DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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 for the cited rejections 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.
3. Response to Election/Restriction filed on 10/6/2025 is acknowledged.
4. Claim filed on 10/6/2025 is acknowledged.
5. Claims 1-20, 23 and 24 have been cancelled.
6. New claims 25-39 have been added.
7. Claims 21, 22 and 25-39 are pending in this application.
8. Claims 26 and 29-31 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to non-elected species.
9. Claims 21, 22, 25, 27, 28 and 32-39 are under examination.
Elections/Restrictions
10. Applicant’s election of Group 2 (claims 21, 22 and 25-39) and election of LYAFARV-NH2 wherein R1 = H, R2 is NH2 as species of compound; a composition comprising such compound in admixture with carriers as species of composition; inhibiting infestation of a plant by dipteran insects as species of effect; and the plant is substantially free of insects as species of plant in the reply filed on 10/6/2025 is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). The requirement is made FINAL in this office action.
Group 2 is drawn to a method of reducing or inhibiting infestation of a plant by hemipteran and/or dipteran insects, or of reducing hemipteran and/or dipteran insect load on a plant comprising contacting the plant with an insecticidal compound having the formula: R1-L1-Z-R2 where Z is a peptide of formula: L-X2-X3-F-X5-RV- wherein: X2 is V or Y; X3 is A or Aib; X5 is P or A; and wherein optionally at least one of the residues in peptide Z is N-methylated; L1 is absent or is *-(C=O)C1-10-alkylene-NH- where * denotes the point of attachment to Z; R1 is hydrogen, C1-4 alkyl, -N(R1a)-C(=N+(R1a)2)NR1a2, -C(=N+(R1a)2)NR1a2, acyl, fatty acyl, benzyl, or benzoyl; wherein each R1a is independently selected from hydrogen or C1-4 alkyl (e.g. methyl, ethyl, propyl, butyl); and R2 is NH2, NR2aH, NR2A2 or OR2a wherein each R2a if present is independently C1-6-alkyl (e.g. methyl, ethyl, propyl, butyl, pentyl or hexyl), C3-6-alkenyl, C6-16-aryl, C6-16-aryl- C1-6-alkyl, C1-6-alkylene-C6-16-aryl, or C1-6-haloalkyl, each of which may optionally be substituted with one or more groups selected from halogen, C1-6-alkyl, or C1-6-haloalkyl. A search was conducted on the elected species; LYAFARV-NH2 wherein R1 = H, R2 is NH2 as the elected species of compound and a composition comprising such compound in admixture with carriers as the elected species of composition appear to be free of prior art. However, prior art was found for inhibiting infestation of a plant by dipteran insects as the elected species of effect; and the plant is substantially free of insects as the elected species of plant. A search was extended to the genus in claim 21; and prior art was found. Claims 26 and 29-31 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to non-elected species. Claims 21, 22, 25, 27, 28 and 32-39 are examined on the merits in this office action.
Sequence Non-Compliance
11. This application contains sequence disclosures that are encompassed by the definitions for nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences set forth in 37 CFR 1.821(a)(1) and (a)(2). However, this application fails to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 through 1.825 for the reason(s) set forth below. All sequences disclosed in the application must comply with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. 1.821-1.825, not only those recited in the claims.
In the instant case, instant specification discloses the peptides WFGPRLamide, FPRV, FPRI, YPRI and YPRV throughout the specification. However, these peptides are not in the sequence listing filed on 12/1/2022.
All such sequences are relevant for the purposes of building a comprehensive database and properly assessing prior art. It is therefore essential that all sequences, whether only disclosed or also claimed, be included in the database.
Objections
12. The specification is objected to for the following minor informality: The instant specification discloses the peptides WFGPRLamide, FPRV, FPRI, YPRI and YPRV throughout the specification. However, these peptides are not in the sequence listing filed on 12/1/2022; and they are missing the respective sequence identifier. Applicant is required to amend the specification to comply with 37 CFR 1.821(c) and 1.821(d).
