CTNF 17/936,824 CTNF 81591 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION Election/Restriction 08-25-01 AIA 1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 15-20), and SEQ ID NOs: 616 encoding SEQ ID NO: 709, defective for AG04 gene, plant species maize and FIS2 in the reply filed on August 28, 2025 is acknowledged . Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Accordingly, Claims 15-20 in conjunction with SEQ ID NOs: 616 encoding SEQ ID NO: 709, defective for AG04 gene, plant species maize and FIS2 are examined on merits in this Office action. This restriction is made FINAL. 08-23-02 AIA Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be amended in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(b) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. Any amendment of inventorship must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and by the fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i). Information Disclosure Statement 2. Initialed and dated copies of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 filed in the papers of 09/25/2025 are attached to the instant Office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Drawings 06-22 AIA 3. The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities: Figure 25 is objected to for small and illegible text, as well as the omission of part of the left-most column . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA 4. Claim s 15, and 17-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15 is objected to for grammatical informalities. The following amendments, presented in shorthand format only, would obviate this objection. In claim 15, line 2, it is suggested to insert a ----,---- after the first recitation of “plant”, and insert a ----:---- after “comprising”. In claim 18, line 4 of part (b) recites “complement” which appears to be error because elected SEQ ID NO: 709 is an amino acid sequence. Claims 17, 18, 19 and 20 are objected for having non-elected subject matter . Appropriate correction is required. Improper Markush Grouping 08-40 5. Claims 17-19 are rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See /n 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 § 706.03(y). The Markush grouping of species 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: In the instant case, the enzymes in claim 17 are not all members of an art-recognized class, given the divergent activities of each enzyme. For example, a cyclin dependent kinase has a different activity than the others. Furthermore, the species do not share a single structural similarity, because they do not share a substantial structural feature. Fischer et al (US 7,029,917) teach that FIE1 proteins comprise a SET domain, while FIE3 proteins comprise a WD40 domain, per column 3, lines 12-28. The different enzymes have different domains and substrates. Furthermore, in the instant case, the enzymes and sequences in claims 18-19 are not all members of an art- recognized class, given the divergent activities of each enzyme. For example, Suppressor of Variegation has a different activity and substrate than Chromomethylase, and an RNA-dependent RNA methylase has a different activity and substrate from a Nuclear Polymerase. Furthermore, the enzymes and sequences do not share a single structural similarity or a substantial structural feature. A prior art search for RDR6 did not recover any other sequences of claim 18 or any other enzymes of claim 19. It is suggested to the Applicant that in order 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. As indicated in claim objections, upon amending claims to remove the non-elected subject matter will also address this rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA 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. 07-31-01 6. Claims 15-20 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 claims are broadly drawn to a method for the enriching for asexual embryos and endosperm in the seed population of a plant comprising providing a plant comprising an asexual female gametophyte defective for RdDM activity, wherein the plant is disrupted for an activity that regulates endosperm development and wherein the seeds formed comprise parthenogenically- derived clonal embryos, or wherein an activity that regulates endosperm development in the PRC2 complex is disrupted, or wherein the asexual female gametophyte is disrupted for activity in Fertilization Independent Seed (FIS2), or wherein the plant is defective for RdDM activity is defective for: a nucleic acid having at least 90% identity to the full length of a nucleic acid of as set forth in SEQ ID NO: 616, or a fragment, complement or combination thereof; or a polypeptide having at least 90% identity to the full length of a polypeptide of the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NOs: 