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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 7-12 & 14-15 are under examination on the merits.
Claim 13 with withdrawn without traverse.
The objections to the specification are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
The objections to claims 1 & 15 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 7-12 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a natural phenomenon without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) selecting or identifying a Brassica napus plant (claim 1, line 1) and detecting the presence or absence of at least one marker (claim 1, lines 3-4) or selecting a plant having resistance (claim 15, lines 2-3). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no practical steps are required other than the mental processes of “detecting” and “selecting” or “identifying”, which could be performed by a human. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(III)(b). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because detecting a marker and identifying a plant having resistance to fungal pathogens, as in claims 1 & 15, is merely an observation of a natural association between the presence of a marker and the resistance trait. The association between fungal pathogen resistance and a marker exists in nature apart from human detection or the methods used in detection. While a particular marker for fungal pathogen resistance may or may not have been known in the prior art, its discovery and the discovery of its relationship to resistance is merely the discovery of a natural law. The observation of a marker is merely the observation of a natural phenomenon. Selection is a mental process based on an observation of the natural phenomenon. There are no further practical steps in claims 7-12 & 15 that make use of the observation beyond selecting a plant.
Claim 11 recites that the plant is selected for a recombination event, and claim 15 recites selecting a plant having resistance to fungal pathogens, but this is again equivalent to human detection of a natural phenomenon: recombination or resistance. Thus, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 14 is significantly more than the judicial exception because it recites the active step of producing an oilseed rape oil or seed cake.
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.
Claim 15 is 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.
Due to Applicant' s amendment of the claims, the rejection is modified from the rejection set forth in the Office action mailed 6/16/2025, as applied to claim 8. Applicant' s arguments filed 9/15/2025 have been fully considered but are not applicable to this rejection of claim 15.
Claim 15 is drawn to a method of using at least one marker selected from SEQ ID NO: 1-10 or a pair of primers according to claim 13. It is unclear if claim 15 is meant to be interpreted as though it is reciting claim 13 drawn to “a method of using at least one marker selected from SEQ ID NO: 1-10 or a pair of primers” or as though claim 13 is drawn to a pair of primers. The existence of both interpretations renders the claim indefinite. However, because claim 13 is drawn to a method comprising the use of a pair of primers, which is neither “a method of using at least one marker selected from SEQ ID NO: 1-10 or a pair of primers” nor “a pair of primers”, either interpretation of claim 15 lacks antecedent basis in claim 13.
Improper Dependency
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 15 is drawn to a method of using at least one marker selected from SEQ ID NO: 1-10 or a pair of primers according to claim 13. It is unclear if claim 15 is meant to be interpreted as though claim 13 is drawn to “a method of using at least one marker selected from SEQ ID NO: 1-10 or a pair of primers” or as though claim 13 is drawn to a pair of primers. However, claim 13 is drawn to a method comprising the use of a pair of primers, which is neither “a method of using at least one marker selected from SEQ ID NO: 1-10 or a pair of primers” nor “a pair of primers”. Under either interpretation, claim 15 requires the use of a pair of primers only in alternative to the use of a marker of SEQ ID NO: 1-10, and so claim 15 does not encompass all the limitations of claim 13 on which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Written Description
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 7-12 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
This rejection is modified from the rejection set forth in the Office action mailed 6/16/2025, as applied to claims 1-12 & 14. Applicant' s arguments filed 9/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1, 7-12 & 14 require detecting the presence or absence of at least one marker on or within a chromosomal interval between ra24982s01 and ra25063s01, comprising detecting one or more alleles. Claim 7 further requires a second marker, and at least one marker is on or within a chromosomal interval between ra24982s01 and ra74601s01 and another marker is on or within a chromosomal interval between ra25063s01 and ra74589s02. Claim 8 requires the two markers be within even narrower intervals.
The claims broadly require detecting in a Brassica napus plant an allele of SEQ ID NOs: 1-10 by detecting the presence or absence of a marker within the specific regions, which range in size from 1,437,244bp (ra24982s01 and ra25063s01) to 102,851 (ra74601s01 and ra7489s02). Because the alleles of SEQ ID NOs: 1-10, in linkage with the LepR1 locus, would be indirectly detected by a marker that detects the LepR1 locus, the claims are broadly require the detecting the presence or absence of any marker in the region associated with LepR1.
