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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f) [AU2019902678 filed on 07/26/2019 and AU2019903883 filed on 10/15/2019] and 35 U.S.C. 365(c) [national stage of PCT/IB2020/056992 filed on 07/24/2020] is acknowledged. As such the effective filing date for Claims 1-3, 7, 15, 19-21, 30-31, 35-36, and 44-46 is 07/26/2019.
Status of the Claims
Amendments dated 03/10/2026 have been entered.
Claims 44-46 are newly added.
Claims 1-3, 7, 15, 19-21, 30-31, 35-36, and 44-46 are pending.
Claims 1-3, 7, 15, 19-21, 30-31, 35-36, and 44-46 are examined herein.
Improper Markush Grouping
The following is a new rejection from those set forth in the Office Action dated 11/10/2025 in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims dated 03/10/2026. Applicant’s Remarks dated 03/10/2026 have been reviewed and are acknowledged but are deemed inapposite to the new rejections.
Claim 45 is rejected on the basis that they contain an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
The Markush grouping of SEQ ID NOs: 3, 28, and 48-58 is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons:
Claim 45 recites the plant cell from claim 1, wherein the protein encoded by the DOT1 gene comprises the amino acid sequence of any one of SEQ ID NOS: 3, 28, and 48-58. When doing a seq-to-seq alignment of SEQ ID NO: 3 relative to SEQ ID NOs: 28 and 48-58, the majority of sequences that were compared to SEQ ID NO: 3 returned results having only 62.1-36.9% sequence identity relative to SEQ ID NO: 3. The only exception was SEQ ID NO: 57 which appear to be a duplicate of SEQ ID NO: 3 (100% sequence identity relative to SEQ ID NO: 3 and from the same plant species). When doing a seq-to-seq alignment of SEQ ID NO: 28 relative to SEQ ID NOs: 3 and 48-58, the majority of the sequences that were compared to SEQ ID NO: 28 returned results having only 78.9-42.0% sequence identity relative to SEQ ID NO: 28. The only exception was SEQ ID NO: 58 which had 100% sequence identity relative to SEQ ID NO: 28 and from the same plant genus. Although Claim 1, from which Claim 45 depends, requires that the sequences must have one or more EAR domains in common, this feature does not impart a substantial structural feature on SEQ ID NOs: 3, 28, and 48-58 in view of Kagale and Rozwadowski (Plant Signaling & Behavior 5.6 (2010): 691-694; pg. 692, Table 1). Kagale and Rozwadowski teach that the presence of EAR domains with LxLxL and/or DLNxxP motifs are extremely common in a large number of transcription factors, that are not denoted as DOT1 genes, from many diverse plant sources. As such, the requirement that SEQ ID NOs: 3, 28, and 48-58 have an EAR domain does not establish a substantial structural feature in view of the prior art based on the abundance of genes in the prior art comprising EAR domains with LxLxL and/or DLNxxP motifs, that are not denoted as DOT1 genes, wherein these structural features/motifs cannot solely be used by one of ordinary skill in the art to identify/recognize the claimed genus of DOT1 genes from any diverse plant source.
Hence, the included species of the claimed invention do not share both a substantial structural feature and a common function that flows from the substantial structural feature.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Indefiniteness
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
These are new rejections from those set forth in the Office action dated 11/10/2025 made in view of the Applicant’s amendments to the claims dated 03/10/2026. Applicant’s Remarks dated 03/10/2026 have been reviewed and are acknowledged but are deemed inapposite to the new rejections.
Claims 1-3, 7, 15, 19-21, 30-31, 35-36, 44, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3 and 20 recite the term “DOT1” which renders the claims indefinite. It is unclear based on the instant disclosure (paragraph bridging pgs. 12-13, which identifies two species of the broad genus of DOT1 genes denoted as ZmDOT1 and OsDOT1) what structural components are required from a sequence to be considered a DOT1 gene. Are all DOT1 genes from any plant species known in the art required to have an EAR domain and be a zinc finger C2H2 type family protein, like ZmDOT1 (pg. 12, lines 27-32) and OsDOT1 (pg. 26, lines 1-2)? Or are DOT1 genes only required to have an EAR domain? Are all DOT1 genes from any plant species known in the art required to have the same motif sequences as OsDOT1 (LLLSL)? Or is there a different structure that is required for a sequence to be considered a DOT1 gene? Or perhaps, is a DOT1 gene from any plant source known in the art required to have a common function relative to ZmDOT1 or OsDOT1? Computation analysis, such as the analysis set forth in FIG. 13, does not provide structural or functional characteristics of the broad genus of any DOT1 gene from any plant species known in the art in such a way as to define the metes and bounds of the claimed genus. As such, it is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to identify any known DOT1 gene from any diverse source; and therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claims 7, 15, 19, 21, 30-31, 35-36, 44, and 46 all ultimately depend from Claim 1 and are therefore rejected for the same reasons as given above.