709, or a fragment, complement or combination thereof, or wherein the plant defective for RdDM activity is defective for AGO4 (ARGONAUTE 4), or wherein the plant defective for RdDM activity is maize. The breadth of claims encompasses of using nucleotide sequences from any source, with a multitude of divergent sequences and domains, and encoding a multitude of divergent enzymes involved in RNA-dependent DNA methylation (RdDM); wherein the suppression of said encoded enzymes results in parthenogenically-derived clonal embryos in any plant species. The divergent plant species include monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous species from divergent families, including Leguminosae, Brassicaceae, Solanaceae, Malvaceae, Compositae, or Poaceae. The claims further encompass a multitude of PRC2 (Polycomb repressive complex 2) enzymes involved in endosperm development, of any sequence or source or activity, which are disrupted. The breadth of claims encompass unknown structures from diverse organisms which are disrupted in FIS2 activity derived from diverse sources. The breadth of claims also encompass a genus comprising species with unknown structures having 90% identity to the nucleic acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 616, fragments and complements thereof. For example, a 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 616 would encompass 396 substitutions or changes relative to 3965 nucleotide sequence long polynucleotide of SEQ ID NO: 616; these encompass polynucleotide sequences that encode proteins with 396 amino acid substitutions relative to SEQ ID NO: 709 (encoded by SEQ ID NO: 616). These proteins would have 56% identity to SEQ ID NO: 709. A fragment or a complement of said sequences would further increase the size of genus with unknown structure and function. The breadth of claims also encompass a genus comprising species with unknown structures having 90% identity to the polypeptide sequence of SEQ ID NO: 709, and fragments thereof. For example, a 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 709 would encompass 91 substitutions or changes relative to 910 amino acid long sequence of SEQ ID NO: 909. A fragment or a complement of said sequences would further increase the size of genus with unknown structure and function. However, the specification only describes and provides guidance for the use of Arabidopsis plants which are mutants for RDR6, ARGONAUTE4, or ARGONAUTES to obtain parthenogenically-derived clonal embryos in Arabidopsis. No guidance is provided for the introduction or disruption of any other RdDM gene or encoded enzyme, in Arabidopsis or any other plant species. Moreover, no guidance is provided for down-regulating any enzyme involved in endosperm development, either by itself or in conjunction with any RdDM enzyme. The state of the related art suggests that the creation of parthenogenicall y -derived clonal embryos, via fertilization- independent embryo and endosperm development, is unpredictable. Rodrigues et al (Sexual Plant Reproduction 23: 123-133, 2010) teach that the different enzymes in the PcG (polycomb group) complex have different functions, and that down-regulation of different PcG enzymes results in different outcomes regarding parthenogenesis in different crop species. Rodrigues et al (2010) teach that the maize ZmFIE2 and rice OsFIE2 “are generally expressed throughout plant development”, while the maize ZmFIE1 and rice OsFIE1 are endosperm-specific. In contrast, the Arabidopsis FIE gene is “expressed generally throughout various tissues”, while “only maternal expression is detected in early endosperm development.” See, e.g., page 128, first full paragraph. It is noted that the claimed PRC2 complex is encompassed by the PcG complex. Furthermore, Rodrigues et al (2010) also teach that down-regulation of the rice OsFIE1 gene failed to result in the autonomous central cell development required for endosperm formation. Rodgrigues et al (2010) also teach that down-regulation of the FIE gene in apomictic Hieracium pilosella caused “embryo abortion and failure of the endosperm to cellularize’, i.e. develop. Rodrigues et al teach that “the FIE-mediated pre-fertilization repressive function ... may be specific to Arabidopsis or the Brassicaceae family”. See, e.g., paragraph bridging pages 128 and 129. Rodrigues et al (The Plant Cell 20: 2372-2386, 2008) also teach that the down- regulation of the FIE gene in apomictic Hieracium results in reduced seed and endosperm development independent of fertilization. Rodrigues et al (2008) also teach that the FIE proteins in Arabidopsis and Hieracium are structurally divergent regarding the position of the loop elements in each of the propeller-shaped proteins. See, e.g., paragraph bridging pages 2374 and 2375; page 2379, paragraph bridging the columns; page 