Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/768,582

METHODS OF OPTIMIZING TRANSGENE EXPRESSION IN PLANTS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Apr 13, 2022
Examiner
MCWILLIAMS, KELSEY LYNN
Art Unit
1663
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
BASF Corporation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
91%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 91% — above average
91%
Career Allow Rate
77 granted / 85 resolved
+30.6% vs TC avg
Minimal +5% lift
Without
With
+4.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
118
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.5%
-33.5% vs TC avg
§103
25.8%
-14.2% vs TC avg
§102
15.2%
-24.8% vs TC avg
§112
43.1%
+3.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 85 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/11/2025 has been entered. Examiner invites the applicant to call and schedule an interview at applicant’s convenience. Priority Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e). As such, the effective filing date of Claims 1-20 and 23-24 is 10/17/2019. Status of the Claims Amendments dated 07/11/2025 have been entered. Claims 21-22 and 25-37 are cancelled. Claims 1-20 and 23-24 are pending. Claims 1-19 and 24 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. Claims 20 and 23 are examined herein. The rejections to Claims 20 and 22-23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Virgili-Lopez et al. (Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2013, 14 (7), 13241-13265; IDS document dated 24 October 2023) in view of Parks et al. (US 20190040411 A1, published 02/07/2019), GenBank Accession XP_028207014.1 (dated 03/12/2019), and Froehlich et al. (The Plant Journal 68.5 (2011): 844-856; IDS Document dated 24 October 2023) have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s remarks in the reply filed 07/11/2025 and Applicant’s cancellation of Claim 22. Claim Interpretation Claim 20 recites, in part, “a MeSH DNA sequence”, which is defined in the specification to be “…membrane-specific hydrophobic "MeSH targeting sequences" or interchangeably "MeSH Sequences" wherein MeSH targeting sequences are protein sequences that target a protein encoded by a N-transgene ("N-protein") to an Anchor Membrane.” (Specification, pg. 2, lines 13-16) Per the definition disclosed by Applicant, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “MeSH DNA sequences” encompasses DNA sequences that encode hydrophobic transmembrane domains (TMDs) capable of anchoring target genes of interest to plant cell membranes. For clarity of the record, plant cell membranes included in the scope of the claimed invention are the chloroplast outer membrane, chloroplast inner membrane, chloroplast thylakoid membrane, mitochondrial outer membrane, mitochondrial inner membrane, peroxisome membrane, plasma membrane, nuclear membrane, pre-lytic vacuolar membrane, protein storage vacuolar membrane, endosome membrane, vesicle membrane, cell wall, ER membrane and Golgi membrane (Specification, pg. 1, lines 24-28). 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. Claims 20 and 23 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. Claim 20 recites the term “N-transgene” which renders the claim indefinite. The term “N-transgene” does not carry an art-recognized meaning and is not defined by the specification or the claims in such a way that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Since the term “N-transgene” is not known in the art, the use of said term does not carry an art-recognized limitation as to the specific characteristics associated with the transgenes that are included in the broad genus of “N-transgenes”. Additionally, when looking at Claim 20, Applicant narrows the claimed genus of “N-transgenes” to include all MTX, YVGO, or Monalysin transgenes known in the art. However, without a clear definition of the term “N-transgene” it is not clear if all MTX, all YVGO, or all Monalysin genes known in the art would be considered N-transgenes in the scope of the instant invention. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to recognize the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Claim 23 depends from Claim 20 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as given above. Closest Prior Art Claims 20 and 23 appear to be free of the prior art. The closest prior art in regards to Claims 20 and 23 can be found in Virgili-Lopez et al. (Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2013, 14 (7), 13241-13265; IDS document dated 24 October 2023) in view of Parks et al. (US 20190040411 A1, published 02/07/2019), GenBank Accession XP_028207014.1 (dated 03/12/2019), and Froehlich et al. (The Plant Journal 68.5 (2011): 844-856; IDS Document dated 24 October 2023). Regarding Claims 20 and 23, Virgili-Lopez et al. (herein referred to as Virgili-Lopez) teaches a method of accumulating higher amount of a target protein in transgenic plants, and more specifically an expression cassette comprising a hydrophobic transmembrane domain DNA sequence (MeSH DNA, See Claim Interpretation) (pgs. 13243-44, bridging paragraph) and a CaMV 35S promoter (pg. 13245, first paragraph) operably linked to a DNA sequence encoding a target protein of interest, wherein the expression cassette was expressed in a plant cell (Nicotiana tabacum) (pg. 13258, last paragraph). Virgili-Lopez teaches that the transmembrane domain within the expression cassette anchors the DNA sequence encoding a target protein of interest to the plant endoplasmic reticulum membrane (Anchoring Membrane), where the target DNA sequence was expressed, resulting in a large accumulation of target protein polymers encoded by the target DNA sequence in the ER lumen (Abstract; Figure 1; Figure 3). Virgili-Lopez teaches that targeting to the ER membrane results in relatively high stability and accumulation when compared to anchoring to other endomembrane. Virgili-Lopez also teaches that the methods of the present invention and the plant expression cassette introduced to the