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 .
Election/Restrictions
The amendments received on 01/28/2026 have been acknowledged. Claims 1-2, 5, 9, 14, 18-20, 25-26, 31-32, 35, 41, 49-51, 61 and 69-76 are pending.
Claims 2, 9, 14, 18-20, 25-26, 31-32, 35, 41, 49-51, 61 and 70-75 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/05/2024.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Therefore claims 1, 5, 69 and 76 are examined in this Office Action.
Objections/Rejections that are Withdrawn
Objection of claim 69 is withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment of the claim by separating the step of the claim by a line indentation.
Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 103 obviousness is withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment of claim to recite “flowers of the Vitis vinifera vinifera plant with modified PLATZ domain that is nonfunctional have reflexed stamens” since Fechter et al., Ramos et al., Wang et al., Boss et al. does not teach genetic modification with a PLATZ domain of a FSL locus in a Vv. Vninifera plant causes reflexed stamens. Although Fechter et al. teaches there is a possible candidate gene as PLATZ transcription factor (Figure 2) and furthermore Ramos et al. Table 5 teaches PLATZ transcription factor’s expression in male flowers (from Vv. sylvestris) is considerably higher than in the female (from Vv. sylvestris) and hermaphrodite flower type (from Vv. vinifera) among many of the other genes in the region, the arts do not specifically teaches that the modification of the PLATZ domain in a Vv. vinifera FSL locus would cause reflexed stamens.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – Written Description Requirement
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 5, 69 and 76 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.
Following analysis is modified in light of applicant’s amendments of claim 1 reciting the modified phenotype flowers from hermaphrodite to reflexed stamens and amendment of claim 69 by reciting at least 99% identical to SEQ ID NO:9.
Claims are drawn to a Vitis vinifera vinifera (Vv. Vinifera) plant or part thereof having a reduced
Analysis of Breadth of Claims
Claim 1 and 5 recites “genetically modified” any PLATZ domain of any FSL locus that encompass any modification from any addition, deletion and regulation of a gene in a cell, or the progeny of any cell modified in any Vv. vinifera plant relative to corresponding gene encoding a PLATZ domain comprising the amino acid sequence set forth from residue 26 to residue 75 of the sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:1.
Any deleted or truncated DELLA domain of SEQ ID NO:8 other than SEQ ID NO:9 comprise large variants of SEQ ID NO:8 (claim 69 (iii)).
What is Described in the Specification
Applicant describes:
CRISPR/Cas9 mediated mutations were introduced within the putative PLATZ domain of the FSL gene with the aim of producing an FSL knockout microvine plant in order to determine gene function in flowering (page 80, lines 4-6).
All possible 20bp guide RNAs for FSL were identified using the online tool Benchling wherein gRNA which were located within the putative PLATZ domain were selected and then screened for in vitro cleavage with Cas9 and the DNA template (page 80, lines 9-12).
The TO plants with high mutation frequency around the predicted location were selected for crossing for the T1 generation (page 80, lines 34-35).
Two plants edited by sgRNAFS1 developed female flowers whereby the stamens were reflexed and the pollen was infertile as determined by a pollen germination assay (page 80, lines 35-36).
The mutation frequency around the guide sequence was 98% for both leaf and flower genomic DNA samples implying that both alleles have been mutated by gene editing and that the mutation can be transmitted to the T1 generation (page 81, lines 4-6).
Figure 10 shows the most frequent mutation type and position being either a T insertion or a T deletion at the 16th base of the guide sequence wherein the resulting edits of a T insertion or a T deletion correspond to positions 155 and 159 relative to the sequence set forth in SEQ ID NOs: 6 or 7 (page 81, lines 7-9).
Alignment of the predicted amino acid sequences for the FSL knock out and the H allele show that the knockout produced a nonsense mutation where protein synthesis is prematurely aborted due to a stop codon (Figure 11 ).
All homozygous mutants from the T1 generation produced by gene editing showed the conversion from hermaphrodite to female flowers with retracted stamens (page 90, first paragraph, Table 5) wherein only T1 C72 FS4 CTdel showed female flowers with no pollen.