Claim 45 is excluded from this rejection as the claim is directed to specific SEQ ID NOs which are defined by Applicant as being species of DOT1 genes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Written Description
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.
These are new rejections from those set forth in the Office action dated 11/10/2025 made in view of the Applicant’s amendments to the claims dated 03/10/2026. Applicant’s Remarks dated 03/10/2026 have been reviewed and are acknowledged but are deemed inapposite to the new rejections.
Claims 1-3, 7, 15, 19-21, 30-31, 35-36, and 44-46 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.
The Federal Circuit has clarified the written description requirement. The court stated that a
written description of an invention "requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, [or] chemical name, of the claimed subject matter sufficient to distinguish it from other materials". University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568; 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The court also concluded that "naming a type of material generally known to exist, in the absence of
knowledge as to what that material consists of, is not description of that material". Id. Further, the court
held that to adequately describe a claimed genus, Patent Owner must describe a representative number
of the species of the claimed genus, and that one of skill in the art should be able to "visualize or recognize the identity of the members of the genus". Id.
The instant claims are broadly directed to a plant cell from any species of plant that has been modified to inhibit or prevent expression of a DOT1 gene and/or the activity of a protein encoded by the DOT1 gene. The claims broadly encompass any DOT1 gene known in the art from any diverse plant source.
The scope of the claimed genus of “DOT1” genes from any diverse plant source is unclear given the indefinite nature of the claims (See 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above). As such, the Applicant is not in possession of a claimed genus for which the metes and bounds are indefinite.
In the instant specification, Applicant describes three genes which they denote as being from the broad genus of DOT1 genes encompassed by the claims— ZmDOT1 denoted as NCBT gene accession GRMZM2G150011 which is not used in the methods or plant cells of the instant invention (pg. 12, lines 27-30), OsDOT1 denoted as SEQ ID NO: 1 which is used in the working examples of the methods and plant cells of the instant invention (pg. 26, lines 1-2), and SvDOT1 denoted as SEQ ID NO: 28 which is used in the working examples of the methods and plant cells of the instant invention (pg. 34).
Applicant only describes two species of DOT1 genes in the working examples in the instant specification, using CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing to knock out a Oryza sativa DOT1 gene (SEQ ID NO: 1; LOC_Os09g 13680) in a rice plant, using artificial miRNA to inhibit expression of Oryza sativa DOT1 gene (SEQ ID NO: 1; LOC_Os09g 13680) in a rice plant, and using CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing to knock out a Setaria viridis DOT1 gene (SEQ ID NO: 28) in a Setaria viridis plant.
Applicant does not describe any DOT1 gene from any plant species known in the art other than ZmDOT1 (which was not an exemplified species of DOT1 genes used in the methods of the invention), OsDOT1, and SvDOT1. The structural features that distinguish DOT1 genes from any diverse plant source are not described in the instant specification in such a way that one of ordinary skill in art would be able to identify members of the claimed genus, nor is any direction given for one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to find DOT1 genes in any plant species due to the lack of adequate disclosure regarding the structural features that define DOT1 genes. Applicant does not describe any DOT1 genes from any diverse plant source that possess EAR domains, other than OsDOT1 and SvDOT1. Applicant does not describe any DOT1 genes from any diverse plant source that possess motif sequences defined as LxLxL, DLNxxP, or an overlap of LxLxL and DLNxxP, other than OsDOT1 and SvDOT1. Applicant does not describe the inhibition or prevention of expression and/or activity across the broad genus of any DOT1 gene known in the art from any diverse plant source, much less all of the plants recited in Claims 15, 35, 44, or 46, or using all of the sequences recited in Claim 45. Applicant does not describe the structure-function relationship across the broad genus of any DOT1 gene from any diverse plant source that has undergone the inhibition or prevention of expression and/or activity in such a way that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to differentiate DOT1 genes from any diverse plant source that can perform any sort of function when expression and/or activity is prevented or inhibited, from DOT1 genes from any diverse plant source that cannot perform any sort of recited function when expression and/or activity is prevented or inhibited, much less in all of the plants recited in Claims 15, 35, 44, or 46, or using the sequences recited in Claim 45.
