Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-3, 7-11, 13-14 and 17-20 are pending.
Claims 1-3, 7-11 and 13 are examined.
Claims 14 and 17-20 are withdrawn.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/7/2026 has been entered.
Withdrawn Rejections
The rejection of claims 1-11 and 13 for having an improper Markush group is withdrawn in light of amendments made by Applicant.
The rejection of claims 1-11 and 13 under 35 USC 103 is withdrawn in light of amendments made by Applicant.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification on pages 31-32 is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim 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.
Claims 1-3, 7-11 and 13 remain 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.
Due to Applicant's amendment of the claims, the rejection is modified from the rejection set forth in the Office action mailed 10/7/2025, as applied to claims 1-11 and 13.
Applicant claims a method of preventing, inhibiting or treating soft rot in a vegetable, fruit or ornamental plant comprising contacting the plant with a composition comprising one or more isolated quorum quenching lactonases.
Claim 1, for example, encompasses a method of using an effective amount of any quorum quenching lactonase comprising at least 95% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 to inhibit or treat soft rot in any fruit, vegetable, or ornamental plant by degrading acyl-homoserine lactone. Claims 2 and 3 specify that the plant is a potato and cucumber, respectively. The limited teachings of the specification fail to describe a number of species representative of the claimed genus of methods. The teachings of the prior art fail to supply the requisite teachings, but instead confirm the variability of pathogens that cause dry rot and the host species of plants affected.
Applicant describes assigning lactonases to one of six groups being tested for effect on growth of bacterial pathogens, Pectobacterium carotovorum (Pcc) and Pectobacterium atrosepticum (Pca), in vitro. Applicant describes that multiple lactonases reduce growth of the pathogens (Figure 9). Applicant describes that multiple lactonases reduced biofilm formation, which is a component of pathogenicity (page 31, paragraph 2). Applicant describes that there is not a uniform reduction in growth across the enzyme groups or bacterial species and that ten enzymes reduced growth of Pcc and five reduced growth of Pca (paragraph bridging pages 30-31). Applicant describes testing lactonase function and impact of plant growth on potatoes (page 31, paragraph 3). Applicant describes other exemplary plant species hosts of soft rot-causing bacteria species but does not appear to have reduced to practice with these species (paragraph bridging pages 29 and 30).
Applicant does not describe a method of preventing, inhibiting or treating soft rot in a vegetable, fruit or ornamental plant, as broadly claimed.
The teachings in the art do not cure the deficiency of the disclosure. Charkowski (Charkowski, A. Annual Review of Phytopathology. 56::269-88. 2018) teaches that bacterial soft rot is caused by multiple genera of bacteria, including but not limited to Dickeya and Pectobacterium (Abstract). Charkowski teaches there are multiple species within Dickeya and Pectobacterium that cause soft rot and that the primary species differs over time and across locations (Abstract). Charkowski teaches there are many host plant species affected by the species within Dickeya and Pectobacterium that cause soft rot (Table 1).
Given the breadth of the genera encompassed by the claims, the described species are not sufficiently representative.
The only structures described by Applicant is enzymes reducing the growth of two species of a single genus of bacteria known to cause soft rot, Pectobacterium. Applicant has not set forth the structure-function relationship for the claimed genus such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize which members of the recited genus of quorum quenching lactonases can be used as for preventing, inhibiting or treating soft rot. It is not clear that the claimed invention would be useful for any species in any genus of bacteria the produces soft rot. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to recognize which members of the claimed genus would be able to prevent, inhibit or treat soft rot across the multiple genera and species therein that cause soft rot. Applicant has not taught that application of the enzymes in a method claimed would be effective to prevent, inhibit or treat soft rot in any plant. The knowledge in the art does not cure the deficiency because it is known that soft rot is caused my multiple pathogens across at least two genera of bacteria. Applicant has only described testing efficacy of enzymes to reduce growth in vivo in two species from a single genus of bacteria. Therefore, Applicant has not complied with the written description requirement.
Applicant’s arguments regarding rejection under 35 USC 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement
Applicant argues on page 3 of the Remarks filed 1/7/2026 that Claim 1 has been amended to require the lactonase has at least 95% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 or 2 and that this satisfies the written description requirement for being commensurate in scope with the working examples in Example 3 and Figures 11A and 11B.