Two genes in a single plant were combined of : 1) the mutated gene Gibberellic Acid Insensitive gene in either the heterozygous (GAU/gai1) or homozygous state (GAI1 /GAI1) that causes a dwarf stature and rapid flowering phenotype; and 2) the female FSL locus (f/f in the homozygous state) wherein Populations were visually phenotyped for plant stature and berry color (page 81, lines 30-34)
Difference Between What was Described and What is Claimed
Applicant has not described flower sex (FSL) locus other than a sex determining region comprising SEQ ID NO:4 encoding SEQ ID NO:1 that comprise the amino acid sequence set forth from residue 26 to residue 75 of the SEQ ID NO:1.
Applicant has not described the genetic modification in any PLATZ domain other than the PLATZ domain of SEQ ID NO:1 as residue 26 to residue 75 that would cause the domain non-functional and reflexed stamens in the Vv. Vinifera plants.
Applicant has not described PLATZ domain residue 26 to residue 75 is found in any other sequence other than SEQ ID NO:1 leading to hermaphrodite flowers in a Vv vinifera plant.
Applicant has not described an amino acid sequence as set forth in SEQ ID NO: 8, which has any amino acids deleted or truncated in DELLA domain would cause dwarf stature other than substitution leading to SEQ ID NO:9 (claim 69, step (iii)).
Analysis
The purpose of the written description is to ensure that the inventor had possession at the time the invention was made, of the specific subject claimed. For a broad generic claim, the specification must provide adequate written description to identify the genus of the claim.
Applicant has not described the genetic modification in any PLATZ domain other than the PLATZ domain of SEQ ID NO:1 as residue 26 to residue 75 that would cause the domain non-functional and reflexed stamens in the Vv. Vinifera plants. The recitation of phrase “comprises one or more nucleotide additions, deletions within the region encoding the PLATZ domain relative to the corresponding polynucleotide sequence encoding the PLATZ domain within the wildtype FSL locus allele confers a hermaphrodite flower phenotype when expressed” leads to any structure of the genome of the plant. Then the plant would have any genomic structure with any number of additions and deletions. This encompasses large variants of the genomic structure of the Vv. vinifera plant. The plant is only described by the function of plant having flowers of the Vv. vinifera plant have reflexed stamens or with the PLATZ domain being non-functional.
A genetically modified FSL locus would encompass transformation, transduction, mutation or modulating regulation of gene. Applicant defines “The term "genetically modified", "genetic modification", "modified" (in the context of a nucleic acid sequence) and variations thereof, is a broader term that includes introducing a gene into a cell by transformation or transduction, mutating a gene in a cell and genetically altering or modulating the regulation of a gene in a cell, or the progeny of any cell modified as described above.” (Spec, page 52, lines 20-24). Applicant has described knockout mutation in PLATZ domain of the FSL locus using CRISPR nuclease and specific sgRNAs that showed the Vitis spp. plants do not develop functional male reproductive organs (page 93, lines 11-15). Wherein applicant has not described such mutation in any other locus from any other plants other than the SEQ ID NOs: 1 and 4 from Vv. vinifera (see Spec, example 5 and 12). For this reason, Applicant has not described any modification of any FSL locus other than deletion and insertions in the PLATZ domain of SEQ ID NOs: 1 encoded by SEQ ID NO:4 that would modify the stamen structure leading to reflexed stamens.
Applicant has not described mutation in a PLATZ domain other than the PLATZ domain found in the nucleotide sequence and encoded protein of Cabernet sauvignon as SEQ ID NOs: 1 and 4. Alignment of PLATZ domain as showed in Figure 3 to the NCBI nucleotide database showed it has 100% identity to different accession which identified different other domain as PLATZ domain other than the aligned region (see enclosed PDFs). For example GenBank accession RVW41062.1 showed the PLATZ region to be from 128-199 which comprise only part of the PLATZ domain showed by applicant in Figure 3 for SEQ ID NO:1. NCBI Reference Sequence: XP_002280288.1 showed the region also differs in cultivated Pinot Noir 40024 (see enclosed PDF).
