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 12/15/2025 is acknowledged.
4. Claim filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged.
5. Claims 1-100 have been cancelled.
6. Claims 101-141 are pending in this application.
7. Claims 101-134 and 137-141 are withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to non-elected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
8. Claims 135 and 136 are under examination.
Elections/Restrictions
9. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 8 (claims 135 and 136) and election without traverse of a diguetoxin variant polypeptide (DVP) of SEQ ID NO: 217 as species of DVP or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged. The requirement is made FINAL in this office action.
Group 8 is drawn to a diguetoxin variant polypeptide (DVP) having insecticidal activity against one or more insect species, said DVP consisting of an amino acid sequence that is at least 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, or at least 100% identical to the amino acid sequence set forth in any one of SEQ ID NOs: 6-43, 45-51, 53, 128, 130, 136, 139-140, 144, 146-147, 187-191, 202-215, or 217-219, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof. A search was conducted on the elected species; and this appears to be free of prior art. A search was extended to the genus in claim 135; and prior art was found. Claims 135 and 136 are examined on the merits in this office action.
Claim Interpretations
10. With regards to the DVP or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof recited in instant claims 135 and 136, the instant specification discloses that “"DVP" or "Mu-diguetoxin-Dc1a Variant Polypeptides" refer to peptide, polypeptide, or protein mutants or variants that differ in some way from the wild-type mature Mu-diguetoxin-Dc1a (SEQ ID NO:2); for example, in some embodiments, this variance can be an amino acid substitution, amino acid deletion/insertion, and/or a mutation or variance to a
polynucleotide operable to encode the wild-type Mu-diguetoxin-Dc1a. The result of this variation is a non-naturally occurring polypeptide and/or polynucleotide sequence encoding the same that possesses insecticidal activity against one or more insect species, relative to the wild-type Mu-diguetoxin-Dc1a.” (see page 17, paragraph [0099] of instant specification). Therefore, in the instant case, in view of the disclosure of instant specification and in the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Examiner is interpretating the recited DVP or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof broadly includes any peptide consisting of the amino acid sequence that is at least 80% identical to any one of the recited SEQ ID NOs, but can’t consist of the amino acid sequence of instant SEQ ID NO: 2. Such interpretation applies to all the rejections set forth below.
Objections
11. The specification is objected to for the following minor informality: The specification recites “See Table 3, highlighted gray” on page 216, paragraph [001038] of instant specification. However, nothing in instant Table 3 is highlighted gray. Applicant is required to correct this error.
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. Claim 135 is objected to for the following minor informality: Applicant is suggested to amend claim 135 as "A diguetoxin variant polypeptide (DVP) having insecticidal activity against one or more insect species, wherein the DVP consists of the amino acid sequence that is at least 80% identical to the amino acid sequence set forth in any one of SEQ ID NOs: 6-43, 45-51, 53, 128, 130, 136, 139-140, 144, 146-147, 187-191, 202-215, and 217-219, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof". The Examiner would like to point out that the term “an amino acid sequence” broadly includes both fragments and full length of any sequence that is at least 80% identical to the amino acid sequence of the recited SEQ ID NOs.
13. Claim 136 is objected to for the following minor informality: Applicant is suggested to amend claim 136 as “The DVP of claim 135, wherein the DVP consists of the amino acid sequence that is at least 80% identical to the amino acid sequence set forth in any one of SEQ ID NOs: 47, 53, 136, 139-140, 144, 146-147, 187-191, 210-215, and 217-219, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof".
Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112 paragraph (a)
Written Description
14. 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.
15. Claims 135 and 136 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 135 and 136 are drawn to a diguetoxin variant polypeptide (DVP) having insecticidal activity against one or more insect species, said DVP consisting of an amino acid sequence that is at least 80% identical to the amino acid sequence set forth in any one of SEQ ID NOs: 6-43, 45-51, 53, 128, 130, 136, 139-140, 144, 146-147, 187-191, 202-215, or 217-219, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof.
