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. Amendment after Non-final office action filed on 4/2/2026 is acknowledged.
3. Claim filed on 4/2/2026 is acknowledged.
4. Claims 1-20, 23 and 24 have been cancelled.
5. Claims 21, 22 and 25-39 are pending in this application.
6. Claims 26 and 29-31 remain withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to non-elected species.
7. Applicant elected without traverse of Group 2 (claims 21, 22 and 25-39) and elected without traverse 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.
Restriction requirement was deemed proper and made FINAL in the previous office action. Group 2 is drawn to 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 insecticidal compound having the formula: R1-L1-Z-R2 wherein 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- wherein * 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, 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 is optionally 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 remain 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.
Please note: In view of Applicant's amendment to the claim, “the plant is substantially free of insects as the elected species of plant” is rejected as “the plant is free of insects as the elected species of plant”.
Withdrawn Objections and Rejections
8. Objection to claims 25, 28, 32 and 35-39 is hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claim.
9. Rejection to claim 37 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment to the claim.
10. Rejection to claims 38 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph (written description) is hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment to the claim.
Maintained/Revised Objections
11. (Revised due to Applicant’s amendment to the specification) The specification is objected to for the following minor informality: The quality of Table 12 on page 50 of the amended specification filed on 4/2/2026 is extremely poor. It is impossible to read data presented in this Table.
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).
12. (Revised due to Applicant’s amendment to the claim) Claim 21 remains objected to for the following minor informality: Applicant is suggested to amend claim 21 as "…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…and R2 is NH2, NR2aH, NR2A2 or OR2a, wherein each R2a if…".
13. (Revised due to Applicant’s amendment to the claim) Claim 22 remains objected to for the following minor informality: Applicant is suggested to amend claim 22 as “…wherein the compound is applied to the plant, and wherein the plant is free…”.
14. (Revised due to Applicant’s amendment to the claim) Claim 27 remains objected to for the following minor informality: Applicant is suggested to amend claim 27 as “…wherein R1 is hydrogen, -C(=N+(R1a)2)NR1a2 or -C(=N+Me2)NMe2”.
15. (Revised due to Applicant’s amendment to the claim) Claims 33 and 34 remain objected to for the following minor informality: Applicant is suggested to amend these claims as “The method according to claim 32, wherein…”.
Response to Applicant's Arguments
16. Applicant either fails to address all the minor issues or Applicant’s amendments introduce additional minor issues. Therefore, these objections are deemed proper and are hereby maintained.
Maintained/Revised Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112 paragraph (b)
17. 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.
18. Claims 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 32-36, 38 and 39 remain 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.
19. (Revised due to Applicant’s amendment to the claim) Claim 21 recites the limitations “C1-4alkyl (e.g. methyl,ethyl, propyl, butyl)” and R2A. First, the metes and bounds of claim 21 is rendered vague and indefinite by the parenthetical recitations of “(e.g. methyl,ethyl, propyl, butyl)” because it is unclear as to whether the limitation is 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, 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.
Response to Applicant's Arguments
20. Applicant argues that “Claim 21 has been amended to delete the "e.g.".”; and R2A is defined in the claim.
21. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments about instant rejection, the Examiner would like to point out that instant claim 21 still recites the limitation “C1-4alkyl (e.g. methyl,ethyl, propyl, butyl)”. Furthermore, the Examiner understands that instant claim 21 clearly defines R2a. However, the Examiner would like to point out that R2a is not the same as R2A. And as stated in Section 19 above, in the instant case, R2A is not defined in the claim.
Taken all these together, the rejection is deemed proper and is hereby maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. (Revised due to Applicant’s amendment to the claim) Claims 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 32 and 34-39 remain 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, cited and enclosed in the previous office action), Alford et al (WO 2020/115076 A2, filed with IDS) and Peers et al (US 5837218 A, cited and enclosed in the previous office action).
The instant claims 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 32 and 34-39 are drawn to 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 insecticidal compound having the formula: R1-L1-Z-R2 wherein 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- wherein * 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, 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 is optionally 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 of Musca domestica (M. domestica, a dipteran insect).
25. (Revised due to Applicant’s amendment to the claim) Claims 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 32 and 34-39 remain 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, cited and enclosed in the previous office action), Schwarz (US 2016/0355556 A1, filed with IDS) and Peers et al (US 5837218 A, cited and enclosed in the previous office action).
The instant claims 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 32 and 34-39 are drawn to 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 insecticidal compound having the formula: R1-L1-Z-R2 wherein 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- wherein * 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, 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 is optionally 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 of Musca domestica (M. domestica, a dipteran insect).