This argument has been fully considered but it is not persuasive. Contrary to Applicant’s remarks, it is noted that amended claim one has cancelled SEQ ID NO: 2. Applicant does not describe a method of preventing, inhibiting or treating soft rot in a vegetable, fruit or ornamental plant, as broadly claimed as detailed in the rejection above. While Applicant has narrowed the scope of lactonases, the scope of host plants and soft rot-causing bacteria is still unlimited. Given the diversity of host plants affected and soft rot-causing bacteria known in the art, it is not clear that Applicant had possession across the full breadth of the genus as claimed.
Applicant in their response should refer to the Specification as filed, not the PGPub., as the PGPub is not part of the file wrapper. Applicant refers to paragraph numbers (e.g., “paragraph [0090]”, but the Specification as filed does not have paragraph numbers.
Scope of enablement
Claims 1-3, 7-11 and 13 remain 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 method of reducing growth of Pectobacterium carotovorum (Pcc) and Pectobacterium atrosepticum (Pca) in vitro with five enzymes, 43L2, 34L2, 43L4, 34L3 and 43L3, reduced the growth of both pathogens (Figure 9A), does not reasonably provide enablement for a method of preventing, inhibiting or treating soft rot in a vegetable, fruit or ornamental plant comprising contacting the plant with a composition comprising one or more isolated quorum quenching lactonases. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Due to Applicant's amendment of the claims, the rejection is modified from the rejection set forth in the Office action mailed 10/7/2025, as applied to claims 1-11 and 13.
Applicant claims a method of preventing, inhibiting or treating soft rot in a vegetable, fruit or ornamental plant comprising contacting the plant with a composition comprising one or more isolated quorum quenching lactonases. Claim 1, for example, encompasses a method of using an effective amount of any quorum quenching lactonase comprising at least 95% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 to inhibit or treat soft rot in any fruit, vegetable, or ornamental plant by degrading acyl-homoserine lactone. Claims 2 and 3 specify that the plant is a potato and cucumber, respectively. The limited teachings of the specification fail to describe a number of species representative of the claimed genus of methods. The teachings of the prior art fail to supply the requisite teachings, but instead confirm the variability of pathogens that cause dry rot and the host species of plants affected.
Applicant teaches lactonases assigned to one of six groups being tested for effect on growth of bacterial pathogens Pectobacterium carotovorum (Pcc) and Pectobacterium atrosepticum (Pca) in vitro. Applicant teaches that multiple lactonases reduce growth of the pathogens (Figure 9). Applicant teaches that multiple lactonases reduced biofilm formation, which is a component of pathogenicity (page 31, paragraph 2). Applicant teaches that there is not a uniform reduction in growth across the enzyme groups or bacterial species and that ten enzymes reduced growth of Pcc and five reduced growth of Pca (paragraph bridging pages 30-31). Applicant teaches testing lactonase function and impact of plant growth on potatoes (page 31, paragraph 3). Applicant teaches other exemplary plant species hosts of soft rot-causing bacteria species but does not appear to have reduced to practice with these species (paragraph bridging pages 29 and 30).
Applicant does not teach a method of preventing, inhibiting or treating soft rot in a vegetable, fruit or ornamental plant, as broadly claimed.
Zhang et al. (Appl Microbiol Biotechnol (2007) 74:667–675) teaches that lactonase is known to inhibit soft rot caused by Erwinia carotovora; however, there is not enough known in the prior art to predictably infer that the in vivo studies limited to two species from a single genus of bacteria would be effective as a treatment applied to a plant for symptoms that can be caused by other species within Pectobacterium and other genera of bacteria. It would require undue experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the clamed method because it is known that the causal pathogen for soft rot changes across locations and over time. The lactonases taught by Applicant do not consistently prevent growth across enzymes.
Charkowski (Annual Review of Phytopathology. 2018. 56: 269-288) teaches that bacterial soft rot is caused by multiple genera of bacteria, including but not limited to Dickeya and Pectobacterium (Abstract). Charkowski teaches there are multiple species within Dickeya and Pectobacterium that cause soft rot and that the primary species differs over time and across locations (Abstract).
Given the lack of predictability in the art and the lack of guidance provided by Applicant, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been enabled to predictably practice the claimed method of preventing, inhibiting or treating soft rot in a vegetable, fruit or ornamental plant comprising contacting the plant with a composition comprising one or more isolated quorum quenching lactonases.