The instant specification has described only the ten SNP markers provided in table 1 (SEQ ID NOs: 1-10); however, the specification mentions 115 KASPAR and 33 XT-CHIP markers that were used for analysis of the target region. (page 32, paragraph 5) in lines generated from 09T11R1-13 plants backcrossed to KWS elite restorer lines (page 31, paragraph 8). The instant specification describes a single introgression line of elite breeding material based on BC2S1 09T11R1-13 crossed to KWS elite restorer lines (page 31, paragraph 5-7), although the specification describes 86 doubled haploid lines from this backcross lineage (table 2).
Molecular markers of Brassica napus are known in the art. Although Brassica napus has lower diversity that its progenitor species (Delourme et al (2013) BMC Genomics, 14:120, published 2/22/2013, hereafter Delourme; page 2, left column, paragraph 2), differences exist in polymorphism across fodder rape, spring oilseed rape, and winter oil seed rape varieties (Delourme page 6, left column, paragraph 2; table 4). In addition, Asiatic lines of B. napus that may be partly derived from crosses with B. rapa have more genetic diversity in the A genome (Delourme page 9, right column, paragraph 1-page 10, right column, paragraph 1). Only 60% of marker sequences developed for mapping disease resistance in B. napus mapped to the reference sequence, demonstrating that some genomic variation in B. napus is not represented in the reference Darmor genome (Raman et al (2020) Scientific Reports. 10:4416 published 3/10/2020; page 8, paragraph 3).
Brassica rapa encompasses multiple subspecies (Bird et al (2017) Frontiers in Plant Science. 8:321. Published 3/13/2017, hereafter Bird; page 2, left column, paragraph 1) with considerable diversity of SNPs found within individuals and within populations (Bird table 2). Outcrossing rates between B. napus and B. rapa as high as 0.406% have been described (Xiao et al (2009) Transgenic Res. 18:733–746. Published 4/9/2009; abstract).
Given the diversity of B. rapa and the frequency of gene flow between B. rapa and B. napus, ten SNP markers between ra24982s01 and ra25063s01 do not describe the full scope of markers on or within the chromosomal interval. Even the 10 alleles of SEQ ID NO: 1-10 have not been described as present across a representative number of B. napus and B. rapa backgrounds.
Hence, Applicant has not, in fact, described markers SEQ ID NOs: 1-10 on or within a chromosomal interval between ra24982s01 and ra25063s01 in a B. napus plant over the full scope of the claims, and the specification fails to provide an adequate written description of the claimed invention. Therefore, given the lack of written description in the specification with regard to the characteristics of the claimed compositions, Applicant does not appear to have been in possession of the claimed genus at the time this application was filed.
Claim 15 is a method of using a marker selected from SEQ ID NO: 1-10, but no tangible, active step wherein the markers are used is recited.
Applicant urges that amended claims recite specific alleles that are detected by the claimed method and so are patentable under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (Remarks, page 9, paragraphs 2-4).
This argument is unpersuasive, because alleles in linkage with the LepR1 locus would be indirectly detected by any marker that detects the LepR1 locus and also because these alleles in lines other than the BC2S1 09T11R1-x KWS elite restorer line backcrosses have not been described in the specification. Thus, Applicant does not appear to have been in possession of the full genus of markers capable of detecting the alleles of SEQ ID NOs: 1-10 across any Brassica napus plant at the time of filing of the instant application.
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.
Claims 1, 9-10 & 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al (2005) Theor Appl Genet. 110: 969–979 (published 1/27/2005, hereafter Yu) in view of Raman et al (2020) Scientific Reports. 10:4416 (published 3/10/2020, hereafter Raman) and taken with the evidence of Ghanbarnia et al (2012) Theor Appl Genet. 124:505–513 (published 10/30/2011, hereafter Ghanbarnia).