Furthermore, Rui et al. (Published: 2023, Journal: Journal of Fruit Science 40(1) ：13-24 DOI:10.13925/j.cnki.gsxb.20220247) teaches genome wide identification of grape PLATZ family genes, wherein 13 PLATZ members were identified distributed in 9 chromosomes with various differences in amino acid length varying from 115-306 amino acids and evolutionary diversity in grape PLATZ genes with various distribution of intro-exon. Therefore applicant has not described any PLATZ members of gene would have caused reflexed stamens other than the SEQ ID NO: 4 encoding SEQ ID NO: 1. Furthermore, Gu et al. (Published: 2024, Journal: BMC Plant Biology 24:1276, pages: 1-18) teaches for example in plants of Dendrobium huoshanense PLATZ has various functions (see page 12, Figure 9) wherein various modification of the zinc finger domains, DNA-binding domain and conserved motifs leading to various functions (see page 10, Figure 7, see snippet below where blue line represent conserved domain of PLATZ). Gu et al. teaches their finding showed that specific PLATZ genes are crucial to have specific function such as to adapt to cold and MeJA stress (page 16, right first paragraph). Gu et al. teaches the PLATZ domain proteins are involved in complex regulatory networks governing gene expression and the interaction has specific functional roles (page 16, left paragraph 2). Therefore, Any PLATZ domain which has genetic modification compared to the PLATZ domain of SEQ ID NO:1 from residue 26 to residue 75 in Vv. Vinifera would have any structure. Therefore, there is dearth of description of modification in any PLATZ members of gene would have caused reflexed stamens other than the modification in PLATZ domain of the SEQ ID NO: 4 encoding SEQ ID NO: 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
602
1313
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, there is dearth of description of modification of any PLATZ domain containing gene in Vv. Vinifera compared to the PLATZ domain of SEQ ID NO:1 would have caused reflexed stamens development. Furthermore, Applicant has not described PLATZ domain of SEQ ID NO:1 is found in any other sequence other than SEQ ID NO:1 itself.
Applicant has not described flower sex locus or flower sex polypeptide other than SEQ ID NOs: 4 encoding SEQ ID NO:1. Arts does not show specific boundary of the sex locus. Badouin et al. (Published: 2020, Journal: Genome Biology 21:223 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-020-02131-y) (Previously submitted in PTO 892 of 06/12/2024) considered VviYABBY3 outside of the sex locus, while Massonet et al. (Published: 2020, Journal: Nature communications 11:2902, pages 1-12 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16700-z) (Previously submitted in PTO 892 of 03/07/2025) considered it inside. Iocco-Corena et al. (Published: 2021, Journal: Nature Communications 12:6995 pages 1-10 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27259-8) found that both VviAPT3 and VviYABBI are outside of the sex locus (page9, last paragraph, page 11, Figure 5). There are several genes in the sex locus. Massonnet et al.’25 (Published: 2025, Journal: Nature Communications 16:6047, pages 1-15) teaches in Vitis spp., flower sex is determined by a sex-determining region (SDR) located on chromosome 2 and spanning approximately 200 kbp wherein Vitis SDR is composed of twelve to fourteen protein-coding genes, with five genes involved in floral organ development and identity in plants (Table 1, see table below) (page 1, lest last and right first paragraph). Therefore, t the modification would only require any PLATZ domain difference than the PLATZ domain comprising the amino acid sequence set forth from residue 26 to residue 75 of the sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1 the FSL locus of any of any length. Instead, applicant has not described modification of the PLATZ domain in any other sequence other than the SEQ ID NO:1 of Vv. Vinifera plants.
PNG
media_image2.png
531
1243
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant has not described an amino acid sequence as set forth in SEQ ID NO: 8, which has any amino acids deleted or truncated in DELLA domain would cause dwarf stature other than substitution leading to SEQ ID NO:9 (claim 69, step (iii)).