While the teachings of the prior art make obvious a species that is encompassed by the recited genus of methods (see the obviousness rejection below), the teachings of the specification are not sufficient to enable the full scope of the claimed invention.
Therefore, Applicant has not complied with the enablement requirement.
Applicant’s arguments regarding rejection under 35 USC 112(a) for failing to comply with the enablement requirement
Applicant argues on pages 3-4 of the Remarks filed 1/7/2026 that Claim 1 has been amended to require the lactonase has at least 95% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 or 2 and that this satisfies the written description requirement for being commensurate in scope with the working examples in Example 3 and Figures 11A and 11B.
This argument has been fully considered but it is not persuasive. Contrary to Applicant’s remarks, it is noted that amended claim one has cancelled SEQ ID NO: 2. Applicant does not describe a method of preventing, inhibiting or treating soft rot in a vegetable, fruit or ornamental plant, as broadly claimed as detailed in the rejection above. While Applicant has narrowed the scope of lactonases, the scope of host plants and soft rot-causing bacteria is still unlimited. Given the diversity of host plants affected and soft rot-causing bacteria known in the art, it is not clear that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to practice the claimed method without undue experimentation across the full breadth of the genus as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 7-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (Wang et al. Applied Environmental Microbiology. 2010. 76(8):2524-2530) in view of Chauhan (Chauhan D., Yennamalli R.M., Priyadarshini R. Accession A0A246BJ83_9DEIO. Submitted (MAY-2017) to the EMBL/GenBank/DDBJ databases), Wang 2012 (Wang et al. Applied Environmental Microbiology. 2012 Nov. 78(22):7985-7992) and Meng (Meng et al. Plant Disease. 2017. 101:279-287).
Due to Applicant's amendment of the claims, the rejection is modified from the rejection set forth in the Office action mailed 10/7/2025, as applied to claims 1-11 and 13.
An embodiment of claim 1 requires a method of contacting any vegetable, fruit or ornamental plant with a composition including a quorum quenching lactonase comprising at least 95% identity with SEQ ID NO: 1 to prevent, inhibit or treat soft rot in a vegetable, fruit or ornamental plant by degrading acyl-homoserine lactone.
Claim 2 specifies that the vegetable of claim 1 is a potato.
Claim 3 specifies that the fruit of claim 1 is a cucumber.
Claim 7 specifies that the fruit or vegetable of claim 1 is contacted with the composition.
Claim 8 specifies that the vegetable of claim 1 is suspected of being infected with a pathogen.
Claim 9 is drawn to the pathogen of claim 8 comprising Pectobacterium.
Claim 10 is drawn to the pathogen of claim 8 comprising Erwinia.
Claim 11 specifies that the lactonase of claim 1 is from Deinococcus.
An embodiment of claim 13 specifies that the contacting of claim 1 includes immersing.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 7, Wang teaches contacting a potato with the N-Acylhomoserine lactone (AHL)-degrading lactonase, AiiM, on the surfaces of potato slices (Abstract). Wang teaches that AiiM quenched the virulence in Pectobacterium carotovorum (page 2529, left column, paragraph 2). N-Acylhomoserine lactones (AHLs) are used by many bacteria for cell-cell communication referred to as quorum sensing (Wang, page 2524, left column, paragraph 1). Therefore, the method of Wang is interpreted as encompassing contacting with an isolated quorum quenching lactonase.
Regarding claims 8-9, Wang teaches the potato sample comprised both the lactonase AiiM and Pectobacterium carotovorum (page 2529, paragraph bridging left and right columns).
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches that Pectobacterium carotovorum was formerly referred to as Erwinia carotovora (page 2524, left column, paragraph 1). Because the instant disclosure is also drawn to Pectobacterium, this limitation is interpreted as being met by Pectobacterium carotovorum.
Regarding claim 13, the method of Wang teaches inoculation of a potato slice (page 2526, left column, paragraph 4; page 2529, paragraph bridging left and right columns). This is interpreted as reading on “immersing”.