When looking at the state of the prior art in regards to EAR domains, even if DOT1 genes across the broad genus have the structural requirement of comprising an EAR domain with LxLxL and/or DLNxxP motifs, which is targeted for inhibition or prevention of expression and/or activity, this requirement does not provide an adequate description of all the structure/functional requirements for identifying the broad genus of DOT1 genes from any diverse plant source in such a way that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize all members of the claimed genus. The prior art discloses that the presence of EAR domains with LxLxL and/or DLNxxP motifs are extremely common in a large number of transcription factors, that are not denoted as DOT1 genes, from many diverse plant sources, as disclosed in Kagale and Rozwadowski (Plant Signaling & Behavior 5.6 (2010): 691-694; pg. 692, Table 1). As such, based on the abundance of genes in the prior art comprising EAR domains with LxLxL and/or DLNxxP motifs, that are not denoted as DOT1 genes, it would appear that these structural features/motifs cannot be the sole structural features one of ordinary skill in the art uses to identify/recognize the claimed genus of DOT1 genes from any diverse plant source.
Based on the instant disclosure and the teachings of the prior art, Applicant has failed to describe a representative number of DOT1 genes from any diverse plant source, so that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to readily visualize members of the claimed genus. Applicant has failed to describe the structural features of DOT1 genes from any diverse plant source, so that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to readily visualize members of the claimed genus. Neither the specification nor the prior art provide adequate written description of the structural features of DOT1 genes so that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to differentiate sequences that have the same function as OsDOT1 or SvDOT1 when expression or activity is inhibited in a plant cell, from those sequences which would not provide the same function in a plant cell as OsDOT1 or SvDOT1 when expression or activity is inhibited. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize that Applicant was in possession of the necessary common attributes or features of the genus in view of the disclosed species and working examples. Since the disclosure fails to describe the common attributes that identify members of the claimed genus, the disclosure and examples using OsDOT1 and SvDOT1 are insufficient to describe the claimed genus in the broadly claimed plant cells and methods of the invention. 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 Lily.
Scope of Enablement
Claims 1-3, 7, 15, 19-21, 30-31, 35-36, and 44-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a modified plant cell and method of inhibiting or preventing expression of OsDOT1 and SvDOT1, and/or activity of a protein encoded by the gene, does not reasonably provide enablement for a modified plant cell or method of inhibiting or preventing expression of any DOT1 gene from any diverse plant source, and/or activity of a protein encoded by any DOT1 gene from any diverse plant source. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The claimed invention is not supported by an enabling disclosure taking into account the Wands factors. In re Wands, 858/F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In re Wands lists a number of factors for determining whether or not undue experimentation would be required by one skilled in the art to make and/or use the invention. These factors are: the quantity of experimentation necessary, the amount of direction or guidance presented, the presence or absence of working examples of the invention, the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the relative skill of those in the art, the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and the breadth of the claim.
The instant claims are broadly directed to a plant cell from any species of plant that has been modified to inhibit or prevent expression of a DOT1 gene and/or the activity of a protein encoded by the DOT1 gene. The claims broadly encompass any DOT1 gene known in the art from any diverse plant source.
In the instant specification, Applicant only teaches three genes which they denote as being from the broad genus of DOT1 genes encompassed by the claims— ZmDOT1 denoted as NCBT gene accession GRMZM2G150011 which is not used in the methods or plant cells of the instant invention (pg. 12, lines 27-30), OsDOT1 denoted as SEQ ID NO: 1 which is used in the working examples of the methods and plant cells of the instant invention (pg. 26, lines 1-2), and SvDOT1 denoted as SEQ ID NO: 28 which is used in the working examples of the methods and plant cells of the instant invention (pg. 34).