2380, column 2, first two full paragraphs; paragraph bridging pages 2380 and 2381; and Figure 5 on page 2381. Additionally, Fischer et al (US Patent No: 7,029,917) teach that FIE proteins are structurally divergent, wherein FIE1 and FIE3 proteins comprise different domains, per column 3, lines 12-28, as discussed above, Thus, the single species of an Arabidopsis FIE gene is not representative of the broadly claimed genus recited in claim 17. Similarly, the two species of a mutant Arabidopsis plant comprising defective genes encoding RDR6 or ARGONAUTE enzymes is not representative of the broadly claimed genus of RADM enzymes, regarding the ability of their down-regulation to confer parthenogenically derived clonal embryos; particularly in view of their divergent sequences. Finally, the single species of Arabidopsis is not representative of the broadly claimed genus of plant species. Given the unpredictability, claim breadth and lack of guidance as discussed above, one skilled in the art would not have recognized Applicant to have been in possession of the broadly claimed genera of plant species, RADM genes or endosperm development genes. Moreover, one skilled in the art would not have recognized Applicant to have been in possession of the claimed method of combining down-regulation of RADM and PcG enzyme expression to obtain parthenogenically derived clonal embryos. Applicant’s broadly claimed genus encompasses species whose structure is unknown and hence their function is either unknown or unpredictable. The state of the art for inferring a structure function relationship based on sequence homology is highly unpredictable. The functional prediction of a protein based on structural comparison is not consistent with an empirical assessment of its function. See for example, Doerks et al., (TIG, 14:248-250, 1998) who teach that sequence homology is not sufficient to determine functionality of an uncharacterized protein. The homologs that scored best in PSI-BLAST analysis failed to share same catalytic activity. The reference clearly emphasizes that computer analysis of genome sequences is flawed, and overpredictions are common because the highest scoring database protein does not necessarily share the same or even similar functions. See in particular, page 248, 1 st paragraph; page 248, right column, 2 nd paragraph. Also see Smith et al. (Nature Biotechnology, 15:1222-1223, 1997) who teach that there are numerous cases in which proteins of very different functions are homologous. See in particular, page 1222, last paragraph. Also see Bork et al. (TIG, 12:425-427, 1996) who teach that homology search methods are stretched and spurious hits are taken as real. The reference further teaches that similarities determined by homology search might only be restricted to certain domains of the uncharacterized protein, whereas the whole protein is required for the functionality of the protein. See page 426, right column, 1 st paragraph. Applicant fails to describe representative species from diverse source and thus their function as instantly claimed is either unknown or unpredictable. There is no description of the structure required for the recited function, and no description of the necessary and sufficient elements of functional activity of diverse structures encompassed by Applicant’s broadly claimed genus is thus unknown. One of 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. Since the disclosure fails to describe the common attributes that identify members of the genus, and because the genus is highly variant, instantly disclosed species as discussed above are insufficient to describe the claimed genus. Accordingly, there is lack of adequate description to inform a skilled artisan that applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. See Written Description guidelines published Federal Register/Vol.66, No. 4/Friday, January 5, 2001/Notices; p. 1099-1111. Given the claim breadth and lack of guidance as discussed above, the specification does not provide written description of the genus broadly claimed. Accordingly, one skilled in the art would not have recognized Applicants to have been in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA 7. Claim s 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Scott (US 7,759,546, Issued July 20, 2010) . Claim 15 is broadly drawn to a method for enriching asexual embryos and endosperm in a seed population of any plant, via providing a plant comprising an asexual female gametophyte that is defective for RdDM activity, and also disrupted for a gene or enzyme activity regulating endosperm development. Claims 16-17 are broadly drawn to the above method wherein the endosperm development activity results from the disruption of the PRC2 complex, including disruption of FIS2 expression. The instant specification teaches that