DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged. As such, the effective filing date of Claims 18-37 is 10/02/2020.
-Prosecution for Application No. 18/029,755 has been reopened, as set forth below, due to the Applicant’s Remarks dated 09/19/2025 in response to the Restriction Requirement dated 06/20/2025-
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, Claims 18-26 and 35-37, drawn to Cucumis melo plant, or a plant part or cell thereof, wherein said plant homozygously comprises in its genome a mutant allele of the staygreen (sgr) gene on chromosome 9, wherein said mutant allele of the sgr gene comprises at least one loss-of- function mutation in comparison to the sequence of a wild-type sgr allele (SEQ ID NO: 1) and wherein said mutant allele of the sgr gene confers rind color stability to the fruits of said plant at maturity and/or during post-harvest, in comparison with an isogenic non-long shelf life (non-LSL) Cucumis melo plant which does not comprise said mutant allele and a C. melo seed.
Group II, Claims 27-29, drawn to method of producing a C. melo plant producing fruits or susceptible to produce fruits with an increased shelf life, comprising:(a) using a Cucumis melo plant according to claim 18 as a breeding partner to introgress the mutant allele mutant allele of the sgr gene into a progeny C. melo plant; or (b) introducing by mutagenesis or genome editing a loss-of-function mutation in the sgr gene on chromosome 9 in the genome of a C. melo plant..
Group III, Claims 30-34, drawn to method for identifying, detecting and/or selecting C. melo plants producing fruits or susceptible to produce fruits with an increased shelf life, said method comprising the detection of a mutant allele of the sgr gene on chromosome 9 in the genome of said plants, wherein said mutant allele comprises at least one loss-of-function mutation in comparison to the sequence of a wild-type sgr allele (SEQ ID NO:1)..
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I-III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a Cucumis melo plant that comprises at least one loss-of-function mutation in comparison to the sequence of a wild-type staygreen (sgr) allele (SEQ ID NO: 1), this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Bade et al. (Genet Mol Res 15.4 (2016); IDS Document) in view of Kusaba et al. (Current opinion in Biotechnology 15.2 (2004): 139-143) and Small et al. (Current Opinion in Biotechnology 18.2 (2007): 148-153). Bade et al. discloses Cucumis melo plants with loss of function via RNAi of the CmSGR1 and CmSGR2 genes, which had delayed skin yellowing when compared to wild-type melon. Bade et al. discloses that CmSGR1 and CmSGR2 are located on chromosome 9 of the Cucumis melo genome (pg. 5, Table 1) and that the open reading frame of CmSGR2 is identical in sequence to the ORF of the wild-type sgr gene set forth in SEQ ID NO: 4 which is encoded by SEQ ID NO: 1 (pg. 7, Figure 2).
While Bade et al. teaches suppression of CmSGR1 and CmSGR2 via RNAi, the instant claims are directed to loss of function of a wild-type sgr allele via mutation.
Kusaba et al. teaches that mutation (full knock out) and RNAi suppression are equivalents known for the same purpose of suppression of gene function in crop plants, with the methods having advantages over one another depending on practical circumstances (pg. 141, right column, paragraph 2; pg. 142, left column, paragraph 1). Kusaba also teaches that the degree of suppression of a gene is a design choice by one of ordinary skill in the art (pg. 142, left column, first paragraph).
Small teaches that RNAi often leads to partial knock down, and this a range of phenotypes (Box 2).
It is prima facie obvious to substitute known equivalents when the prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produced substantially the same results as the corresponding element. RNAi suppression (as taught by Bade), which produces a range of gene suppression per the teachings of Small, would be expected to produce the equivalent effect of null mutations in a homozygous and heterozygous state. As taught by Kusaba, mutation (total knock out) and suppression via RNAi were known, obvious equivalents and as such making Cucumis melo plant parts wherein the CmSGR1 and CmSGR2 undergo loss of function via mutation only would have been obvious. The phenotypes required by Claim 18 and 22 are deemed to be inherent to at least a subset of the plants, plant parts, or cell rendered obvious by the combination of Bade, Kusaba, and Small, in view of the evidence of the instant specification.