The recited genus of Vv. vinifera plant or part thereof comprising a variant of the gibberellic acid insensitive (GAI1) gene which comprises deleted or truncated DELLA domain relative to the corresponding wildtype sequence wherein the GAI1 encodes a GAI1 protein comprising the amino acid sequence which is at least 95% identical to the sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 9 provided that the amino acid sequence of the variant GAl1 protein comprises a Leu to His substitution at position 38 relative to the sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 8. Furthermore, applicant describes in page 42, lines 7-9 that a point mutation present in the variant VvGAI1 gene converts a leucine residue of the conserved DELLA domain into histidine, thereby altering the gibberellic acid (GA) response properties of the plant. For example, the amino acid sequence that has at least 95% identity to SEQ ID NO: 9 encompasses a large variant of SEQ ID NO: 9. Therefore, there is death of description of an amino acid sequence as set forth in SEQ ID NO: 8, which has any amino acids deleted or truncated in DELLA domain that would cause dwarf stature other than substitution leading to SEQ ID NO:9 (claim 69, step (iii)).
Given the virtually large structural variation associated with these embodiments of modification of any PLATZ domain containing flower sex determining region in any Vv. vinifera plants, the claims read on an extremely broad and highly diverse structures that needs to have specific function of dwarf stature and reflexed stamens. Thus, in view of the analysis presented above, a skilled artisan would appreciate that the claims are directed to extremely broad and highly diverge genus of sequence variants that are required to have the specific function of dwarf stature and absence of male reproductive part in Vv. vinifera plants.
"The test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to one skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date." Ariad Pharm, Inc, v EH Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, ina, 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). "An applicant shows possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations. Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPG2d at 1966". While the written description requirement does not demand either examples or an actual reduction, actual "possession" or reduction to practice outside of the specification is not enough. Ariad Pharm, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F,3d 1336,1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Rather, it is the specification itself that must demonstrate possession. Id.
Thus, based on the analysis above, Applicant has not met either of the two elements of the written description requirement as set forth in the court's decision in Eli Lilly. As a result, it is not clear that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus at the time this application was filed.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 01/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues at page 30 lines 14-15 of the application the Applicant defines the male reproductive part as the stamen as below:
The male reproductive part is generally referred to as the "stamen" and the female reproductive part is referred to as the "pistil".
Applicant argues they have shown that modification in the PLATZ domain causes the male reproductive part to be non-functional, i.e. a reflexed stamen or a poorly formed stamen and the Figure 9B illustrates the poorly formed stamens as acknowledged by the Examiner at the last dots point on page 7 of the NFOA (Response to Rejection, page 21 and 22, last and first paragraph).
Applicant argues Nevertheless, in an effort to advance prosecution of the application, claim 1 is amended to:
delete reference to wildtype FSL locus allele of Vitis vinifera vinifera which confers a "male" flower phenotype; and
delete reference to "male reproductive part of a flower of the Vitis vinifera vinifera plant is non-functional" and instead recite that "flowers of the Vitis vinifera vinifera plant have reflexed stamens".
Applicant submits that the amended claims are commensurate in scope with what is described in the application as filed and with the Applicant's contribution to the art (Response to Rejection, page 22, second paragraph).
Applicant argues as previously discussed, the specification provides experimental evidence that the introduction of artificial insertions and deletions at varying locations within the region encoding the PLATZ domain from residue 26 to residue 75 of the sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1 using RNA guide endonucleases resulted in a female flower phenotype in Vitis vinifera vinifera. See e.g., Examples 5 and 12 and Table 5 in the application as filed (Response to Rejection, page 22, third paragraph).
Applicant argues Applicant has shown experimentally that the introduction of genetic modifications within the PLATZ domain of the FSL locus in Vitis vinifera vinifera which disrupts the PLATZ domain ORF (i.e., introducing a premature stop codon), leads to premature abortion of protein synthesis of the PLATZ domain and FSL knockout (i.e., a non-functional PLATZ domain), which confers a flower phenotype characterized by flowers with reflexed ( or retracted) stamens (Response to rejection, page 23, paragraph 5).
The Applicant submits that the rejection is obviated by the amendment to claim 1 which now specifies that an artificial genetic modification within the region encoding the PLATZ domain of the FSL locus causes the PLATZ domain to be non-functional, such that "flowers of the Vitis vinifera vinifera plant have reflexed stamens" (Repones to Rejection, pages 23 and 24, last and first paragraphs).