The genus of instant claimed DVP having insecticidal activity against one or more insect species is extremely broad, including any peptide consisting of an amino acid sequence that is at least 80% identical to the amino acid sequence set forth in any one of SEQ ID NOs: 6-43, 45-51, 53, 128, 130, 136, 139-140, 144, 146-147, 187-191, 202-215, or 217-219.
The instant specification discloses that peptides of instant SEQ ID NOs: 6-43, 45-51, 53, 128, 130, 136, 139-140, 144, 146-147, 187-191, 202-215, or 217-219 as variants of wild type diguetoxin of instant SEQ ID NO: 2.
The issue at question is whether a person of ordinary skilled in the art would be able to determine what structural feature/amino acid sequence is required for the instant claimed DVP to have the functional characteristics of having insecticidal activity against one or more insect species or not.
(a) actual reduction to practice and (b) disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas:
In the instant case, the instant specification discloses peptides of instant SEQ ID NOs: 6-43, 45-51, 53, 128, 130, 136, 139-140, 144, 146-147, 187-191, 202-215, and 217-219 as variants of wild type diguetoxin of instant SEQ ID NO: 2.
With regards to insecticidal activity against one or more insect species in the working examples in instant specification:
First, the instant specification discloses test results for the insecticidal activity against one or more insect species of many DVPs as N/D (not detected). It is unclear to the Examiner whether N/D means not tested or inactive.
Second, data presented in instant specification indicate the unpredictability with respect to the insecticidal activity against one or more insect species of instant claimed DVP. The detailed explanation is as followings:
DVPs of instant SEQ ID NOs: 6-14 are tested for insecticidal activity against housefly; and the data presented in instant Table 2 indicate that depends on the specific amino acid substitutions on C41/C51 of instant SEQ ID NO: 2, the insecticidal activity against housefly of such DVPs varies. As an example, in comparison to instant SEQ ID NO: 2, DVP of instant SEQ ID NO: 6 (C41T/C51A substitutions) exhibits similar insecticidal activity against housefly, while DVP of instant SEQ ID NO: 13 (C41T/C51S substitutions) exhibits reduced insecticidal activity against housefly.
An alanine scan of instant SEQ ID NO: 6 (SEQ ID NO: 2 with C41T/C51A substitutions) is performed, and the data presented in instant Table 3 indicates that a single Ala substitution at position 17, 20, 33, 36, 38, 42 and 48 of instant SEQ ID NO: 6 does not appear to significantly change the insecticidal activity against housefly.
A mutagenesis scan of residue A10, V17, D20, S21, W31, Y32, K33, P36 and/or D38 of instant SEQ ID NO: 6 indicates that the effects of substituting residue A10, V17, D20, S21, W31, Y32, K33, P36 and/or D38 of instant SEQ ID NO: 6 on the insecticidal activity against housefly is unpredictable (the data presented in instant Tables 4-6). As an example, based on the data presented in instant Table 6, instant SEQ ID NO: 6 with D38A substitution exhibits insecticidal activity against housefly that is similar to that of instant SEQ ID NO: 2. However, even though the data in Table 3 indicates a single Ala substitution at position 17 or 42 of instant SEQ ID NO: 6 does not appear to significantly change the insecticidal activity against housefly, instant SEQ ID NO: 6 with either D38A/V17E or D38A/L42Q substitutions exhibits reduced insecticidal activity against housefly.
Furthermore, the instant specification discloses peptides of instant SEQ ID NOs: 35, 130 and 136 do not exhibit any insecticidal activity against Com earworm (Helicoverpa zea) (CEW) larvae, as indicated by the data presented in instant Table 9.
Taken all these together, the data presented in instant specification indicate the unpredictability with respect to the insecticidal activity against one or more insect species of instant claimed DVP. And other than the limited examples, the instant specification fails to disclose the effect of altering the amino acid sequence of DVPs of instant SEQ ID NOs: 6-43, 45-51, 53, 128, 130, 136, 139-140, 144, 146-147, 187-191, 202-215, and 217-219 on the functional characteristics of having insecticidal activity against one or more insect species. The instant specification does not describe a general correlation between structure and function for the claimed genus of DVP consisting of an amino acid sequence that is at least 80% identical to the amino acid sequence set forth in any one of SEQ ID NOs: 6-43, 45-51, 53, 128, 130, 136, 139-140, 144, 146-147, 187-191, 202-215, or 217-219.