Therefore, the technical feature common to all groups does not contribute a special technical feature as defined by PCT Rule 13.2, as it does not define a contribution over the prior art. Accordingly, Groups I-III lack the same or corresponding special technical feature as to for a single inventive concept.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, Applicant is required, in reply to this office action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted. The applicant is required to elect one group of invention to be examined.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention or species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions have unity of invention (37 CFR 1.475(a)), applicant must provide reasons in support thereof. Applicant may submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. Where such evidence or admission is provided by applicant, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on pgs. 6-9 of the reply dated 09/19/2025 have been entered and acknowledged, but are rendered moot in view of the new Restriction requirement above. In particular, Applicant’s Remarks to traverse the original restriction requirement set forth in the Office action dated 6/20/2025 rely on the premise that the claims require a permanent loss of function mutation of the claimed staygreen (sgr) gene (Remarks, pg. 7).
This is not found persuasive based on the combination of teachings provided by Bade, Kusaba, and Small which teach that substituting the method of RNAi gene suppression taught by Bade with a method of mutation would be obvious because the methods are known equivalents. RNAi suppression (as taught by Bade), which produces a range of gene suppression per the teachings of Small, would be expected to produce the equivalent effect of null mutations in a homozygous and heterozygous state. As taught by Kusaba, mutation and suppression via RNAi were known, obvious equivalents and as such making Cucumis melo plant parts wherein the CmSGR1 and CmSGR2 undergo loss of function via mutation only would have been obvious.
Applicant’s Remarks to traverse the original restriction requirement set forth in the Office action dated 6/20/2025 also rely on the premise that the plants of Bade does not comprise in their genome a mutant allele of the sgr gene that comprises at least one loss-of-function mutation in comparison to SEQ ID NO: 1 (Remarks, pg. 7).
This is not found persuasive based on the combination of teachings provided by Bade, Kusaba, and Small which teach that substituting the method of RNAi gene suppression taught by Bade with a method of mutation that provides total knock out of the gene of interest would be obvious because the methods are known, obvious equivalents.
Applicant’s Remarks to traverse the original restriction requirement set forth in the Office action dated 6/20/2025 also rely on the premise that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered modifying Bade to introduce a permanent mutation of the sgr gene taught by Bade— based on the experimental results of Bade and the assertion that RNAi-mediated silencing would not have been considered predictive of results of permanent mutation (Remarks, pgs. 7-8).
This is not found persuasive. "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (MPEP 2123, Section II) In the instant case, just because the transient mutation taught by Bade has an inferior phenotype by Applicant’s assertion (Remarks, paragraph bridging pgs. 7-8), Bade still explicitly teaches the instantly claimed phenotype (delayed rind yellowing, i.e. rind color stability) in the instantly claimed plants, wherein the CmSGR1 and CmSGR2 genes have undergone RNAi-mediated gene suppression. At the very least, Bade puts on of ordinary skill in the art on notice that the loss-of-function of these genes can, in some cases, lead to this agronomically important phenotype. It should also be noted that target mutagenesis techniques (presumably what one of ordinary skill in the art would use to make Applicant’s mutations) are often effective only a small percentage of the time. It also would be reasonable to expect that some melon plants (i.e., the cultivar taught by Bade) undergoing loss of function of the gene of interest would have slightly different phenotypic results relative to the melon plants taught by the instant specification, because different cultivars could have varying susceptibilities to the instantly claimed mutation. Examiner invites Applicant to provide evidence in a side by side comparison of the instantly claimed melon cultivar and the melon cultivar taught by Bade, both of which have undergone loss of function of a CmSGR gene (SEQ ID NO: 1) to show that the instantly claimed plant would have a superior rind color stability phenotype when compared to the plant taught by Bade. In regards to the argument that RNAi-mediated silencing would not have been considered predictive of results of permanent mutation, while it is true that one of ordinary skill in the art could never 100% predict which mutation would be a null mutation, there are publicly available computation tools that would give one of ordinary skill in the art indication of variant type (i.e., Ensembl Variant Effect Predictor, Variant Annotation Integrator) and functional impact of said null mutation (i.e., SIFT, PROVEAN, MutationAssessor).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s Remarks to the original Restriction requirement set forth in the Office Action dated 06/20/2025, in the reply filed on 09/19/2025, have been reviewed and considered but are rendered moot in view of the new Restriction requirement set forth above.