Applicant only teaches two species of DOT1 genes in the working examples in the instant specification, using CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing to knock out a Oryza sativa DOT1 gene (SEQ ID NO: 1; LOC_Os09g 13680) in a rice plant, using artificial miRNA to inhibit expression of Oryza sativa DOT1 gene (SEQ ID NO: 1; LOC_Os09g 13680) in a rice plant, and using CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing to knock out a Setaria viridis DOT1 gene (SEQ ID NO: 28) in a Setaria viridis plant.
Applicant does not teach any DOT1 gene from any plant species known in the art other than ZmDOT1 (which was not an exemplified species of DOT1 genes used in the methods of the invention), OsDOT1, and SvDOT1. The structural features that distinguish DOT1 genes from any diverse plant source are not taught in the instant specification in such a way that one of ordinary skill in art would be able to identify members of the claimed genus, nor does the specification provide guidance for one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to recognize DOT1 genes in any plant species due to the lack of adequate disclosure regarding the structural features that define DOT1 genes. Applicant does not teach any DOT1 genes from any diverse plant source that possess EAR domains, other than OsDOT1 and SvDOT1. Applicant does not teach any DOT1 genes from any diverse plant source that possess motif sequences defined as LxLxL, DLNxxP, or an overlap of LxLxL and DLNxxP, other than OsDOT1 and SvDOT1. It would require undue experimentation to find all DOT1 genes in any plant species known in the art, due to the lack of adequate disclosure regarding the structural features that define DOT1 genes, much less identifying all DOT1 genes know in the art and inhibiting/preventing their expression using any method known in the art.
Applicant does not teach the inhibition or prevention of expression and/or activity across the broad genus of any DOT1 gene known in the art from any diverse plant source, much less all of the plants recited in Claims 15, 35, 44, or 46, or using all of the sequences recited in Claim 45. Applicant does not teach the structure-function relationship across the broad genus of any DOT1 gene from any diverse plant source that has undergone the inhibition or prevention of expression and/or activity in such a way that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to differentiate DOT1 genes from any diverse plant source that can perform any sort of function when expression and/or activity is prevented or inhibited, from DOT1 genes from any diverse plant source that cannot perform any sort of recited function when expression and/or activity is prevented or inhibited, much less in any of the plants recited in Claims 15, 35, 44, or 46, or using the sequences recited in Claim 45 without undue experimentation.
When looking at the state of the prior art in regards to EAR domains, even if DOT1 genes across the broad genus have the structural requirement of comprising an EAR domain with LxLxL and/or DLNxxP motifs, which is targeted for inhibition or prevention of expression and/or activity, this singular requirement does not provide adequate guidance for all of the structural/functional requirements for identifying the broad genus of DOT1 genes from any diverse plant source in such a way that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize all members of the claimed genus without undue experimentation. The prior art discloses that the presence of EAR domains with LxLxL and/or DLNxxP motifs are extremely common in a large number of transcription factors, that are not denoted as DOT1 genes, from many diverse plant sources, as disclosed in Kagale and Rozwadowski (Plant Signaling & Behavior 5.6 (2010): 691-694; pg. 692, Table 1). As such, based on the abundance of genes in the prior art comprising EAR domains with LxLxL and/or DLNxxP motifs, that are not denoted as DOT1 genes, it would appear that these structural features/motifs cannot be the sole structural features one of ordinary skill in the art uses to identify/recognize the claimed genus of DOT1 genes from any diverse plant source.
Based on the teachings of the prior art and the inadequate teachings in the instant specification regarding the structural/functional requirements for the broad genus of any DOT1 gene from any diverse plant source, it would require undue experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art to identify all DOT1 genes from any plant species known in the art, much less identify all DOT1 genes from any diverse source and design constructs or antagonists for gene inhibition/prevention using any method of genetic modification known in the art. It would require further undue experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art to identify all DOT1 genes from any diverse source and design constructs or antagonists for gene inhibition/prevention using any method of genetic modification known in the art wherein the constructs or antagonists perform the required function of deleting all or a portion of one or more EAR domains or binding of an antagonist or antagonists to the EAR domain(s).