(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 limited examples, a person of ordinary skilled in the art would not be able to determine the effect of altering the amino acid sequence of DVPs of instant SEQ ID NOs: 6-43, 45-51, 53, 128, 130, 136, 139-140, 144, 146-147, 187-191, 202-215, and 217-219 on the functional characteristics of having insecticidal activity against one or more insect species.
With regards to the instant claimed DVP having insecticidal activity against one or more insect species, first, as indicated in the List of Insects document (from https://www.britannica.com/topic/list-of-insects-2073946, 2018, enclosed pages 1-20), there are many different types of insects, such as ants (page 1), bees (page 1), beetles (page 3), moths (page 7), cockroaches (page 11), flies (page 12), and so on. Second, Bende et al (Nat. Commun., 2014, 5, pages 1-10, filed with IDS) teach rDc1a consisting of the amino acid sequence SAKDGDVEGPAGCKKYDVECDSGECCQKQYLWYKW RPLDCRCLKSGFFSSKCVCRDV is an insect-selective insecticide, in that it is active against German cockroach but inactive against American cockroach, for example, Abstract; and page 2, Figure 1. The rDc1a in Bende et al is the DVP recited in instant claims 135 and 136, in that it consists of the amino acid sequence that is at least 80% identical to any one of the recited SEQ ID NOs, but does not consists of the amino acid sequence of instant SEQ ID NO: 2.
In addition, it is well known in the peptide/protein art that even single amino acid changes or differences in the amino acid sequence of a protein can have dramatic effects on the protein’s function. As an example of the unpredictable effects of mutations on protein function, Drumm et al (Annu. Rev. Pathol. Mech. Dis., 2012, 7, pages 267-282) teach cystic fibrosis is an autosomal recessive disorder caused by mutations in the CFTR (cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator) gene, for example, page 268, Section “CYSTIC FIBROSIS”. Drumm et al further teach several mutations can cause cystic fibrosis, including two mutations G551D and G551S; and clinical consequences are quite different for these two changes, as the G551D variant has virtually no detectable activity, and consequently a classic, severe phenotype is associated; G551S, however, has reduced but clearly detectable function and is associated with a much milder presentation of CF, for example page 269, left column, the last paragraph. Drumm et al also teach that in the most common cystic fibrosis mutation ΔF508 (the absence of amino acid 508 of the normally 1,480-amino acid protein) gives rise to the cystic fibrosis phenotype, for example, page 268, right column, the 2nd paragraph. Thus, even the substitution or deletion of a single amino acid can have dramatic and unpredictable effects on the function of the protein. The unpredictability of the effect of amino acid substitution on the function and/or property of peptide/protein is further confirmed and discussed in Yampolsky et al (Genetics, 2005, 170, pages 1459-1472). Yampolsky et al teach even conservative substitution can significantly affect the function of the protein/peptide, for example, page 1465, Table 3. Although the disclosures of Drumm et al and Yampolsky et al are directed to proteins/peptides other than DVP, they illustrate the inherent unpredictability with respect to the biological activity of a given protein/peptide after even minor changes to the primary amino acid sequence.
Therefore, based on the state of art, a person of ordinary skilled in the art would not be able to determine the effect of altering the amino acid sequence of DVPs of instant SEQ ID NOs: 6-43, 45-51, 53, 128, 130, 136, 139-140, 144, 146-147, 187-191, 202-215, and 217-219 on the functional characteristics of having insecticidal activity against one or more insect species.
(d) representative number of samples:
In the instant case, the genus of instant claimed DVP is extremely broad, including any peptide consisting of an amino acid sequence that is at least 80% identical to the amino acid sequence set forth in any one of SEQ ID NOs: 6-43, 45-51, 53, 128, 130, 136, 139-140, 144, 146-147, 187-191, 202-215, or 217-219.