13. The specification is objected to for the following minor informality: The specification recites “https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264284128-en” on page 41, line 15 of instant specification. The embedded hyperlinks and/or other forms of browser-executable code are impermissible and require deletion. It is suggested that Applicant places a URL between these symbols “< >” to inactivate the hyperlinks. Applicant is required to correct this error.
14. The specification is objected to for the following minor informality: The quality of Tables 9-11 in instant specification is extremely poor. It is impossible to read data presented in these Tables. Applicant is required to provide clear and readable tables.
Please note: The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible error. Applicant's cooperation is required in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification (see MPEP § 608.01).
15. Claim 21 is objected to for the following minor informality: Applicant is suggested to amend claim 21 as "A method of reducing or inhibiting infection of a plant by hemipteran and/or dipteran insects, or reducing hemipteran and/or dipteran insect load on a plant, wherein the method comprises contacting the plant with an effective amount of an insecticidal compound having the formula: R1-L1-Z-R2, wherein Z is a peptide of formula: L-X2-X3-F-X5-RV-, wherein…L1 is absent or is *-(C=O)C1-10-alkylene-NH- wherein * denotes the point of attachment to Z…and R2 is NH2, NR2aH, NR2A2 or OR2a, wherein each R2a if present is independently…each of which is optionally substituted with…".
16. Claim 22 is objected to for the following minor informality: Applicant is suggested to amend claim 22 as “The method according to claim 21, wherein the compound is applied to the plant, and wherein the plant is free…”.
17. Claims 25, 27, 28, 32, 35 and 36 are objected to for the following minor informality: Applicant is suggested to amend these claims as “The method according to claim…”.
18. Claim 33 is objected to for the following minor informality: Applicant is suggested to amend claim 33 as “The method according to claim 32, wherein the peptide Z is:…”.
19. Claim 34 is objected to for the following minor informality: Applicant is suggested to amend claim 34 as “The method according to claim 32, wherein…”.
20. Claim 37 is objected to for the following minor informality: Applicant is suggested to amend claim 37 as “The method according to claim 32, wherein the insecticide compound is: Hy-LYAFARV-NH2 (SEQ ID NO: 20); Hy-LYAFAR-(Me)V-NH2 (SEQ ID NO: 21); Hy-LYAF-(Me)A-RV-NH2 (SEQ ID NO: 23); Hy-(Me)L-YAFARV-HN2 (SEQ ID NO: 24); Hy-LY-Aib-FARV-NH2 (SEQ ID NO: 25); Hy-LY-(Me)A-FARV-NH2 (SEQ ID NO: 22)…or Hy-Nle-LYAFPRV- NH2 (SEQ ID NO: 29); and wherein Hy is hydrogen”.
21. Claim 38 is objected to for the following minor informality: Applicant is suggested to amend claim 38 as “The method according to claim 22, wherein the insecticide compound is in admixture with…”.
22. Claim 39 is objected to for the following minor informality: Applicant is suggested to amend claim 39 as “The method according to claim 38, wherein the insecticide compound is in an aqueous composition”.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112 paragraph (b)
23. 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.
24. Claims 21, 22, 25, 27, 28 and 32-39 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
25. Claim 21 recites the limitations “C1-4alkyl (e.g. methyl,ethyl, propyl, butyl)”, “R2A”, and “C1-6alkyl (e.g. methyl, ethyl, propyl, butyl, pentyl or hexyl)”. First, the metes and bounds of claim 21 is rendered vague and indefinite by the parenthetical recitations of “(e.g. methyl,ethyl, propyl, butyl)” and “(e.g. methyl, ethyl, propyl, butyl, pentyl or hexyl)” because it is unclear as to whether the limitations are part of the instantly claimed subject matter. Second, the phrase "e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention (see MPEP § 2173.05(d)). Third, the recited “R2A” is not defined in the claim. Taken all these together, the metes and bounds of instant claim 21 is vague and indefinite. Because claims 22, 25, 27, 28, 32-36, 38 and 39 depend from indefinite claim 21 and none of the dependent claims clarifies the point of confusion, they must also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
26. Claim 22 recites the limitation “while the plant is free or substantially free of hemipteran and/or dipteran insects”. The recited “substantially” is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. In the instant case, the instant specification fails to define the term “substantially”. Therefore, it is unclear what is encompassed within the recited “while the plant is free or substantially free of hemipteran and/or dipteran insects”. Thus, the metes and bounds of instant claim 22 is vague and indefinite. Because claims 25, 27, 28 and 32-39 depend from indefinite claim 22 and none of the dependent claims clarifies the point of confusion, they must also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
27. Claim 27 recites the term “such as”. The term “such as” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention (see MPEP § 2173.05(d)).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112 paragraph (a)