As such, Applicant’s election of Group I, encompassing previously presented Claims 18-26 and newly added Claims 35-37 in the reply filed on 09/19/2025 is acknowledged.
Status of the Claims
Amendments dated 09/19/2025 have been entered.
Claims 18-37 are pending.
Claims 27-34 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention.
Claims 18-26 and 35-37 are examined herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 03/31/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered in full. A signed copy of the list of references cited from the IDS is included with this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following reasons:
37 CFR 1.84 (u)(1) states “View numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation "FIG."”
In the current case, the view number for Figures 1-13 are preceded by the word "Figure" instead
of the abbreviation "FIG.".
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office
action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should
include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is
being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as
“amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the
replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate
changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional
replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing
sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either
“Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by
the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next
Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The use of the term KASPar™, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 18 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18, line 6 should recite “…in comparison to an isogenic…”
Claim 21, line 2 should recite “…mutation consists of a G584A…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Indefiniteness
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.
Claims 18-26 and 35-37 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the staygreen (sgr) gene" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The first disclosure of the term “staygreen (sgr) gene” is in lines 2-3 of instant Claim 1, wherein the term “staygreen (sgr) gene” is not explicitly recited prior to this disclosure. As such, for proper antecedence, the term “a” should precede the first disclosure of the term “staygreen (sgr) gene”.
Claims 19-26 and 35-37 depend from Claim 18 and are therefore rejected for the same reasons as given above.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 18 recites the broad recitation “a wild-type sgr allele", and the claim also recites "SEQ ID NO:1" in parenthesis which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. As such, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are unclear because the claimed “wild-type sgr allele” could be any unmodified sgr allele known in the art.
Claims 19-26 and 35-37 depend from Claim 18 and are therefore rejected for the same reasons as given above.
Claim 18 recites, in part, the limitation “…wherein said mutant allele of the sgr gene confers rind color stability to the fruits of said plant at maturity and/or during post-harvest, in comparison with an isogenic non-long shelf life (non- LSL) Cucumis melo plant which does not comprise said mutant allele” which renders the claim indefinite. While it is understood that the isogenic non-long shelf life Cucumis melo plant recited in the claims is meant to be a point of comparison (control) to measure the claimed rind color stability phenotype of the fruit with the sgr mutant allele, it unclear how the rind color stability phenotype of the fruit comprising the mutant allele, as it relates specifically to the fruit’s rind, can be compared to the control Cucumis melo plant, unless the Applicant’s definition of “plant” is meant to be interpreted to include the isogenic non-long shelf life Cucumis melo fruit, which would inherently include the rind of the control plant’s fruit. The instant claims and the specification do not provide a definition for the control plant that overcomes this aspect of the indefiniteness rejection. As such, without a clear definition for the term “plant” in Claim 18, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to recognize the metes and bounds of the control plant which is required as a point of comparison in the recited methods and plants of the claimed invention. This aspect of the indefiniteness rejection may be overcome by amending the claims to recite an appropriate control relative to the Cucumis melo fruit comprising the mutant allele, such as the control recited in Claim 22. For purposes of examination, the term “plant” in the instant claims will be broadly interpreted to encompass all plant parts (including fruit) and cells of the recited Cucumis melo plants. This determination does not relieve Applicant from their duty to amend the claims in any further correspondence.
Claims 19-26 and 35-37 depend from Claim 18 and are therefore rejected for the same reasons as given above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 18-26 and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bade et al. (Genet Mol Res 15.4 (2016); IDS Document) in view of Kusaba et al. (Current opinion in Biotechnology 15.2 (2004): 139-143) and Small (Current Opinion in Biotechnology 18.2 (2007): 148-153).
Regarding Claims 18 and 24, Bade et al. (herein referred to as Bade) teaches Cucumis melo (Cucumis melo L. cv Hetao) plant fruits (pg. 4, first full paragraph) with loss of function via RNAi of the CmSGR1 and CmSGR2 genes (paragraph bridging pgs. 8-9), which had delayed skin yellowing (rind color stability) (pg. 9, first paragraph bridging from pg. 8) when compared to wild-type melon (Cucumis melo L. cv Hetao plants transformed with plasmids not comprising gene suppression machinery; Figure 5d). Bade teaches that CmSGR1 and CmSGR2 are located on chromosome 9 of the Cucumis melo genome (pg. 5, second paragraph and Table 1) and that the open reading frame of CmSGR2 is identical in sequence to the ORF of the wild-type sgr gene set forth in instant SEQ ID NO: 4 which is encoded by instant SEQ ID NO: 1 (pg. 7, Figure 2).