And, as discussed in (a) and (b) above, the instant specification discloses peptides of instant SEQ ID NOs: 6-43, 45-51, 53, 128, 130, 136, 139-140, 144, 146-147, 187-191, 202-215, and 217-219 as variants of wild type diguetoxin of instant SEQ ID NO: 2. Furthermore, the data presented in instant specification indicate the unpredictability with respect to the insecticidal activity against one or more insect species of instant claimed DVP. And other than the limited examples, the instant specification fails to disclose the effect of altering the amino acid sequence of DVPs of instant SEQ ID NOs: 6-43, 45-51, 53, 128, 130, 136, 139-140, 144, 146-147, 187-191, 202-215, and 217-219 on the functional characteristics of having insecticidal activity against one or more insect species. The instant specification does not describe a general correlation between structure and function for the claimed genus of DVP consisting of an amino acid sequence that is at least 80% identical to the amino acid sequence set forth in any one of SEQ ID NOs: 6-43, 45-51, 53, 128, 130, 136, 139-140, 144, 146-147, 187-191, 202-215, or 217-219.
Considering the broadness of the genus of instant claimed DVP, the instant specification fails to provide sufficient examples to describe the entire genus of DVP consisting of an amino acid sequence that is at least 80% identical to the amino acid sequence set forth in any one of SEQ ID NOs: 6-43, 45-51, 53, 128, 130, 136, 139-140, 144, 146-147, 187-191, 202-215, or 217-219 having insecticidal activity against one or more insect species 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 DVP consisting of an amino acid sequence that is at least 80% identical to the amino acid sequence set forth in any one of SEQ ID NOs: 6-43, 45-51, 53, 128, 130, 136, 139-140, 144, 146-147, 187-191, 202-215, or 217-219 having insecticidal activity against one or more insect species; 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. § 102(a)(1)
16. 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 –
(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.
17. Claims 135 and 136 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bende et al (Nat. Commun., 2014, 5, pages 1-10, filed with IDS).
The instant claims 135 and 136 are drawn to a diguetoxin variant polypeptide (DVP) having insecticidal activity against one or more insect species, said DVP consisting of an amino acid sequence that is at least 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, or at least 100% identical to the amino acid sequence set forth in any one of SEQ ID NOs: 6-43, 45-51, 53, 128, 130, 136, 139-140, 144, 146-147, 187-191, 202-215, or 217-219, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof.
Bende et al, throughout the literature, teach recombinant β-Diguetoxin-Dc1a (rDc1a) as an insecticide against German cockroach, for example, Abstract; and page 6, Figure 5. Bende et al further teach rDc1a consists of the amino acid sequence SAKDGDVEGPAGCKKYDVECDSGECCQKQYLWYKWRPLDCRCLKSGFFSSKCVCRDV, wherein the non-native N-terminal S is added for recombinant toxin production, for example, page 2, Figure 1. The rDc1a in Bende et al is the DVP recited in instant claims 135 and 136, in that it consists of the amino acid sequence that is at least 80% identical to any one of the recited SEQ ID NOs, but does not consists of the amino acid sequence of instant SEQ ID NO: 2.
Since the reference teaches all the limitations of instant claims 135 and 136; the reference anticipates instant claims 135 and 136.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. Claims 135 and 136 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bende et al (Nat. Commun., 2014, 5, pages 1-10, filed with IDS) in view of Wang et al (Nature structural biology, 2000, 7, pages 505-513, filed with IDS).
The instant claims 135 and 136 are drawn to a diguetoxin variant polypeptide (DVP) having insecticidal activity against one or more insect species, said DVP consisting of an amino acid sequence that is at least 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, or at least 100% identical to the amino acid sequence set forth in any one of SEQ ID NOs: 6-43, 45-51, 53, 128, 130, 136, 139-140, 144, 146-147, 187-191, 202-215, or 217-219, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof.