Written Description
28. The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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.
29. Claims 38 and 39 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The MPEP lists factors that can be used to determine if sufficient evidence of possession has been furnished in the disclosure of the application. These include “level of skill and knowledge in the art, partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics alone or coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between structure and function, and the method of making the claimed invention. Disclosure of any combination of such identifying characteristics that distinguish the claimed invention from other materials and would lead one of skill in the art to the conclusion that the applicant was in possession of the claimed species is sufficient” (MPEP § 2163).
A claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species or disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics such as functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure (MPEP § 2163(3)a(II)). The number of species that describe the genus must be adequate to describe the entire genus; if there is substantial variability, a large number of species must be described.
The analysis for adequate written description considers (a) actual reduction to practice, (b) disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas, (c) sufficient relevant identifying characteristics in the way of complete/partial structure or physical and/or chemical properties or functional characteristics when coupled with known or disclosed correlation with structure, and (d) representative number of samples.
In the instant case, claims 38 and 39 are drawn to the method according to claim 22, wherein insecticide compound is in admixture with one or more solvents, carriers, diluents, adjuvants, preservatives, dispersants, emulsifying agents, or synergists.
The instant specification discloses that synergists, i.e. compounds which increase the efficacy of insecticides against their targets.
The genus of instant claimed synergist is extremely broad, including any compound that increases the efficacy of the instant claimed insecticidal compound against their targets.
The issue at question is whether a person of ordinary skilled in the art would be able to determine what structural feature is required for a compound to increase the efficacy of instant claimed insecticidal compound against its targets or not.
(a) actual reduction to practice and (b) disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas:
In the instant case, the instant specification discloses piperonyl butoxide and MGK-264, or peptidase inhibitors as examples of synergist.
There is not working example disclosing a composition comprising instant claimed insecticidal compound and a synergist in instant specification
Taken all these together, other than the few examples, the instant specification fails to disclose a general correlation between structure and function for a compound to have the characteristics of increasing the efficacy of instant claimed insecticidal compound against its targets.
(c) sufficient relevant identifying characteristics in the way of complete/partial structure or physical and/or chemical properties or functional characteristics when coupled with known or disclosed correlation with structure:
As discussed above, in the instant case, based on the disclosure of instant specification, other than the few examples, a person of ordinary skilled in the art would not be able to determine what the structural feature is required for a compound to have the characteristics of increasing the efficacy of instant claimed insecticidal compound against its targets.
It is well known in the art that synergistic effects among different drugs are difficult to predict, as disclosed in Chen et al (Mol. BioSyst., 2016, 12, pages 614-623, filed with IDS) and many others. Chen et al teach “Although quantitative methods can be utilized to evaluate the synergistic effects based on experimental dose–response data, it is both time and resource consuming to screen all possible combinations by experimental trials. This problem makes it a formidable challenge to recognize synergistic combinations. Various attempts have been made to predict drug synergy by network biology, however, most of them are limited to estimating target associations on the PPI network.“, for example, Abstract. Chen et al further teach various limitations of the proposed ‘‘pathway–pathway interaction’’ network-based synergy evaluation method to predict the potential synergistic drug combinations, for example, the paragraph bridging pages 619-620.