Response to Applicant's Arguments
26. Applicant argues about each of the cited prior art references individually.
27. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments about instant rejection, the Examiner agrees that none of the cited references individually teaches or suggests the method recited in instant claims 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 32 and 34-39; and none of the cited references anticipates the method recited in instant claims 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 32 and 34-39. However, the Examiner would like to point out that instant claims 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 32 and 34-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (obviousness type); and the rejection is based on either the combined teachings Nachman et al, Kola et al, Alford et al and Peers et al, or the combined teachings of Nachman et al, Kola et al, Schwarz and Peers et al. Therefore, it is not necessary for each of the cited references to teach all the limitations of instant claims. Furthermore, the Examiner would like to point out that the MPEP states "One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references…" (see MPEP § 2145 IV).
In response to Applicant’s arguments about the cited Nachman et al reference, the Examiner understands that Nachman et al do not explicitly teach the instant claimed method. However, in the instant case, first, the Examiner would like to point out that neuropeptides as target-specific insecticidal agents are well known in the art, as disclosed in the cited Alford et al reference and many others. Second, as stated in both Sections 24 and 25 above, Nachman et al explicilty 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), and it can be a pest management agent capable of disrupting the water balance in the target insects. And based on the data presented in Table 1 in Nachman et al, Manse-CAP2b[2-8] exhibits the lowest EC50 against the housefly Musca domestica. Therefore, in the instant case, considering the state of art regarding neuropeptides as target-specific insecticidal agents and in view of the teachings of Nachman et al as a whole, it is unclear to the Examiner why and/or how one of ordinary skilled in the art would reach the conclusion that Manse-CAP2b[2-8] would exhibit no insecticidal activity against the housefly Musca domestica. Further clarification is required.
In response to Applicant’s arguments about the cited Kola et al reference, the Examiner understands that Kola et al do not explicitly state Musca domestica (M. domestica) is one of crop insects that infect crop plant. However, in the instant case, Kola et al teach RNAi based gene silencing of key enzymes and proteins of crop insects; and such key enzymes and proteins include lipophorin and lipid transfer particle(LTP) from Musca domestica. Therefore, in view of the teachings of Kola et al as a whole, one of ordinary skilled in the art would understand and reasonably expect Musca domestica (M. domestica) is one of crop insects that infect crop plant.
In response to Applicant’s arguments about the cited Alford et al reference, the Examiner understands that the method in Alford et al is related to a method of reducing or treating hemipteran insect infection of a plant with CAP2b analogues, not the instant claimed compound and/or composition. However, in the instant case, the Examiner would like to point out that Alford et al explicitly teach “Within the insects, neuropeptides are regulatory peptides with functional roles in growth and development, behaviour and reproduction, metabolism and homeostasis, and muscle movement” and “Due to their high specificity, neuropeptides and their cognate receptors (G-protein coupled receptors, GPCRs) may be developed towards insecticidal agents to selectively reduce the fitness of target pest insects, whilst minimising detrimental environmental impacts” (see page 1, lines 12-18). Alford et al further teach “The CAPA peptides belong to the PRXamide superfamily which can be further subdivided into three major classes: CAPA peptides, pyrokinins (PK) and ecdysis triggering hormone (ETH).” (see for example, page 2, lines 1-3). Furthermore, neuropeptides as target-specific insecticidal agents are well known in the art, as disclosed in Alford et al and many others. Therefore, in the instant case, considering the state of art regarding neuropeptides as target-specific insecticidal agents and in view of the teachings of Alford et al as a whole, it is unclear to the Examiner why and/or how one of ordinary skilled in the art would reach the conclusion that Manse-CAP2b[2-8] taught in Nachman et al would exhibit no insecticidal activity against the housefly Musca domestica. Further clarification is required.
In response to Applicant’s arguments about the cited Peers et al reference, the Examiner understands that Peers et al is not related to insecticide. However, the Examiner would like to point out 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. In the instant case, one of ordinary skilled in the art would understand and reasonably expect the teachings of Peers et al would apply to all peptides/proteins, rather than only to the specific peptides/proteins disclosed in Peers et al. Furthermore, Applicant is required to provide data and/or evidence to indicate that due to unknown reasons, the teachings of Peers et al would not apply to instant claimed peptide compound.
In response to Applicant’s arguments about the cited Schwarz reference, the Examiner understands that the peptides in Schwarz are not the same as Manse-CAP2b[2-8] taught in Nachman et al. However, in the instant case, as stated above, the rejection is based on the combined teachings of Nachman et al, Kola et al, Schwarz and Peers et al. Therefore, it is not necessary for each of the cited references to teach all the limitations of instant claims. Furthermore, as stated in both Section 25 and the paragraph above, 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 of Musca domestica (M. domestica, a dipteran insect).
Taken all these together, these rejections are deemed proper and are hereby maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
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
Prosecution Insights