This rejection is modified from the rejection set forth in the Office action mailed 6/16/2025, as applied to claims 1-6, 9-10 & 14-15. Applicant' s arguments filed 9/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1, 9-10 & 14-15 are drawn to a method for selecting or identifying a Brassica napus plant having resistance to fungal pathogen Leptosphaeria maculans comprising detecting the presence or absence of at least one marker on or within a chromosomal interval between ra24982s01 and ra25063s01, a method of using a marker selected from SEQ ID NO: 1-10, and a method of using a plant selected by the method comprising producing an oil.
Yu teaches a blackleg resistance loci from B. rapa subsp. sylvestris transferred to a resynthesized amphidiploid B. napus and introduced into B. napus cultivars and breeding lines (page 970, left column, paragraph 5-right column, paragraph 3). Using a method of mapping the source of the resistance in backcrossed lines (page 970, right column, paragraph 3-page 971, left column, paragraph 1), Yu teaches that one resistance locus is LepR1 (page 972, right column, paragraph 1). Yu teaches 7 polymorphic Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism markers on the N2 linkage group, 5 of which co-segregate with the LepR1 resistance gene (page 972, right column, paragraph 1; table 2). Yu teaches that the LepR1 resistance locus is a dominant allele (page 973, right column, paragraph 1).
Yu teaches that B. napus is an AACC amphidiploid resulting from hybridization between AA B. rapa and CC B. oleracea (page 969, right column, paragraph 1).
Yu teaches that B. napus is important for edible oil production (page 969, right column, paragraph 1). Yu teaches a motivation to select for the resistance gene, in that B. napus is susceptible to Leptosphaeria maculans infection, one of the most destructive diseases of oilseed rape crops in North America, Australia, and Europe (page 969, right column, paragraph 1) and furthermore teaches a motivation for using marker assisted breeding, because disease assessment can be conducted only once a year during the growing season and selection efficiency depends on the environment which can vary (page 977, right column, paragraph 2).
Yu does not teach the markers of SEQ ID NOs: 1-10 or detecting the presence or absence of at least one marker between ra24982s01 and ra25063s01.
Raman also teaches Leptosphaeria maculans as a major disease of Brassica napus (page 1 paragraph 2). Raman further teaches a method using DArTseq genotyping to discover segregating markers in Brassica napus lines that could be used to create a genetic linkage map for resistance (page 3, paragraph 5-page 4 paragraph 2). Raman teaches markers for QTL associated with resistance to L. maculans (table 3). Raman teaches putative candidate resistance genes as those mapped close to the physical position of markers with significant association to resistance loci (page 8, paragraph 3; table 4).
Ghanbarnia provides evidence that the N2 linkage group corresponds to chromosome A2 (page 506, left column, paragraph 4).
Although Yu 2005 does not teach the exact markers of ra24982s01 and ra25063s01 or SEQ ID NOs: 1-10, before the time of filing of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to search for and use markers that are more closely linked to the LepR1 resistance trait taught by Yu 2005, such as using the method taught by Raman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to map additional markers in order to identify near genes as putative resistance genes, as taught by Raman. ra24982s01 and ra25063s01 are located on chromosome A02 as is the LepR1 locus (instant specification, page 8, paragraph 1; figure 2). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use markers closely linked to the LepR1 locus in order to identify and select a Brassica napus plant with resistance to L. maculans even in an environment hindering disease development that would make traditional selection challenging. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasonable expectation of success, because sequencing, identifying markers, and mapping markers to loci was routine in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application.
Given the obviousness of identifying markers associated with the LepR1 resistance trait in Brassica napus, it would have been likewise obvious to use newly identified, closely associated markers to select or identify a B. napus plant with resistance to L. maculans.
Although Yu and Raman do not teach the sequences of SEQ ID NOs: 1-10, the alleles themselves, in linkage with the LepR1 locus, would be indirectly detected by a marker that detects the LepR1 locus. Similarly, claim 15 is drawn to a method of using a marker selected from SEQ ID NO: 1-10. However, markers SEQ ID NOs: 1-10 are found in the genomes of B. napus and/or B. rapa plants, and so the sequences would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art who was sequencing and generating markers in this region in order to perform marker assisted selection on the LepR1 trait, which reads on a use of the markers. Thus, claims 1&15 are obvious in view of the known LepR1 locus and the obviousness of generating and detecting markers that would provide the allele state of loci tightly linked to LepR1.