Therefore, based on the state of art, a person of ordinary skilled in the art would not be able to determine what the structural feature is required for a compound to have the characteristics of increasing the efficacy of instant claimed insecticidal compound against its targets.
(d) representative number of samples:
In the instant case, the genus of instant claimed synergist is extremely broad, including any compound that increases the efficacy of the instant claimed insecticidal compound against their targets.
And, as discussed in (a) and (b) above, the instant specification discloses piperonyl butoxide and MGK-264, or peptidase inhibitors as examples of synergist. And there is not working example disclosing a composition comprising instant claimed insecticidal compound and a synergist in instant specification.
Considering the broadness of the genus of instant claimed synergist, the instant specification fails to provide sufficient examples to describe the entire genus of synergist claimed.
Taken all these together, considering the state of the art and the disclosure in instant specification, it is deemed that the instant specification fails to provide adequate written description for the claimed genus of synergist to have the functional characteristics of increasing the efficacy of instant claimed insecticidal compound against its targets; and does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the entire scope of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
30. 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 of this title, 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.
31. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
32. Claims 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 32 and 34-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nachman et al (Peptides, 2007, 28, pages 57-61, filed with IDS) in view of Kola et al (Frontiers in Physiology, 2015, 6, pages 1-15), Alford et al (WO 2020/115076 A2, filed with IDS) and Peers et al (US 5837218 A).
The instant claims 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 32 and 34-39 are drawn to a method of reducing or inhibiting infestation of a plant by hemipteran and/or dipteran insects, or of reducing hemipteran and/or dipteran insect load on a plant comprising contacting the plant with an insecticidal compound having the formula: R1-L1-Z-R2 where Z is a peptide of formula: L-X2-X3-F-X5-RV- wherein: X2 is V or Y; X3 is A or Aib; X5 is P or A; and wherein optionally at least one of the residues in peptide Z is N-methylated; L1 is absent or is *-(C=O)C1-10-alkylene-NH- where * denotes the point of attachment to Z; R1 is hydrogen, C1-4 alkyl, -N(R1a)-C(=N+(R1a)2)NR1a2, -C(=N+(R1a)2)NR1a2, acyl, fatty acyl, benzyl, or benzoyl; wherein each R1a is independently selected from hydrogen or C1-4 alkyl (e.g. methyl, ethyl, propyl, butyl); and R2 is NH2, NR2aH, NR2A2 or OR2a wherein each R2a if present is independently C1-6-alkyl (e.g. methyl, ethyl, propyl, butyl, pentyl or hexyl), C3-6-alkenyl, C6-16-aryl, C6-16-aryl- C1-6-alkyl, C1-6-alkylene-C6-16-aryl, or C1-6-haloalkyl, each of which may optionally be substituted with one or more groups selected from halogen, C1-6-alkyl, or C1-6-haloalkyl.
Nachman et al, throughout the literature, teach Manse-CAP2b[2-8] as an analog of insect neuropeptide CAP2b exhibits potent insecticidal activity against the housefly Musca domestica (M. domestica, a dipteran insect), wherein Manse-CAP2b[2-8] consists of the amino acid sequence LYAFPRVa (a represents amide group, NH2), and wherein it can be a pest management agent capable of disrupting the water balance in the target insects, for example, Abstract; and page 59, Table 1. The Manse-CAP2b[2-8] in Nachman et al is an insecticidal compound recited in instant claim 21, with R1 being hydrogen, L1 being absent, Z being the peptide LYAFPRV, and R2 being an amide group (NH2). It meets the limitations of the compound recited in instant claims 21, 25, 27, 28, 32 and 34-36.
The difference between the reference and instant claims 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 32 and 34-39 is that the reference does not explicilty teach inhibiting infestation of a plant by dipteran insects as the elected species of effect; the plant is substantially free of insects as the elected species of plant; applying Manse-CAP2b[2-8] in a method recited in instant claims; and the limitations of instant claims 22 and 37-39.