Specifically, amended claim 1 requires that: (i) the wildtype FSL locus allele of Vv. vinifera which confers the hermaphrodite flower phenotype encodes a PLATZ domain comprising the amino acid sequence set forth from residue 26 to residue 75 of the sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1;
(ii) the artificial genetic modification is within a region encoding the PLATZ domain and is modified relative to the corresponding polynucleotide sequence of a wildtype FSL locus allele of Vitis vinifera vinifera encoding the PLATZ domain, which confers a hermaphrodite flower phenotype when expressed; and
(iii) the artificial genetic modification causes the PLATZ domain to be (iii) the artificial genetic modification causes the PLATZ domain to be non-functional in the Vitis vinifera vinifera plant or plant part such that flowers of the Vitis vinifera vinifera plant have reflexed stamens (Repones to Rejection, page 24, paragraphs 2-4).
Applicant argues that they submit that skilled person would appreciate that a reflexed stamen phenotype is a characteristic of the female flower phenotype and is utilized by grapevine breeders and biologists for cultivar development. Applicant argues notwithstanding that some of the phenotypically female flowers produced from the Vitis vinifera vinifera mutants had pollen that was deemed viable in a viability assay (which was noted by the Examiner at pages 6, 7, 10 and 14 of the NFOA dated 8 September 2025), the skilled person would appreciate that the reflexed stamen, which is bent backward and away from the pistil, physically hinders/prevents self-pollination and is a critical phenotypic determinant of the female flower. Applicant argues the skilled person would therefore classify such flowers as exhibiting a female flower phenotype because they possess a reflexed stamen and are not capable of self-pollination as per flowers that exhibit a conventional hermaphroditic flower phenotype with erect stamens. Applicant argues the skilled person would also appreciate that in certain mutants in which the stamen is reflexed, the pollen is in fact infertile due to an impairment in germination (See locco-Corena et al (2021) Nat Comm, 12;6995, and Caporali et al (2003) Plant Reprod.15:291-300) (Repones to Rejection, pages 24 and 25, last and first paragraphs).
Applicant argues the application describes representative artificial genetic modification within the region of the hermaphrodite FSL locus allele encoding the PLATZ domain of Vv. vinifera (defined by residue 26 to residue 75 of the sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1). Applicant argues these genetic modifications have been shown experimentally to cause the PLATZ domain to be non-functional (i.e., FSL knock out) in the Vv. vinifera plant, resulting in flowers of a Vv. vinifera plant, which would ordinarily be phenotypically hermaphroditic, that have reflexed stamens i.e., a characteristic of a female flower phenotype (as discussed above) (Repones to Rejection, page 25, paragraph 2).
Applicant argues experimental evidence is provided for several representative insertion and deletion mutations within the region of the FSL locus encoding the PLATZ domain resulting disruption/knockout of the PLATZ domain, a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider the specification to teach a general principle and find it plausible that any artificial genetic modification in the region encoding the PLATZ domain of a wildtype hermaphrodite FSL locus allele of Vv. vinifera would similarly result in a flower phenotype in which the stamens are reflexed when the PLATZ domain is disrupted and rendered non-functional. Applicant argues in this regard, the skilled person would appreciate that the Applicant's contribution to the art resides inter alia in the novel finding that the PLATZ domain encoded by the FSL locus controls male reproductive part morphology and thereby influence the flower sex phenotype. Applicant argues the skilled person would appreciate that the Applicant's contribution to the art resides inter alia in the novel finding that the PLATZ domain encoded by the FSL locus controls male reproductive part morphology and thereby influence the flower sex phenotype. Applicant argues the skilled person could readily produce other mutations within the region of the FSL locus encoding the PLATZ domain (which is described and claimed) and easily screen those mutants for flower morphology to determine whether or not the PLATZ domain is functional or non-functional, without undue burden, by following the teaching in the application as filed and using skills common in the art (Repones to Rejection, pages 25 and 26, last and first paragraphs).