methods of transforming Arabidopsis, Brassica and maize were well-known in the art at the time of filing the instant application. See, e.g., page 89, lines 16-25; pages 103-104. Scott discloses the advantages of increasing endosperm development for increasing seed yield. Scott teaches that increased number of endosperm cells is correlated with increased seed weight and viability in Arabidopsis. Scott also discloses that apomictic plants (those produced by fertilization-independent seed development), wherein the female gametes are unreduced (i.e. 2n gametes), can advantageously propagate the identical genotype of their parents, including F1 hybrids. Scott teaches the use of transgenesis to confer apomixis. Scott also discloses that mutation of endosperm development genes, including the FIS (FIS2) genes in Arabidopsis, will result in autonomous or fertilization-independent endosperm development. Scott also discloses that down-regulation of DNA methylation caused by the DNA methyltransferase (MET1) gene, via plant transformation with an antisense construct, in combination with down-regulation of the FIS2 gene involved in endosperm development (via fis2mutants or transgenically induced gene silencing), results in the production of fertilization-independent seed comprising well-developed endosperm and embryos which are true to the maternal genotype, due to the production of unreduced gametes. Scott discloses that plants (including maize) plants are transformed using known methods. Scott further discloses that female gametophyte-specific promoters can be utilized in the transgene construct. See in particular, Figures 1-12; column 1, lines 21-32 and 47-67; column 2, lines 1- 20 and 62-67; column 3, lines 1-6; column 5, lines 19-44 and 65-67; column 6, lines 1-8; column 7, lines 12-16; column 9, lines 35-38; column 13, lines 16-22; column 14, lines 13-14, 35-41 and 50-67; column 15, lines 1-12; column 18, lines 48-67; column 19, lines 1-18; column 19, line 38 through column 20, line 46; column 22, lines 18-67; column 23, line 51 through column 24, line 67; column 25, lines 1-14; and claims 1, 5-7, 10, 12-15; Example 7, columns 22-23; Column 9. Accordingly, Scott anticipated the claimed invention . 07-15 AIA 8. Claim s 15, 18, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Grimanelli et al. (US Patent Publication No. US 2012/0291155 A1, Published November 15, 2012) . Grimanelli et al. disclose a method for the enriching for asexual embryos and endosperm in the seed population of a plant comprising providing a plant comprising an asexual female gametophyte defective for RdDM activity, wherein the plant is disrupted for an activity that regulates endosperm development and wherein the seeds formed comprise parthenogenically- derived clonal embryo, wherein the plant is defective for RdDM activity is defective for a nucleic acid encoding a protein as set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1 having 100% identity to instant SEQ ID NO: 616, and wherein the plant defective for RdDM activity is maize. See in particular, Figures 1-5, paragraphs [0007]-0047]; examples 1-3; SEQ ID NO: 1. The sequence homology results are shown as below: ORGANISM: Zea mays Query Match 100.0%; Score 4774; Length 910; Best Local Similarity 100.0%; Matches 910; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0; Qy 1 MGSHDGEDEELPPPPPVPPDVIPIKAEDAVGESPANHILKPKRLLMDRPGIGRKGQPTQL 60 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 1 MGSHDGEDEELPPPPPVPPDVIPIKAEDAVGESPANHILKPKRLLMDRPGIGRKGQPTQL 60 Qy 61 YSNHFKVAVKSTEDVFFHYYVNLKYEDDRPVDGKGIGRKVIDKLQQTYRAELSNKDFAYD 120 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 61 YSNHFKVAVKSTEDVFFHYYVNLKYEDDRPVDGKGIGRKVIDKLQQTYRAELSNKDFAYD 120 Qy 121 GEKSLFTVGGLPQKKNEFTVVLEDVSTGKTAANGSPGGNDSPGGGDRKRVRRPYQTKTFK 180 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 121 GEKSLFTVGGLPQKKNEFTVVLEDVSTGKTAANGSPGGNDSPGGGDRKRVRRPYQTKTFK 180 Qy 181 VEINFAAEVPMSAIGQVIRGEESENSLEALRVLDIILRQHSAEQGCLLVKQSFFYNNPSC 240 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 181 VEINFAAEVPMSAIGQVIRGEESENSLEALRVLDIILRQHSAEQGCLLVKQSFFYNNPSC 240 Qy 241 FVDLGGGVMGCRGFHSSFRGTQSGLSLNVDVSTTMIVKPGPVIDFLLSNQNVNDPSRIDW 300 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 241 FVDLGGGVMGCRGFHSSFRGTQSGLSLNVDVSTTMIVKPGPVIDFLLSNQNVNDPSRIDW 300 Qy 301 QKAKRALKGLRIRTTPANSEFKIFGLSERICKEQTFPLRQRNGSNGDCDTIEITVYDYYA 360 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 301 QKAKRALKGLRIRTTPANSEFKIFGLSERICKEQTFPLRQRNGSNGDCDTIEITVYDYYA 360 Qy 361 KKGIDLKYSGDFPCINTGKAKRPTYFPIELCSLVPLQRYTKALSTLQRSSLVEKSRQKPE 420 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 361 KKGIDLKYSGDFPCINTGKAKRPTYFPIELCSLVPLQRYTKALSTLQRSSLVEKSRQKPE 420 Qy 421 ERMTVLNDALQRSNYDSDPMLRACGVSVAPKFTQVEGRILQAPKLKAGNGDDIFSRNGRW 480 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 421 