However, Kola et al teach Musca domestica (M. domestica) is one of crop insects that infect crop plant, for example, Title; and page 4, Table 2.
Furthermore, Alford et al, throughout the patent, teach CAP2b analog as inset control agent and plant protection agent; and a method of inhibiting hemipteran insect infection of a plant, wherein the method comprises contacting the plant with an aqueous composition comprising such CAP2b analog in admixture with one or more solvents, carriers, diluents and so on, and wherein the plant is free or substantially free of hemipteran insects, for example, Abstract; page 1, lines 3-5; page 6, lines 10-24; page 9, lines 19-23; and page 14, lines 4-21. Therefore, in view of the combined teachings of Nachman et al, Kola et al and Alford et al, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to develop a method of inhibiting Musca domestica (M. domestica, a dipteran insect) infection of a crop plant, wherein the method comprises contacting the plant with an aqueous composition comprising Manse-CAP2b[2-8] consisting of the amino acid sequence LYAFPRVa (a represents amide group, NH2) in admixture with one or more solvents, carriers, diluents and so on, and wherein the plant is free or substantially free of Musca domestica (M. domestica, a dipteran insect). It reads on inhibiting infestation of a plant by dipteran insects as the elected species of effect; and the plant is substantially free of insects as the elected species of plant.
In addition, Peers et al teach that N- and C-terminal modification of peptides is common practice in the art in the preparation of peptides having greater stability; and preferred N-terminal protecting group is acetyl group, for example, column 3, lines 15-26.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Nachman et al, Kola et al, Alford et al and Peers et al to develop a method of inhibiting Musca domestica (M. domestica, a dipteran insect) infection of a crop plant, wherein the method comprises contacting the plant with an aqueous composition comprising a modified Manse-CAP2b[2-8] consisting of the amino acid sequence LYAFPRVa (a represents amide group, NH2) in admixture with one or more solvents, carriers, diluents and so on, wherein the N-terminal of Manse-CAP2b[2-8] is protected by an acetyl group, and wherein the plant is free or substantially free of Musca domestica (M. domestica, a dipteran insect).
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Nachman et al, Kola et al, Alford et al and Peers et al to develop a method of inhibiting Musca domestica (M. domestica, a dipteran insect) infection of a crop plant, wherein the method comprises contacting the plant with an aqueous composition comprising a modified Manse-CAP2b[2-8] consisting of the amino acid sequence LYAFPRVa (a represents amide group, NH2) in admixture with one or more solvents, carriers, diluents and so on, wherein the N-terminal of Manse-CAP2b[2-8] is protected by an acetyl group, and wherein the plant is free or substantially free of Musca domestica (M. domestica, a dipteran insect), because Kola et al teach Musca domestica (M. domestica) is one of crop insects that infect crop plant. Alford et al, throughout the patent, teach CAP2b analog as inset control agent and plant protection agent; and a method of inhibiting hemipteran insect infection of a plant, wherein the method comprises contacting the plant with an aqueous composition comprising such CAP2b analog in admixture with one or more solvents, carriers, diluents and so on, and wherein the plant is free or substantially free of hemipteran insects. Therefore, in view of the combined teachings of Nachman et al, Kola et al and Alford et al, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to develop a method of inhibiting Musca domestica (M. domestica, a dipteran insect) infection of a crop plant, wherein the method comprises contacting the plant with an aqueous composition comprising Manse-CAP2b[2-8] consisting of the amino acid sequence LYAFPRVa (a represents amide group, NH2) in admixture with one or more solvents, carriers, diluents and so on, and wherein the plant is free or substantially free of Musca domestica (M. domestica, a dipteran insect). And, Peers et al teach that N- and C-terminal modification of peptides is common practice in the art in the preparation of peptides having greater stability; and preferred N-terminal protecting group is acetyl group.