Yu’s method of mapping the LepR1 resistance gene in a line derived from a B. rapa introgression into a doubled haploid B. napus line reads on the method of instant claims 9-10.
Regarding claim 14, before the time of filing of the instant application, it would have been obvious to use a plant selected by determining a marker in the region between ra24982s01 and ra25063s01 to produce and oilseed rape oil. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use such a plant because B. napus is an important oil crop and a plant selected due to having a marker associated with blackleg resistance would be protected from one of the most destructive diseases of oilseed rape crops in North America, Australia, and Europe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasonable expectation of success, because methods of using B. napus to produce oil were routine prior to the filing date of the instant application.
Claims 1, 9-10 & 14-15 are obvious over Yu and Raman taken with the evidence of Ghanbarnia.
Applicant urges that molecular markers close to a genomic region or in a gene controlling a trait improve efficiency of breeding and reduce linkage drag (Remarks page 9, paragraph 8-page 10, paragraph 3). Applicant urges that some genomic regions are still selected using distant and imprecise markers and it is difficult to find polymorphisms for marker development in crops like oilseed rape with narrow cultivated genetic basis (Remarks, page 10, paragraph 4).
This argument is unpersuasive, because methods of developing molecular markers were routine prior to the filing of the instant application, the locus of resistance linked to the instant markers was known prior to the filing of the instant application, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to develop closer markers, including those claimed by the instant Application, in order to identify putative resistance genes. Thus, the method to arrive at the markers of the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of skill in the art even if the process was difficult.
Applicant urges that the instant application provides more than a simple alternative to other markers because it overcomes challenges of using a larger number of SNPs, which are present in low frequency and difficult to detect, so the instant invention of markers very closely linked to the LepR1 resistance gene is a technical improvement (Remarks, page 10, paragraph 5-page 11, paragraph 2).
This argument is unpersuasive, because methods of developing markers such as SNPs were known in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention. Despite challenges, one of skill in the art would have had reasonable expectation of success because methods of developing markers associated with known loci, including SNP markers and including in difficult regions in the genome, were known in the art. The technical improvement of closely linked markers to resistance genes would have been an obvious goal to one of ordinary skill in the art and achievable according to known methods for discovering markers.
Applicant urges that the instant invention markers are structurally and functionally distinct from the cited art. Applicant urges that the new markers “surprisingly” reduce the distance between the target region and the claimed markers to about 90Kb, a substantial improvement which was difficult because the fine mapping included an elusive target region, several generations, and limited genetic mapping technologies at the time (Remarks, page 11, paragraph 3-page 12, paragraph 1).
This argument is unpersuasive, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce the distance between the target locus and markers. Methods of fine mapping and developing SNP molecular markers were known in the art prior to the filing date of the instant application, and their difficulty would not have made them non-obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant urges that the cited references do not provide guidance or motivation to derive the inventive markers and does not render the present invention obvious because there is no disclosure of the specific markers in these references. Applicant again urges that the difficulty of developing SNP markers and avoiding linkage drag at the resistance gene demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have had guidance or motivation to select the specific markers recited in claim 1 based on the references and would not have had reasonable expectation of success that these markers could be used to identify a plant resistant to L. maculans and/or L. biglobosa save for impermissible hindsight (Remarks, page 12, paragraph 1).
This argument is unpersuasive, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to screen for and develop SNP markers in closer linkage to the known LepR1 resistance gene prior to the filing of the instant application in order to select plants with LepR1 resistance and identify the underlying resistance gene. One of skill in the art would not have needed additional guidance because methods of developing molecular markers were routine prior to the filing of the instant application. In developing additional molecular markers for the LepR1 locus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that markers such as the markers of the instant application, could be used to identify a plant resistant to L. maculans and/or L. biglobosa because they would have been associated with the known resistance locus. Hindsight reasoning is not required because screening for SNP markers at known resistance loci was routine in the art prior to the instant filing date.