Closest Prior Art
Claims 1-3, 7, 15, 19, 35-36, and 44-45 appear to be free of the prior art. The closest prior art in regard to Claims 1-3, 7, 15, 19, 35-36, and 44-45 can be found in Petricka et al. (The Plant Journal 56.2 (2008): 251-263; IDS Document) which discloses loss of function Arabidopsis thaliana diepoxybutane-, activation tagging- or Dissociation/Activator transposon-mutagenized plant populations, wherein in one subpopulation of mutagenized plants the loss of function gene is the A. thaliana gene denoted as a At1g13290 (DOT5) (pg. 257, Figures 4e and 4j; pg. 260, Experimental Procedures, Mutant Isolation). As evidenced by the instant specification, At1g13290 is an orthologue of the instantly claimed SEQ ID NO: 1 (See pg. 12, lines 30-31 and Drawings, Figure 13), however, At1g13290 does not comprise a nucleotide sequence that is denoted as a DOT1 gene and At1g13290 does not comprise an EAR domain, therefore, Petricka does not provide any motivation or suggestion to inhibit the expression or activity of At1g13290 by modifying any portion of said EAR domain. Additionally, Petricka does not provide any rationale to express then inhibit At1g13290 in any monocotyledonous plants, such as a Poaceae/Gramineae (grass), Linaceae, Euphorbiaceae, or Bromeliaceae; family member; or rice, wheat, maize, barley, oat, rye, common millet, finger millet, teff, sugar cane, or sorghum; or Ananas comosus, Manihot esculenta, Setaria italica, Oryza sativa, Oryza sativa Japonica, Oryza sativa Kitaake, Brachypodium distchyon, Zea mays, Sorghum bicolor, Anasus comosus, or Linum usitatissimum.
Claims 20-21, 30-31, and 46 appear to be free of the prior art. The closest prior art in regard to Claims 20-21, 30-31, and 46 can be found in the combination of Petricka et al. (The Plant Journal 56.2 (2008): 251-263; IDS Document) in view of Chuang et al. (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97.9 (2000): 4985-4990).
Petricka teaches loss of function Arabidopsis thaliana diepoxybutane-, activation tagging- or Dissociation/Activator transposon-mutagenized plant populations, wherein in one subpopulation of mutagenized plants the loss of function gene is the A. thaliana gene denoted as a At1g13290 (DOT5) (pg. 257, Figures 4e and 4j; pg. 260, Experimental Procedures, Mutant Isolation). As evidenced by the instant specification, At1g13290 is an orthologue of the instantly claimed SEQ ID NO: 1 (See pg. 12, lines 30-31 and Drawings, Figure 13).
Chuang teaches a method of using double-stranded RNAi to selectively reduce gene function of endogenous Arabidopsis thaliana genes (Abstract). Chuang teaches the creation of a DNA construct denoted as p35S::A-GUS-S comprising the endogenous A. thaliana gene (AG, CLV3, AP1, and PAN), wherein the β-glucuronidase (GUS) fragment containing nucleotides 787–1,809 was used as a linker between gene-specific fragments in the antisense and sense orientations (pg. 4985, Materials and Methods, Constructs). Agrobacterium strain ASE carrying p35S::A-GUS-S in pCGN1547 was used to transform Arabidopsis plants (T0) by vacuum infiltration. Transformed Arabidopsis lines (T1) were selected on Murashige/Skoog (Sigma) plates containing kanamycin (50 μg/ml). Kanamycin-resistant seedlings were then transferred to soil. Chuang teaches that for each of the selected endogenous Arabidopsis genes, p35S∷A-GUS-S constructs caused potent and specific genetic interference (pg. 4986, Results, first paragraph). However, At1g13290, as disclosed in Petricka, does not comprise and EAR domain; therefore, Petricka does not provide any motivation or suggestion to inhibit expression of At1g13290 by modifying any portion of an EAR domain or providing an antagonist that binds to an EAR domain as taught by Chuang. Additionally, the combination of Petricka and Chuang do not provide any teachings or rationale to target the inhibition of At1g13290 in the range of plants recited in instant Claims 20 and 46 or the range of cell types recited in Claim 30-31.
Conclusion
No claims are 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 KELSEY L. MCWILLIAMS whose telephone number is (703)756-4704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:00-17:30.
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) 270-7058. 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.
/KELSEY L MCWILLIAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 1663
/Amjad Abraham/SPE, Art Unit 1663