A person of ordinary skilled in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Nachman et al, Kola et al, Alford et al and Peers et al to develop a method of inhibiting Musca domestica (M. domestica, a dipteran insect) infection of a crop plant, wherein the method comprises contacting the plant with an aqueous composition comprising a modified Manse-CAP2b[2-8] consisting of the amino acid sequence LYAFPRVa (a represents amide group, NH2) in admixture with one or more solvents, carriers, diluents and so on, wherein the N-terminal of Manse-CAP2b[2-8] is protected by an acetyl group, and wherein the plant is free or substantially free of Musca domestica (M. domestica, a dipteran insect).
33. Claims 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 32 and 34-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nachman et al (Peptides, 2007, 28, pages 57-61, filed with IDS) in view of Kola et al (Frontiers in Physiology, 2015, 6, pages 1-15), Schwarz (US 2016/0355556 A1, filed with IDS) and Peers et al (US 5837218 A).
The instant claims 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 32 and 34-39 are drawn to a method of reducing or inhibiting infestation of a plant by hemipteran and/or dipteran insects, or of reducing hemipteran and/or dipteran insect load on a plant comprising contacting the plant with an insecticidal compound having the formula: R1-L1-Z-R2 where Z is a peptide of formula: L-X2-X3-F-X5-RV- wherein: X2 is V or Y; X3 is A or Aib; X5 is P or A; and wherein optionally at least one of the residues in peptide Z is N-methylated; L1 is absent or is *-(C=O)C1-10-alkylene-NH- where * denotes the point of attachment to Z; R1 is hydrogen, C1-4 alkyl, -N(R1a)-C(=N+(R1a)2)NR1a2, -C(=N+(R1a)2)NR1a2, acyl, fatty acyl, benzyl, or benzoyl; wherein each R1a is independently selected from hydrogen or C1-4 alkyl (e.g. methyl, ethyl, propyl, butyl); and R2 is NH2, NR2aH, NR2A2 or OR2a wherein each R2a if present is independently C1-6-alkyl (e.g. methyl, ethyl, propyl, butyl, pentyl or hexyl), C3-6-alkenyl, C6-16-aryl, C6-16-aryl- C1-6-alkyl, C1-6-alkylene-C6-16-aryl, or C1-6-haloalkyl, each of which may optionally be substituted with one or more groups selected from halogen, C1-6-alkyl, or C1-6-haloalkyl.
Nachman et al, throughout the literature, teach Manse-CAP2b[2-8] as an analog of insect neuropeptide CAP2b exhibits potent insecticidal activity against the housefly Musca domestica (M. domestica, a dipteran insect), wherein Manse-CAP2b[2-8] consists of the amino acid sequence LYAFPRVa (a represents amide group, NH2), and wherein it can be a pest management agent capable of disrupting the water balance in the target insects, for example, Abstract; and page 59, Table 1. The Manse-CAP2b[2-8] in Nachman et al is an insecticidal compound recited in instant claim 21, with R1 being hydrogen, L1 being absent, Z being the peptide LYAFPRV, and R2 being an amide group (NH2). It meets the limitations of the compound recited in instant claims 21, 25, 27, 28, 32 and 34-36.
The difference between the reference and instant claims 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 32 and 34-39 is that the reference does not explicilty teach inhibiting infestation of a plant by dipteran insects as the elected species of effect; the plant is substantially free of insects as the elected species of plant; applying Manse-CAP2b[2-8] in a method recited in instant claims; and the limitations of instant claims 22 and 37-39.
However, Kola et al teach Musca domestica (M. domestica) is one of crop insects that infect crop plant, for example, Title; and page 4, Table 2.
