singh teaches an FBP/SBPase that is localized to the chloroplast stroma of at least one chloroplast within a cell of the genetically altered plant, and wherein the FBP/SBPase comprises a transit peptide that localizes the FBP/SBPase to the chloroplast stroma (pp. 1218-1220, “Regeneration of Ribulose-1, 5-bisphosphate”; p. 1219, Table 1).
With regard to claim 17, in addition to the teachings above, Singh teaches a plant promoter operably linked to the nucleic acid sequence encoding the FBP/SBPase, wherein said promoter comprises a tissue or cell-type specific promoter (pp. 1218-1220, “Regeneration of Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate”; p. 1219, Table 1).
With regard to claim 18, in addition to the teachings above, Singh teaches a genetically altered plant wherein the plant has increased biomass (p. 1218, “Improving photosynthesis by overcoming potential bottlenecks in the Calvin Cycle”).
With regard to claim 19, in addition to the teachings above, Singh teaches a genetically altered plant wherein the plant has improved water use efficiency as compared to an unaltered WT plant when grown in conditions with light intensities above 1000 µmol m-2s-1 (p. 1219, Table 1); the cited Sade et al., 2010 discloses induction of photosynthesis under saturating light at 1200 µmol m-2s-1 (Abstract; p. 247, Table 1).
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success and without any surprising or unexpected results. Therefore, these rejections are maintained.
11. Claim 3 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simkin et al., (Plant Biotechnology Journal. 2017; 15:805–816 (previously cited)) in view of Singh et al., (Plant Biotechnology Journal. 2014;12(9):1217-30 (previously cited)), as applied to claims 1, 5-6, 9, and 16-19 above, and further in view of Smith et al., (Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 2012; 65(1):339-344 (previously cited)).
The teachings of Simkin 2017, Singh, and Smith are as discussed above and in the Non-Final Rejection dated December 03, 2024.
The combination of Simkin and Singh does not teach that the photosynthetic electron transport cytochrome c6 protein has at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:95.
Smith teaches an algal cytochrome c6 protein wherein the protein comprises an amino acid sequence with 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 95 (see Result 1, previously cited).
The level of ordinary skill in the plant transformation art is high and the use of transformed plant cells to express a gene or polynucleotide of interest is well-known in the art, as evidenced by Singh. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to substitute the generic cytochrome c6 protein of Singh with the specific cytochrome c6 protein of Smith to produce the genetically altered plant with enhanced photosynthetic electron transport taught by Singh. One would have been motivated to do so as Smith teaches the annotated sequence of cytochrome c6, which reveals its function in photosynthetic electron transport (Smith et al., Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 2012; 65(1):339-344; see Result 1, previously cited) and Singh teaches transformation of FBPase, SBPase, and FBP/SBPase proteins (pp. 1218-1220, “Regeneration of Ribulose-1, 5-bisphosphate”) and cytochrome c6 proteins (p. 1221, left column, first partial paragraph) into various plants to promote plant growth and photosynthesis. Singh also teaches that photosynthetic electron transport is the rate-limiting step in CO2 assimilation (p. 1220, right column, first full paragraph). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success and without any surprising or unexpected results. Therefore, this rejection is maintained.
12. Claim 14 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simkin et al., (Plant Biotechnology Journal. 2017; 15:805–816 (previously cited)) in view of Singh et al., (Plant Biotechnology Journal. 2014;12(9):1217-30 (previously cited)), as applied to claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, and 16-19 above, and further in view of Liu et al., (US-2010/0218275-A1, published 08/26/2010 (previously cited)).
The teachings of Singh and Simkin are as discussed above and in the Non-Final Rejection dated December 03, 2024.
The combination of Simkin and Singh does not teach expressing a sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:39.
Liu teaches the improvement of salt tolerance in plants via the expression of a cyanobacterial FBP/SBPase[0037], wherein the FBP/SBPase protein comprises an amino acid sequence with 99.2% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 39 (see SEQ ID NO: 2), that loss of either FBPase and/or SBPase activity results in a reduced rate of photosynthesis and inhibited growth[0005-0006], that transgenic tobacco expressing a cyanobacterial FBP/SBPase demonstrate enhanced photosynthetic efficiency and growth[0006], and that FBPase and SBPase activity can serve as good targets for the preparation of genetically modified plants with increased biomass and crop productivity[0007].
The level of ordinary skill in the plant transformation art is high and the use of transformed plant cells to express a gene or polynucleotide of interest is well-known in the art, as evidenced by both Singh and Liu. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to substitute the generic FBP/SBPase taught by Singh with the specific cyanobacterial FBP/SBPase taught by Liu to produce a genetically altered plant with enhanced photosynthetic capacity. One would have been motivated to do so as both Singh and Liu teach the importance of FBP/SBPase in CO2 assimilation. Furthermore, the cyanobacterial FBP/SBPase taught by Liu is also demonstrated to increase resistance to abiotic stress, which would further promote plant growth.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success and without any surprising or unexpected results. Therefore, this rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
13. No claim is allowed.
Examiner’s Contact Information
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEQUANTARIUS JAVON SPEED whose telephone number is (703)756-4779. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9AM-5PM ET.
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 on (571)-270-7058. 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.
/DEQUANTARIUS JAVON SPEED/Junior Examiner, Art Unit 1663 /Amjad Abraham/SPE, Art Unit 1663
Prosecution Insights