ER membrane of the plant cell are safe environment for the accumulation of many foreign proteins, avoids luminal post-translational modifications that occur downstream the ER along the secretory pathway, allows folding of cytosolic proteins in their native environment and at the same time escape proteasomal degradation, and is not limited to the model protein used in the present invention (pg. 13261, Conclusions). The “DNA sequence encoding a target protein of interest” (HIV p24) that is comprised within the plant expression cassette taught by Virgili-Lopez is explicitly described as a model protein that is merely used in the methods of Virgili-Lopez as proof of concept to compare in vivo stability and final accumulation level of a foreign recombinant protein expressed in transgenic tobacco, by exploiting different membrane-anchoring strategies that lead to various localizations within the endomembrane system (pg. 13261, Conclusions). This disclosure puts one of ordinary skill in the art on notice that if a skilled artisan wanted to implement the method of Virgili-Lopez, the HIV p24 model protein is a replaceable/substitutable composition in the methods of Virgili-Lopez, wherein the model protein could be replaced with any known foreign gene of interest. However, Virgili-Lopez does not teach an embodiment of the invention where this is the case, much less an embodiment of the invention wherein the protein of interest is a pesticidal transgene. Regarding Claim 20, Parks et al. (herein referred to as Parks) teaches DNA construct comprising a promoter that drives expression in a plant cell operably linked to a recombinant nucleic acid molecule comprising (a) a nucleotide sequence that encodes a polypeptide comprising an amino acid sequence, wherein several of the SEQ IDs listed are drawn to MTX pesticidal transgenes (Claim 10, Table 1, pgs. 3-76; SEQ ID NO: 3, 5, 6, 11, 13, 18, 19, 22, 29, 33, 42, 45, 47, 49, 54, 55, 57, 59, 63, 64, 66, 70, 73, 76, 77, 86, 88, 93, 95, 97, 101, 105, 108, 110, 112, 114, 115, 117, 126, 128, 129, 132, 133, 136, 139, 144, 146, 148, 149, 151, 153, 158, 161, 167, 170, 172, 174, 175, 182, 183, 194, 196, 201, 202, 211, 214, 219, 222, 227, 229, 235, 243, 251, 265, 272, 282, 285, 290, 291, 294, 304, 306, 310, 312, 314, 316, 320, 328, 329, 335, 337, 340, 342, 348, 350, 358, 360, 365, 367, 369, 378, 380, 382, and 384). Parks also teaches that the DNA construct is comprised within a vector (Claim 10), wherein a host cell contains the vector (Claim 13), and the host cell is a plant cell (Claim 14). Parks also teaches the integration of said vector into a host plant cell for a method of protecting a plant from an insect pest (Claim 21). However, Virgili-Lopez and Parks do not teach the feature of Claim 20, wherein the MeSH DNA sequence encodes a protein comprising any one of SEQ ID NOs: 1, 3-83 or 288. Regarding Claim 20, GenBank Accession XP_028207014.1 (dated 03/12/2019) teaches an STN8 serine/threonine-protein kinase transmembrane protein derived from Glycine soja that has 100% sequence identity and 100% query coverage relative to instant SEQ ID NO: 288. Regarding Claim 20, Froehlich et al. (herein referred to as Froehlich) teaches that STN8 transmembrane proteins play a critical role in targeting integral membrane proteins to the thylakoid membrane (pg. 851, Table 6; STN8-WT), wherein STN8 localizes solely to the thylakoid fraction (pg. 852, left column, lines 1-2). Froehlich also teaches that different functional transmembrane proteins comprising a TMD domain can be substituted into expression cassettes to target different plant cell membranes [See Arc6 being expressed with 4 different transmembrane proteins in Table 6 (a)-(d) that localize to different plant cell membranes], and using the STN8 transmembrane protein to target protein accumulation in the thylakoid membrane is routine and well known in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success [pg. 851, See Table 6(c) where STN8 is stably expressed in the thylakoid membrane]. However, the combination of Virgili-Lopez et al. (Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2013, 14 (7), 13241-13265; IDS document dated 24 October 2023) in view of Parks et al. (US 20190040411 A1, published 02/07/2019), GenBank Accession XP_028207014.1 (dated 03/12/2019), and Froehlich et al. (The Plant Journal 68.5 (2011): 844-856; IDS Document dated 24 October 2023) does not teach or provide any motivation for transforming a plant with a DNA sequence that directs an expressed pesticidal N-transgene protein, nor does Virgili-Lopez teach SEQ ID NOs: 1, 3-83 or 288. Additionally, when reading Virgili-Lopez, one skilled in the art would not make the leap that a pesticidal N-transgene could be contemplated in Virgili-Lopez. Conclusion No claims are allowed. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 13, 2022
Application Filed
Aug 05, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Dec 09, 2024
Response Filed
Mar 05, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Jul 11, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 17, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Sep 02, 2025
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 02, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 05, 2026
Response Filed
Jan 05, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599082
PLANTS AND SEEDS OF HYBRID CORN VARIETY CH010486
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595519
MOLECULAR MARKERS FOR REDUCED PYRUVATE LEVEL TRAIT IN ALLIUM CEPA
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593804
SOYBEAN VARIETY 01098218
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584140
TYPE V CRISPR/NUCLEASE-SYSTEM FOR GENOME EDITING IN PLANT CELLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12564161
SOYBEAN CULTIVAR 21030432
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
91%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+4.9%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 85 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month