Furthermore, Schwarz, throughout the patent, teaches short peptides derived from an insect neuropeptide for controlling insects; and a method for controlling and/or preventing insect infestation of a plant, wherein the method comprises contacting the plant with an aqueous composition comprising such short peptide in admixture with an agricultural acceptable carrier, for example, Abstract; page 1, paragraph [0002]; page 2, paragraph [0021]; and page 5, paragraph [0080]. In the instant case, one of ordinary skilled in the art would understand and reasonably expect that in the method above, the plant is free or substantially free of such insects. Therefore, in view of the combined teachings of Nachman et al, Kola et al and Schwarz, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to develop a method of inhibiting Musca domestica (M. domestica, a dipteran insect) infection of a crop plant, wherein the method comprises contacting the plant with an aqueous composition comprising Manse-CAP2b[2-8] consisting of the amino acid sequence LYAFPRVa (a represents amide group, NH2) in admixture with an agricultural acceptable carrier, and wherein the plant is free or substantially free of Musca domestica (M. domestica, a dipteran insect). It reads on inhibiting infestation of a plant by dipteran insects as the elected species of effect; and the plant is substantially free of insects as the elected species of plant.
In addition, Peers et al teach that N- and C-terminal modification of peptides is common practice in the art in the preparation of peptides having greater stability; and preferred N-terminal protecting group is acetyl group, for example, column 3, lines 15-26.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Nachman et al, Kola et al, Schwarz and Peers et al to develop a method of inhibiting Musca domestica (M. domestica, a dipteran insect) infection of a crop plant, wherein the method comprises contacting the plant with an aqueous composition comprising a modified Manse-CAP2b[2-8] consisting of the amino acid sequence LYAFPRVa (a represents amide group, NH2) in admixture with an agricultural acceptable carrier, wherein the N-terminal of Manse-CAP2b[2-8] is protected by an acetyl group, and wherein the plant is free or substantially free of Musca domestica (M. domestica, a dipteran insect).
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Nachman et al, Kola et al, Schwarz and Peers et al to develop a method of inhibiting Musca domestica (M. domestica, a dipteran insect) infection of a crop plant, wherein the method comprises contacting the plant with an aqueous composition comprising a modified Manse-CAP2b[2-8] consisting of the amino acid sequence LYAFPRVa (a represents amide group, NH2) in admixture with an agricultural acceptable carrier, wherein the N-terminal of Manse-CAP2b[2-8] is protected by an acetyl group, and wherein the plant is free or substantially free of Musca domestica (M. domestica, a dipteran insect), because Kola et al teach Musca domestica (M. domestica) is one of crop insects that infect crop plant. Schwarz, throughout the patent, teaches short peptides derived from an insect neuropeptide for controlling insects; and a method for controlling and/or preventing insect infestation of a plant, wherein the method comprises contacting the plant with an aqueous composition comprising such short peptide in admixture with an agricultural acceptable carrier. In the instant case, one of ordinary skilled in the art would understand and reasonably expect that in the method above, the plant is free or substantially free of such insects. Therefore, in view of the combined teachings of Nachman et al, Kola et al and Schwarz, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to develop a method of inhibiting Musca domestica (M. domestica, a dipteran insect) infection of a crop plant, wherein the method comprises contacting the plant with an aqueous composition comprising Manse-CAP2b[2-8] consisting of the amino acid sequence LYAFPRVa (a represents amide group, NH2) in admixture with an agricultural acceptable carrier, and wherein the plant is free or substantially free of Musca domestica (M. domestica, a dipteran insect). And, Peers et al teach that N- and C-terminal modification of peptides is common practice in the art in the preparation of peptides having greater stability; and preferred N-terminal protecting group is acetyl group.
A person of ordinary skilled in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Nachman et al, Kola et al, Schwarz and Peers et al to develop a method of inhibiting Musca domestica (M. domestica, a dipteran insect) infection of a crop plant, wherein the method comprises contacting the plant with an aqueous composition comprising a modified Manse-CAP2b[2-8] consisting of the amino acid sequence LYAFPRVa (a represents amide group, NH2) in admixture with an agricultural acceptable carrier, wherein the N-terminal of Manse-CAP2b[2-8] is protected by an acetyl group, and wherein the plant is free or substantially free of Musca domestica (M. domestica, a dipteran insect).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LI N KOMATSU whose telephone number is (571)270-3534. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-4pm EST.
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, Melissa Fisher can be reached on 5712707430. 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.
/LI N KOMATSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1658