DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Status 1. Claims 1- 2, 5- 9 , 11- 13, and 21 are pending and under examination on the merits to the extent of the elected species of SEQ ID NO:3, epoxy hydrolase, and Mogroside IIE . Claims 3-4, 10, and 14-20 are cancelled. Response to Arguments – Objections to the Specification 2. Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed January 06, 2026 have been carefully considered and do not overcome all of the objections of record. Regarding the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code on p. 41, ln. 33 , said hyperlink remains present on p. 41, ln. 33 of the substitute specification filed January 06, 2026 . Accordingly, this objection is maintained. Objections to the Specification 3 . The disclosure is objected to because of the following: p. 41, ln. 33 contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. Appropriate correction is required. Response to Arguments – Claim Objections 4. Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed January 06, 2026 have overcome the objections of record. However, said amendments have necessitated new grounds of objection. Claims 3-4 have been cancelled; therefore, any objections and rejections to these claims have been rendered moot. Claim Objections 5 . Claims 1 , 6, 7 - 9, 11-1 2 and 21 are objected to because of the following: Claim 1, ln. 6 contains a grammatical error; it is recommended Applicant insert the article “and” before “wherein the expression cassette”. Claim 6, lns . 2-3 contain a grammatical error; it is recommended Applicant amend “promoter, space, epitope tag, terminator, reporter gene” to “a promoter, a spacer, an epitope tag, a terminator, a reporter gene” or “promoters, spacers, epitope tags, terminators, reporter genes”, as appropriate. See also: claim 7. Claim 12 contains a grammatical error; it is recommended Applicant amend “enabling the progeny” to “which enables the progeny”. Dependent claims are included. Appropriate correction is required. Response to Arguments – Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 6. Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed January 06, 2026 have overcome the rejections of record. Claims 3-4 have been cancelled; therefore, any objections and rejections to these claims have been rendered moot. Response to Arguments – Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d) 7. Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed January 06, 2026 have overcome the rejection of record. Response to Arguments – Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) 8 . Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed January 06, 2026 have overcome the rejection s of record. However, said amendments have necessitated new grounds for rejection under the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Claims 3-4 have been cancelled; therefore, any objections and rejections to these claims have been rendered moot. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) 9 . 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. 10 . Claims 1- 2, 5- 9, 11-13, and 21 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 transgenic C. lanatus comprising a genomic transformation event comprising each of SEQ ID NOs:1-5 and producing mogrol precursors, mogrol , and mogrosides , does not reasonably provide enablement for a transgenic C. lanatus comprising a genomic transformation event comprising SEQ ID NO: 3 and producing mogrol precursors, mogrol , and mogrosides . When determining whether a claimed invention complies with the enablement requirement, factors to consider include: “(1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breadth of the claims.” Id . Regarding claims 1 and 2, the specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to reproduce the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Applicant’s disclosure is as described in the previous Office action dated 09/05/2025 (see pp. 09-10) and will be summarized herein as needed. Applicant discloses working examples of the production of mogrosides in transgenic Citrullus lanatus plants transformed with an expression vector comprising a cucurbitadienol synthase (CDS; SEQ ID NO:1), cytochrome P450 (CYP87D18; SEQ ID NO:2), epoxy hydroxylase ( EPH3 ; SEQ ID NO:3), squalene epoxidase (SQE; SEQ ID NO:4), and uridine-dependent glycosyltransferase ( UGT720 ; SEQ ID NO:5). The state of the art teaches the biosynthesis of mogrosides in the monk fruit Siraitia grosvenorii wherein the mogroside biosynthetic pathway comprises cucurbitadienol synthases, cytochrome P450s, epoxy hydroxylases, squalene epoxidases, and uridine-dependent glycosyltransferases (US-2017/0283844-A1, published 10/05/2017 ( previously cited ) ; Abstract ) . The state of the art does not teach the production of mogrosides in C. lanatus nor any enzymes sufficient for mogroside biosynthesis in C. lanatus . Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could not predict, with any reasonable expectation of success, how to produce mogrosides in a C. lanatus plant without further guidance from Applicant’s disclosure. However, Applicant does not disclose working examples of transgenic C. lanatus plants producing mogrosides wherein said plant comprises SEQ ID NO:3 in the absence of SEQ ID NOs:1-2 and 4-5. Applicant also discloses no working examples of transgenic watermelon producing mogrosides as a result of transformation with a polypeptide having only 98% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:3. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could not predict, with any reasonable expectation of success, how to produce mogrosides in a C. lanatus plant comprising only SEQ ID NO:3 (or a polypeptide having 98% sequence identity thereto) . One of ordinary skill in the art could not predict which enzymes and/or polypeptides would produce mogrosides when co-expressed with SEQ ID NO:3, besides the four polypeptides described by Applicant (SEQ ID NOs:1-2 and 4-5), with any reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, a C. lanatus plant comprising only SEQ ID NO:3 is not predictably functional and is not enabled. Similarly, a C. lanatus plant comprising a polypeptide having only 98% sequence identity with SEQ ID NO:3 is not predictably functional and is not enabled. In making this determination, the Office has weighed each of the Wands factors. The breadth of the claims is directed to a transgenic C. lanatus plant comprising SEQ ID NO:3 and producing mogrosides , mogrol , and/or precursors thereof. The nature of the invention comprises the production of the non-sugar sweetener mogroside in watermelon fruit. The level of ordinary skill in the plant biotechnology art is high. The state of the prior art is not highly developed with regard to the non-native production of mogrosides in non-monk fruit plants. The state of the prior art teaches the biosynthesis, and enzymes involved therein, of mogrosides in monk fruit. The state of the prior art does not teach the biosynthesis of mogrosides in watermelon. Applicant’s working examples demonstrate the production of mogrosides in transgenic watermelon comprising each of SEQ ID NOs:1-5 in their entirety. Applicant discloses no examples of the production of mogrosides in watermelon comprising SEQ ID NO:3 (or a polypeptide having 98% sequence identity thereto) in the absence of SEQ ID NOs:1-2 and 4-5. Applicant does not disclose the control of a representative sample of the transgenic watermelon as broadly claimed, nor does Applicant provide sufficient information for one of ordinary skill to produce said watermelon without engaging in extensive and undue experimentation. Given these difficulties, notwithstanding a relatively high level of ordinary skill of those in the art, the amount of experimentation would likely be extensive and undue. Dependent claims 5-9, 11-13, and 21 do not provide sufficient limitations to address the deficiencies regarding the unpredictability of mogroside production in a C. lanatus plant comprising SEQ ID NO:3 in the absence of SEQ ID NO:1-2 and 4-5. Therefore, claims 5-9, 11-13, and 21 are also not enabled. Weighing all of the Wands factors based on the totality of the record as discussed above, the Office determines that it would require undue experimentation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention as claimed. Response to Arguments – Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 13 . Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed January 06, 2026 have overcome the rejections of record. Claims 3-4 have been cancelled; therefore, any objections and rejections to these claims have been rendered moot. Response to Arguments – Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 14 . Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed January 06, 2026 have overcome the rejections of record. Claims 3-4 have been cancelled; therefore, any objections and rejections to these claims have been rendered moot. Response to Arguments – Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 15. Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed January 06, 2026 have not overcome the rejections of record. Claim 4 has been cancelled; therefore, any objections and rejections to this claim has been rendered moot. Response to Arguments – Double Patenting 16. Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed January 06, 2026 have overcome the rejections of record. Conclusion 17 . No claim is 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. 18. Regarding claims 1 and 2, the closest prior art , Itkin et al. (US-2017/0283844-A1, published 10/05/2017 ( previously cited )) , teaches mogrosides as non-sugar food sweeteners found in the fruit of Siraitia grosvenorii [0001-0003] ; enzymes involved in the mogroside biosynthetic pathway [0044-0050], [0099], [0125], [0136] (see: Figs. 1-2); a plant comprising a genomic transformation event [0069-0076] , wherein the genomic transformation event produces a non-native expression or concentration of mogroside pathway enzyme(s) [0067], [0223], [0225] , wherein the plant and/or a progeny and/or a seed thereof biosynthetically produce non- native mogrol precursors, mogrol , mogrosides , and/or metabolites or derivatives thereof [0079] . Examiner’s Contact Information 19 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Enter examiner's name" \* MERGEFORMAT DEQUANTARIUS JAVON SPEED whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-4779 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F; 9AM-5PM ET . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Amjad Abraham can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)-270-7058 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /DEQUANTARIUS JAVON SPEED/ Junior Examiner, Art Unit 1663 /Amjad Abraham/ SPE, Art Unit 1663