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive since:
Regarding argument on the specification provide experimental evidence of insertions and deletions within the PLATZ domain from residue 26 to residue 75 of the sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1 using RNA guide endonucleases that would obviate the rejection was not found persuasive since in claim 1 the claim only compares (i.e. relative) the PLATZ domain of SEQ ID NO:1 to any modification in any of the PLATZ domain in the any of the FSL locus. Therefore, the claim recites any of modification in any of a PLATZ domain of the Vv. Vinifera plant that is different from the domain of SEQ ID NO:1. The claim does not specifically recite the PLATZ domain of SEQ ID NO:1 has been modified, instead it recites modification in any PLATZ domain in any FSL locus that would be structurally different from the PLATZ domain of SEQ ID NO:1 in Vv. Vinifera plant causing reflexed stamens. Furthermore, applicant has not described any other sequence would have the PLATZ domain of SEQ ID NO:1 in Vv.Vinifera from residue 26 to residue 75 other than SEQ ID NO:1 itself. For example, alignment of residue 26 to residue 75 of the SEQ ID NO:1 to NCBI database showed it aligns with the PLATZ domain of cultivar "PN40024" of V. vinifera and there are no other sequence with the specific residues of 26 to residue 75 of the SEQ ID NO:1 in any other sequence other than one in the cultivar "PN40024" of V. vinifera. Therefore, there is dearth of description of modification of any of the PLATZ domain in Vv. Vinifera leading to reflexed stamin other than the PLATZ domain in SEQ ID NO:1.
Regarding argument on modification is relative to PLATZ domain comprising the amino acid sequence set forth from residue 26 to residue 75 of the sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1 in a hermaphrodite flowering plant, it was not found persuasive since all the Vv. vinifera plants are hermaphrodite and there would be variations in the reduced level of flower sex (FSL) polypeptide activity compared to the differences in flower sex in different Vv. vinifera plants. Furthermore, applicant has not described modification in any flower sex determining region other than the PLATZ domain of SEQ ID NO:1 as showed from residue 26 to residue 75 that would cause defective male flower morphology or reflexed stamens.
Regarding argument on the skilled person would therefore classify such flowers as exhibiting a female flower phenotype because they possess a reflexed stamen was not found persuasive since applicant states “female flower is characterized by a functional carpel and reflexed stamens and infertile pollen that does not germinate” (page 1, lines 30-32).
Regarding argument on the PLATZ domain to be non-functional or absent in the Vitis vinifera vinifera plant or plant part, it was not found persuasive since applicant has not expressly teach what is the genomic structure of the PLATZ domain that would be rendered as absent or nonfunctional. Since there is variations in PLATZ domain in Vv. vinifera, see analysis above.
Regarding argument on recent amendments on claim 69, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive since Applicant has not described any allele other than SEQ ID NO: 9 that would have the recited function of the protein that does not respond to gibberellic acid signaling or responds poorly to gibberellic acid signaling compared to the wildtype GAl1 protein set forth in SEQ ID NO: 8 other than SEQ ID NO: 8 with Leu to His substitution at position 38 in the conserved DELLA domain. For this reason, there is dearth of description of any amino acid sequence as set forth in SEQ ID NO: 8, which has a deleted or truncated DELLA domain.
Summary
No claim is allowed.
Claims 1, 5, 69 and 76 are free of prior art. The closest prior art is Ramos et al. (Published: 2017, Journal: Plant Mol Biol (2017) 93:151–170) and Fechter et al. (Published Year: 2012, Journal Mol Genet Genomics 287:247–259 DOI 10.1007/s00438-012-0674-z) (Included in IDS submitted on 06/12/2024). Fechter et al. teaches there is a possible candidate gene as PLATZ transcription factor (Figure 2) and Ramos et al. Table 5 teaches PLATZ transcription factor’s expression in male flowers (from Vv. sylvestris) is considerably higher than in the female (from Vv. sylvestris) and hermaphrodite flower type (from Vv. vinifera) among many of the other genes in the region, the arts do not specifically teaches that the modification of the PLATZ domain in a Vv. vinifera FSL locus would cause reflexed stamens.
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.
Examiner’s Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTOSH SHARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-8440. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 A. ABRAHAM can be reached at (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.
/SANTOSH SHARMA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1663
/DAVID H KRUSE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663
Prosecution Insights