Applicant urges that the instant inventions provides markers very closely linked to LepR1 resistance gene and corresponding diagnostic markers to track the target region across diverse germplasms and conventional markers were located 6 MB from the region making the target region not easily selectable (Remarks, page 12, paragraph 3).
This argument is unpersuasive, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to develop markers very closely linked to a resistance locus in order to map and potentially identify underlying resistance genes. Methods to develop such markers were known in the art prior to the instant filing, so it would have been obvious to develop markers at shorter distances than 6MB from the region of interest.
Claims 7-8 & 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu, Raman, and Ghanbarnia as applied to claims 1, 9-10 & 14-15 above, and further in view of Zhou et al (2003) Improvement of new and traditional industrial crops by induced mutations and related biotechnology, IAEA-TECDOC-1369. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, pages 125-131 (published 8/2003, hereafter Zhou).
This rejection is modified from the rejection set forth in the Office action mailed 6/16/2025, as applied to claims 7-8 & 11-12. Applicant' s arguments filed 9/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 7-8 & 11-12 are drawn to a method of selecting for a recombination event in a Brassica plant obtained by introgressing LepR1 from a donor plant wherein the plant does not retain a second chromosomal interval derived from the donor plant, a method for selecting or identifying a Brassica napus plant, and a method comprising detecting at least two markers.
The teachings of Yu, Raman, and Ghanbarnia are presented above. They do not teach selecting for a recombination event between ra24982s01 and ra25063s01 in a plant that does not retain a second chromosomal interval derived from the donor plant and are silent about properties associated with linkage drag.
Zhou teaches that Brassica napus is the most important oil crop in China and desirable cultivars with low glucosinolate and low erucic acid need to be improved further with regards to yield potential and disease resistance (page 125, paragraph 2). Zhou teaches that novel breeding procedures for a backcross breeding program is one way to obtain yield capacity and disease resistance in these desirable cultivars (page 125, paragraph 2).
However, Zhou also teaches that it is difficult to remove chromosomal segments linked to target genes via backcrossing and a 10cM donor segment flanking a target gene can be expected even after 20 backcross generations (page 126, paragraph 1). Zhou teaches that linkage drag of undesirable genomic segments can prevent backcross projects’ products from reaching practical utilization (page 125, paragraph 1). Zhou teaches that using molecular markers to identify recombinants with minimum linkage drag can increase the probability of obtaining backcross products with minimum linkage drag (page 126, paragraph 2).
Before the time of filing of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of identifying a resistant plant with markers linked to the LepR1 region taught by Yu and Raman to further select a plant that does not exhibit any negative phenotypic properties associated with linkage drag (instant claim 12) or a second chromosomal interval derived from the donor plant (instant claim 11) that may be associated with a negative phenotypic property. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to select a plant such a plant because linkage drag can prevent backcross lines from reaching practical utilization.
Additionally, one would have been motivated to select for a recombination event on or within the chromosomal interval between ra24982s01 and ra25063s01 (claim 11) because Yu teaches that introgression of a LepR1 locus from B. rapa in a region that encompasses these markers confers resistance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasonable expectation of success in modifying the method, because identifying and using molecular markers in breeding methods was routine in the art before the effective filing of the instant application.
Finally, claims 7 and 8, drawn to the method comprising detecting at least two markers within the specific intervals, are obvious, because mapping closer markers to the LepR1 locus is obvious, as presented above, and detecting markers flanking the target locus would enable selection of plants with reduced linkage drag on both sides of the target locus.
Thus, claims 1,7-12 & 14-15 are obvious over Yu, Raman, Zhou, and Ghanbarnia.
Applicant urges that the claimed invention is patentable because the invention is patentable over Yu, Raman, and Ghanbarnia for the reasons presented above (Remarks, page 12, paragraph 4).
This argument is unpersuasive, because claims 1, 9-10 & 14-15 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant application, and claims 7-8 & 11-12 do not introduce any additional non-obvious limitations, as presented in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Victoria L DeLeo whose telephone number is (703)756-5998. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-12pm 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, Bratislav Stankovic can be reached at (571) 270-0305. 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.
/VICTORIA L DELEO/Examiner, Art Unit 1662
/Anne Kubelik/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663