ERMTVLNDALQRSNYDSDPMLRACGVSVAPKFTQVEGRILQAPKLKAGNGDDIFSRNGRW 480 Qy 481 NFTNRKFYETCSVNKWAVVNFSARCDVRNLIRDLMRNASAKGIQMEEPFDVFEESPSMRR 540 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 481 NFTNRKFYETCSVNKWAVVNFSARCDVRNLIRDLMRNASAKGIQMEEPFDVFEESPSMRR 540 Qy 541 APVSRRVDDMFGQIKSKLPGAPRFLLCLLPERKNCEIYGPWKRKCLAEFGIVTQCLAPLR 600 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 541 APVSRRVDDMFGQIKSKLPGAPRFLLCLLPERKNCEIYGPWKRKCLAEFGIVTQCLAPLR 600 Qy 601 VNDPYLLNLLMKINAKLGGLNSLLQVEASSSIPHVSQVPTIILGMDVSHGHPGQDRPSVA 660 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 601 VNDPYLLNLLMKINAKLGGLNSLLQVEASSSIPHVSQVPTIILGMDVSHGHPGQDRPSVA 660 Qy 661 AVVSSRQWPLISRYRASVHTQSARLEMMSSLFKPRGTDDDGLIRESLIDFYTSSGKRKPE 720 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 661 AVVSSRQWPLISRYRASVHTQSARLEMMSSLFKPRGTDDDGLIRESLIDFYTSSGKRKPE 720 Qy 721 HIIIFRDGVSESQFTQVINIELDQIIEACKFLDEKWSPKFTVIVAQKNHHTKFFQTASPD 780 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 721 HIIIFRDGVSESQFTQVINIELDQIIEACKFLDEKWSPKFTVIVAQKNHHTKFFQTASPD 780 Qy 781 NVLPGTVVDSKVCHPKNFDFYMCAHAGMIGTTRPTHYHVLHDEIGFSADEMQEFVHSLSY 840 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 781 NVLPGTVVDSKVCHPKNFDFYMCAHAGMIGTTRPTHYHVLHDEIGFSADEMQEFVHSLSY 840 Qy 841 VYQRSTTAISVVAPVCYAHLAAAQVSTFLRLEEMSDASSSQGGGHTSAGSAPVPELPRLH 900 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 841 VYQRSTTAISVVAPVCYAHLAAAQVSTFLRLEEMSDASSSQGGGHTSAGSAPVPELPRLH 900 Qy 901 DKVRSSMFFC 910 |||||||||| Db 901 DKVRSSMFFC 910 Accordingly, Grimanelli et al. anticipated the claimed invention . 07-15 AIA 9. Claim s 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Agorio et al. (The Plant Cell, 19:3778-3790, Published 2007) . Agorio et al. teach a method of producing a plant having defective RdDM activity, wherein the plant defective for RdDM activity is AGO4 (ARGONAUTE 4). The reference further discloses that the plants defective for said RdDM activity were susceptible to disease to the virulent Pseudomonas syringe . The property of enriching asexual embryos and endosperm in a seed population of a plant and wherein seeds are formed pathogenically derived clonal embryos is inherent to the plant disclosed by Agorio et al. which discloses that RdDM activity is defective for AGO4 (ARGONAUTE 4) gene, unless Applicant provides evidence to the contrary. See in particular, abstract; figures 1-7; pages 3778-3787; and methods at pages 3787-3788. Accordingly, Agorio et al. anticipated the claimed invention . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA 10. Claim (s) 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott (US 7,759,546, Issued July 20, 2010) in view of Grimanelli et al. (US Patent Publication No. US 2012/0291155 A1, Published November 15, 2012), Bilodeau et al. (US Patent Publication NO. 2003/0126647 A1, Published July 3, 2003) and Vielle-Calzada et al. (US Patent Publication NO. 2013/0180001, Published July 11, 2013) . Scott teaches the advantages of increasing endosperm development for increasing seed yield. Scott teaches that increased number of endosperm cells is correlated with increased seed weight and viability in Arabidopsis. Scott also discloses that apomictic plants (those produced by fertilization-independent seed development), wherein the female gametes are unreduced (i.e. 2n gametes), can advantageously propagate the identical genotype of their parents, including F1 hybrids. Scott teaches the use of transgenesis to confer apomixis. Scott also teaches that mutation of endosperm development genes, including the FIS (FIS2) genes in Arabidopsis, will result in autonomous or fertilization-independent endosperm development. Scott also discloses that down-regulation of DNA methylation caused by the DNA methyltransferase (MET1) gene, via plant transformation with an antisense construct, in combination with down-regulation of the FIS2 gene involved in endosperm development (via fis2mutants or transgenically induced gene silencing), results in the production of fertilization-independent seed comprising well-developed endosperm and embryos which are true to the maternal genotype, due to the production of unreduced gametes. Scott teaches that plants (including maize) are transformed using known methods. Scott further teaches that female gametophyte-specific promoters can be utilized in the transgene construct. See in particular, Figures 1-12; column 1, lines 21-32 and 47-67; column 2, lines 1- 20 and 62-67; column 3, lines 1-6; column 5, lines 19-44 and 65-67; column 6, lines 1-8; column 7, lines 12-16; column 9, lines 35-38; column 13, lines 16-22; column 14, lines 13-14, 35-41 and 50-67; column 15, lines 1-12; column 18, lines 48-67; column 19, lines 1-18; column 19, line 38 through column 20, line 46; column 22, lines 18-67; column 23, line 51 through column 24, line 67; column 25, lines 1-14; and claims 1, 5-7, 10, 12-15; Example 