However, Bade teaches suppression of CmSGR1 and CmSGR2 via RNAi and the instant claims are directed to loss of function of a wild-type sgr allele via mutation.
Kusaba et al. (herein referred to as Kusaba) teaches that mutation (full knock out) and RNAi suppression are equivalents known for the same purpose of suppression of gene function in crop plants, with the methods having advantages over one another depending on practical circumstances (pg. 141, right column, paragraph 2; pg. 142, left column, paragraph 1). Kusaba also teaches that the degree of suppression of a gene is a design choice by one of ordinary skill in the art (pg. 142, left column, first paragraph).
Small teaches that RNAi often leads to partial knock down, and this a range of phenotypes (Box 2).
It is prima facie obvious to substitute known equivalents when the prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produced substantially the same results as the corresponding element. RNAi suppression (as taught by Bade), which produces a range of gene suppression per the teachings of Small, would be expected to produce the equivalent effect of null mutations in a homozygous and heterozygous state. As taught by Kusaba, mutation (total knock out) and suppression via RNAi were known, obvious equivalents before the effective filing date of this invention and as such making Cucumis melo plant parts wherein the CmSGR1 and CmSGR2 undergo loss of function via mutation only would have been obvious.
Regarding Claims 18 and 22, the phenotypes required by the instant claims are deemed to be inherent to at least a subset of the plants, plant parts, or cell rendered obvious by the combination of Bade, Kusaba, and Small, in view of the evidence of the instant specification.
Regarding Claim 23, Bade teaches Cucumis melo (Cucumis melo L. cv Hetao) plant fruits (pg. 4, first full paragraph) with loss of function via RNAi of the CmSGR1 and CmSGR2 genes (paragraph bridging pgs. 8-9). Cucumis melo L. cv Hetao is inherently an inbred C. melo line as evidenced by the breeding history taught by Wang et al. (CN 102652518 A, published 09/05/2012; paragraph 0003).
Regarding Claim 25, Bade teaches Cucumis melo (Cucumis melo L. cv Hetao) plant fruits (pg. 4, first full paragraph) with loss of function via RNAi of the CmSGR1 and CmSGR2 genes (paragraph bridging pgs. 8-9).
Regarding Claim 26, the seeds of the Cucumis melo fruit with loss of function via RNAi of the CmSGR1 and CmSGR2 genes (paragraph bridging pgs. 8-9) taught by Bade would be an inherent feature of said fruit.
Regarding Claims 19-21 and 35-37, based on the teachings of Bade which are directed to loss-of-function of CmSGR2, wherein CmSGR2 is located on chromosome 9 of the Cucumis melo genome (pg. 5, second paragraph and Table 1) and the open reading frame of CmSGR2 is identical in sequence to the ORF of the wild-type sgr gene set forth in instant SEQ ID NO: 4 which is encoded by instant SEQ ID NO: 1 (pg. 7, Figure 2), the prior art directs one of ordinary skill in the art to make any mutation that leads to a knock-out of CmSGR2. It is well within the experience of that skilled artisan to perform gene editing, RNAi, or EMS on any portion of CmSGR2 to cause loss of function of CmSGR2—all of which would lead to the same result of loss-of-function of CmSGR2. Examiner invites Applicant to submit evidence to show that the specific mutations recited in Claims 19-21 and 35-37, particularly the at least one loss of function mutation that is a substitution of a guanine to an alanine at position 584 of SEQ ID NO: 1, does anything other than what is reasonably expected (i.e., knock-out of CmSGR resulting in the rind color stability phenotype of the fruits of said mutant plant) based on the disclosure of the prior art and evidence from the instant specification.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY L. MCWILLIAMS whose telephone number is (703)756-4704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:00-17:30.
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, AMJAD ABRAHAM can be reached at (571) 270-7058. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KELSEY L MCWILLIAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 1663
/Amjad Abraham/SPE, Art Unit 1663