Bende et al, throughout the literature, teach β-Diguetoxin-Dc1a (Dc1a) as an insecticide against German cockroach, for example, Abstract; and page 6, Figure 5. Bende et al further teach rDc1a consists of the amino acid sequence SAKDGDVEGP AGCKKYDVECDSGECCQKQYLWYKWRPLDCRCLKSGFFSSKCVCRDV, wherein the non-native N-terminal S is added for recombinant toxin production, for example, page 2, Figure 1. The native Dc1a without the non-native N-terminal S in Bende et al is identical to the diguetoxin of instant SEQ ID NO: 2. Bende et al also teach that three out of the four disulphide bonds in rDc1a forms a classical inhibitor cysteine knot (ICK) motif, wherein the additional disulphide bond (Cys42–Cys52) in rDc1a may serve as a molecular staple which limits the flexibility of a disordered serine rich hairpin loop (residues 43–51), for example, page 4, left column, the 2nd paragraph.
The difference between the reference and instant claims 135 and 136 is that the reference does not explicilty teach a DVP that is 100% identical to any one of the SEQ ID NOs recited in instant claims 135 and 136.
However, Wang et al teach double mutations in which Cys residues are replaced with Ser as a tool for characterizing the rare/unique disulphide bond in insecticidal neurotoxin, for example, page 506, left column, the 2nd paragraph; and page 508, the 2nd paragraph in Section “The vicinal disulfide is functionally important”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Bende et al and Wang et al to develop a variant of Dc1a consisting of the amino acid sequence AKDGDVEGPAGCKKYDVECDSGECCQKQYL WYKWRPLDCRCLKSGFFSSKCVCRDV, wherein Cys residues at positions 41 and 51 are substituted with Ser to study the function of this extra disulphide bond in Dc1a. This variant of Dc1a is identical to the DVP of instant SEQ ID NO: 14, and meets the limitations of DVP recited in instant claims 135 and 136.
With regarding to the limitation “having insecticidal activity against one or more insect species” recited in instant claims 135 and 136, since the variant of Dc1a developed from the combined teachings of Bende et al and Wang et al above is identical to the DVP of instant SEQ ID NO: 14, and meets all the structural limitations of the DVP recited in instant claims 135 and 136, the variant of Dc1a developed from the combined teachings of Bende et al and Wang et al above would necessarily have the same functionality and/or properties of the DVP recited in instant claims 135 and 136. Therefore, the variant of Dc1a developed from the combined teachings of Bende et al and Wang et al above exhibits insecticidal activity against one or more insect species. And the MPEP states: “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP § 2112.01 II). Since the USPTO lacks the experimental facilities to make a further determination, the burden is on the Applicant to prove the otherwise.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Bende et al and Wang et al to develop a variant of Dc1a consisting of the amino acid sequence AKDGDVEGPAGCKKYDVECDSGECCQKQYLWYKWRPLDC RCLKSGFFSSKCVCRDV, wherein Cys residues at positions 41 and 51 are substituted with Ser to study the function of this extra disulphide bond in Dc1a, and wherein such variant has insecticidal activity against one or more insect species, because Wang et al teach double mutations in which Cys residues are replaced with Ser as a tool for characterizing the rare/unique disulphide bond in insecticidal neurotoxin.
A person of ordinary skilled in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Bende et al and Wang et al to develop a variant of Dc1a consisting of the amino acid sequence AKDGDVEGPAGCKKYDVECDSGEC CQKQYLWYKWRPLDCRCLKSGFFSSKCVCRDV, wherein Cys residues at positions 41 and 51 are substituted with Ser to study the function of this extra disulphide bond in Dc1a, and wherein such variant has insecticidal activity against one or more insect species.
Examiner’s Notes
21. Kennedy et al (WO 2022/212863 A1, filed with IDS) disclose DVPs of SEQ ID NOs: 602-701, which meet the limitations of the DVP recited in instant claims 135 and 136, for example, page 103, paragraph [0659]. The Kennedy et al reference is PCT/US2022/023079 filed on 4/1/2022, which claims priority to US provisional application No. 63/169696 filed on 4/1/2021. However, US provisional application No. 63/169696 fails to disclose the DVPs of SEQ ID NOs: 602-701. Therefore, the Kennedy et al reference does not qualify as a prior art reference.
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