7, columns 22-23; Column 9. Scott does not teach the down-regulation of AGO4 activity to produced unreduced female gametes, or a sequence at least 90% identical to instant SEQ ID NO:616. Grimanelli et al. teach a method for the enriching for asexual embryos and endosperm in the seed population of a plant comprising providing a plant comprising an asexual female gametophyte defective for RdDM activity, wherein the plant is disrupted for an activity that regulates endosperm development and wherein the seeds formed comprise parthenogenically- derived clonal embryo, wherein the plant is defective for RdDM activity is defective for a nucleic acid encoding a protein as set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1 having 100% identity to instant SEQ ID NO: 616, and wherein the plant defective for RdDM activity is maize. See in particular, Figures 1-5, paragraphs [0007]-0047]; examples 1-3; SEQ ID NO: 1. Bilodeau et al. teach a method for inducing seed development asexually by down-regulating expression of FIS2 gene by transforming plants with a DNA construct comprising an expression cassette which encodes inhibitory RNA to suppress endogenous FIS2 gene. The reference also provides enough guidance on transforming variety of dicot and monocot (e.g. maize) plant species with said construct. See in particular, abstract, Figures 3, 5, 7, 11-17, 24, 28, , paragraphs [0002]-0044], [0093], [0099], [0162], [0163], [0166, [0170], [0175], [0188], [0202], [0215], [[0216], [0218], [0231], [0235], [0242], [0287], [0288], [0308] examples 1-20, claims. Vielle-Calzada et al. teach a method for inducing seed development asexually by down-regulating expression of AGO4 gene by transforming plants with a DNA construct comprising an expression cassette which encodes inhibitory RNA to suppress endogenous AGO4 gene. The reference also provides enough guidance on transforming variety of dicot and monocot (e.g. maize) plant species with said construct. See in particular, Figures 1-3; paragraphs [0002] – [00006]; [0015] – [0128]; examples 1-3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the method of producing fertilization-independent seeds and embryos via the production of unreduced female gametes, wherein unreduced gametes are produced by reducing the levels of nucleic acid methylation, coupled with downregulation of the FIS2 gene, as taught by Scott in light of Grimanelli et al. teachings as discussed above, and to modify that method by incorporating other methods of downregulating the FIS2 gene and AGO4 gene as taught by Bilodeau et al., and Grimanelli et. al., respectively. It would have been further obvious to substitute the MET1 gene involved in nucleic acid methylation, taught by Scott, with the AGO4 gene involved in nucleic acid methylation, taught by Grimanelli et al. The incorporation of AGO4 would have been the obvious substitution of functional equivalent species, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, and thus arrive at the Applicant’s invention with a reasonable expectation of success and without any surprising results. It may also be noted that KSR forecloses the argument that a specific teaching, suggestion or motivation is required to support a finding of obviousness. See the recent Board decision Ex parte Smith, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 20, (Bd. Pat. App. & Interf. June 25, 2007) (citing KSR, 82 USPQ2d at 1396) Conclusion 11. Claims 15-20 are rejected. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vinod Kumar whose telephone number is (571) 272-4445. The examiner can normally be reached on 8.30 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amjad A. Abraham can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information /VINOD KUMAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663 Application/Control Number: 17/936,824 Page 2 Art Unit: 1663 Application/Control Number: 17/936,824 Page 3 Art Unit: 1663 Application/Control Number: 17/936,824 Page 4 Art Unit: 1663 Application/Control Number: 17/936,824 Page 5 Art Unit: 1663 Application/Control Number: 17/936,824 Page 6 Art Unit: 1663 Application/Control Number: 17/936,824 Page 7 Art Unit: 1663 Application/Control Number: 17/936,824 Page 8 Art Unit: 1663 Application/Control Number: 17/936,824 Page 9 Art Unit: 1663 Application/Control Number: 17/936,824 Page 10 Art Unit: 1663 Application/Control Number: 17/936,824 Page 11 Art Unit: 1663 Application/Control Number: 17/936,824 Page 12 Art Unit: 1663 Application/Control Number: 17/936,824 Page 13 Art Unit: 1663 Application/Control Number: 17/936,824 Page 14 Art Unit: 1663 Application/Control Number: 17/936,824 Page 15 Art Unit: 1663 Application/Control Number: 17/936,824 Page 16 Art Unit: 1663 Application/Control Number: 17/936,824 Page 17 Art Unit: 1663 Application/Control Number: 17/936,824 Page 18 Art Unit: 1663