Wang 2012 teaches that AHL lactonases comprise metallo-β-lactamases and α/β-hydrolase-folds (page 7988, right column, paragraph 2). Wang 2012 teaches that AiiA is an AHL-degrading lactonase that has been shown to attenuate pathogenicity of P. carotovorum in crops. Wang 2012 teaches that AiiA is a metallo-β-lactamase (page 7985, left column, paragraph 2). Wang 2012 teaches that zinc (Zn2+) is essential for the AHL-degrading activity AiiA (page 7990, right column, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 1, Wang does not teach that the lactonase shares at least 95% identity with SEQ ID NO: 1.
Regarding claim 3, Wang does not teach a method of contacting a cucumber with a composition including an isolated quorum quenching lactonase.
Regarding claim 11, Wang does not teach that the lactonase is from Deinococcus.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Chauhan teaches A0A246BJ83_9DEIO, a MBL fold metallo-hydrolase sequence from Deinococcus sharing 97.6% identity with instant SEQ ID NO: 1. See alignment below.
At time of filing, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of contacting a plant with a quorum quenching lactonase such as AiiM taught by Wang by contacting a plant with the enzyme of Chauhan because the enzyme was known to comprise a MBL metallo-hydrolase fold. The enzyme of Chauhan would be expected to have AHL lactonase activity given the teaching of Wang 2012. One would have expected that contacting a plant with this enzyme would result in less damage caused by P. carotovorum due to the quorum sensing of P. carotovorum being quenched by the degradation of AHL. One would have been motivated to degrade AHLs of P. carotovorum to reduce its virulence.
Regarding claim 3, Meng teaches soft rot caused by P. carotovorum damages cucumber (Abstract).
At time of filing, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the method taught by Wang of contacting a plant with a quorum quenching lactonase such as AiiM to a cucumber because Meng teaches that cucumber is damaged by P. carotovorum. One would expect a cucumber contacted with AiiM to have less damage as a result because Wang teaches that AiiM quenches virulence of P. carotovorum. One would have been motivated to do so because it was known that AiiM quenches virulence of P. carotovorum, which was known to cause damage in cucumber, as taught by Meng.
Therefore, the claims are made obvious in view of the teachings and suggestions of the prior art.
Alignment of A0A246BJ83_9DEIO taught by Chauhan with instant SEQ ID NO: 1:
RESULT 1
A0A246BJ83_9DEIO
ID A0A246BJ83_9DEIO Unreviewed; 213 AA.
AC A0A246BJ83;
DT 25-OCT-2017, integrated into UniProtKB/TrEMBL.
DT 25-OCT-2017, sequence version 1.
DT 08-OCT-2025, entry version 17.
DE SubName: Full=Hydrolase {ECO:0000313|EMBL:OWL95384.1};
GN ORFNames=CBQ26_12365 {ECO:0000313|EMBL:OWL95384.1};
OS Deinococcus indicus.
OC Bacteria; Thermotogati; Deinococcota; Deinococci; Deinococcales;
OC Deinococcaceae; Deinococcus.
OX NCBI_TaxID=223556 {ECO:0000313|EMBL:OWL95384.1, ECO:0000313|Proteomes:UP000197208};
RN [1] {ECO:0000313|EMBL:OWL95384.1, ECO:0000313|Proteomes:UP000197208}
RP NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE [LARGE SCALE GENOMIC DNA].
RC STRAIN=DR1 {ECO:0000313|EMBL:OWL95384.1,
RC ECO:0000313|Proteomes:UP000197208};
RA Chauhan D., Yennamalli R.M., Priyadarshini R.;
RT "De novo genome assembly of Deniococcus indicus strain DR1.";
RL Submitted (MAY-2017) to the EMBL/GenBank/DDBJ databases.
CC -!- COFACTOR:
CC Name=Zn(2+); Xref=ChEBI:CHEBI:29105;
CC Evidence={ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00001947};
CC -!- CAUTION: The sequence shown here is derived from an EMBL/GenBank/DDBJ
CC whole genome shotgun (WGS) entry which is preliminary data.
CC {ECO:0000313|EMBL:OWL95384.1}.
CC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC Copyrighted by the UniProt Consortium, see https://www.uniprot.org/terms
CC Distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) License
CC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR EMBL; NHMK01000017; OWL95384.1; -; Genomic_DNA.
DR RefSeq; WP_088248942.1; NZ_BNAM01000012.1.
DR AlphaFoldDB; A0A246BJ83; -.
DR OrthoDB; 9802248at2; -.
DR Proteomes; UP000197208; Unassembled WGS sequence.
DR GO; GO:0016787; F:hydrolase activity; IEA:UniProtKB-KW.
DR GO; GO:0046872; F:metal ion binding; IEA:UniProtKB-KW.
DR Gene3D; 3.60.15.10; Ribonuclease Z/Hydroxyacylglutathione hydrolase-like; 1.
DR InterPro; IPR051453; MBL_Glyoxalase_II.
DR InterPro; IPR001279; Metallo-B-lactamas.
DR InterPro; IPR036866; RibonucZ/Hydroxyglut_hydro.
DR PANTHER; PTHR46233; HYDROXYACYLGLUTATHIONE HYDROLASE GLOC; 1.
DR PANTHER; PTHR46233:SF3; HYDROXYACYLGLUTATHIONE HYDROLASE GLOC; 1.
DR Pfam; PF00753; Lactamase_B; 1.
DR SMART; SM00849; Lactamase_B; 1.
DR SUPFAM; SSF56281; Metallo-hydrolase/oxidoreductase; 1.
PE 4: Predicted;
KW Hydrolase {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00022801, ECO:0000313|EMBL:OWL95384.1};
KW Metal-binding {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00022723};
KW Reference proteome {ECO:0000313|Proteomes:UP000197208};
KW Zinc {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00022833}.
FT DOMAIN 21..197
FT /note="Metallo-beta-lactamase"
FT /evidence="ECO:0000259|SMART:SM00849"
FT REGION 192..213
FT /note="Disordered"
FT /evidence="ECO:0000256|SAM:MobiDB-lite"
FT COMPBIAS 203..213
FT /note="Basic and acidic residues"
FT /evidence="ECO:0000256|SAM:MobiDB-lite"
SQ SEQUENCE 213 AA; 22329 MW; EA6C5465FEADBAAA CRC64;
Query Match 97.6%; Score 1115; Length 213;
Best Local Similarity 97.7%;
Matches 208; Conservative 1; Mismatches 4; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 MTAPFTHGPLRVWSLPTGPIQENAVLIAGEQGQGFLIDPGDDAGRIAALVAASGVTVTGI 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||
Db 1 MTAPFTHGPLRVWSLPTGPIQENAVLIAGEQGQGFLIDPGDDAGRIAALVAGSGVTVTGI 60
Qy 61 LLTHAHFDHIGAVQPLREQLGVPVWLHPDDRELYALGAQSAARWNLPFTQPAPPDHDITG 120
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||:|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 LLTHAHFDHIGAVQPLREQLGVPVWLHPADRDLYALGAQSAARWNLPFTQPAPPDHDITD 120
Qy 121 GQTFTAGDLTLTARHLPGHAPGHVVFVAPGVVIAGDTLFQGGIGRTDLPGGNHPQLLAGI 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 GQTFTAGDLTLTARHLPGHAPGHVVFVAPGVVIAGDTLFQGGIGRTDLPGGNHPQLLAGI 180
Qy 181 RTQLLTLPDDTAVYPGHGPRTSVGHERRSNPFL 213
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 RAQLLTLPDDTAVYPGHGPRTSVGHERRSNPFL 213
Applicant’s arguments regarding rejection under 35 USC 103
Applicant argues on page 5 of the Remarks filed 1/7/2026 that none of the references teach the specific lactonases claimed. Therefore, Applicant argues, the instantly claimed invention was not obvious in light of teachings and suggestions in the prior art.
This argument has been fully considered but it is not persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC 103 has been modified in response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims to not comprise SEQ ID NO: 2. It would have been obvious to modify the teaching of Wang to use the lactonase taught by Chauhan, which shares over 97% identity with SEQ ID NO: 2, because the enzyme of Chauhan would be expected to have AHL lactonase activity given the teaching of Wang 2012. One would have expected that contacting a plant with the enzyme of Chauhan would result in less damage caused by P. carotovorum due to the quorum sensing of P. carotovorum being quenched by the degradation of AHL. One would have been motivated to degrade AHLs of P. carotovorum to reduce its virulence.
Conclusion
Claims 1-3, 7-11 and 13 remain rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R BYRNES whose telephone number is (571)270-3935. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 5:00 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bratislav Stankovic can be reached at (571) 270-0305. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID R BYRNES/Examiner, Art Unit 1662