DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4 June 2026 has been entered.
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 35-37, 39-40, 46, 48 & 54-58 are under examination on the merits.
Claims 1-34, 38, 41-45, 47, 49-53 & 59-65 are cancelled.
Priority
Claims 35-37, 39-40, 46, 48 & 54-58 receive the U.S. effective filing date of 08/12/2020.
Previous rejection of claims 36, 39 & 40 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Previous rejection of claims 47, 53 & 59-64 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement for scope of enablement, is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 35-37, 39-40, 46, 48 & 54-58 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 for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 35 recites the limitation of a wild Glycine tomentella plant which has 2nw chromosomes, wherein nw (i.e. haploid) is the number of distinct wild perennial Glycine chromosomes, and use of the wild G. tomentella to obtain fertile hybrid progeny when crossed with tetraploid Glycine max. A 4n tetraploid form of G. max has 80 chromosomes (n = 20) because cultivated G. max is uniformly 2n = 40 chromosomes.
However, G. tomentella exists in several wild cytotypes, and potentially includes material with variable chromosome numbers corresponding to a variable ploidy series extant in the wild 2n form of the plant which includes (2n = 38, 40, 78 & 80) [See p.302, col.1, ¶1 in Chung, Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences,27:5,295 — 341; Published 1 Sep 2008]. This includes G. tomentella cytotypes which in the 2n state possess 78 or 80 chromosomes and are nearly equivalent, or balanced, in chromosome number to a tetraploid G. max (4n = 80).
Because the invention is drawn to formation of a fertile hybrid progeny, the claim language could be interpreted to indicate the cytotype of the wild G. tomentella claimed is functionally limited to the 2n = 78 or 80 cytotypes to achieve chromosome balance during interspecific crossing (i.e. haploid = nw = 36 or 40). However, this is not explicitly stated in claim language, and alternate, broader, interpretation would encompass all 2nw cytotypes of G. tomentella = 2n = 38, 40, 78 & 80. This indicates haploid nw = 19, 20, 36 or 40 making the haploid complement denoted by ‘nw’ ambiguous. Inclusion of such alternate cytotypes in scope of the claims may raise questions as to feasibility of forming fertile hybrid progeny owing to potential chromosome imbalance in the interspecific cross. It is unclear which haploid number Applicant is representing by ‘nw’, and as presented, the term nw could indicate different values or quantities.
Because it is unclear which G. tomentella cytotypes are encompassed by the claim language as written, and the scope of germplasm encompassed varies depending on interpretation, claim 35 is indefinite and rejected. As such, its dependent claims 36-37, 39-40, 46, 48 & 54-58 are also rendered indefinite and rejected.
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 35-36, 39-40, 46, 48, 54-56 & 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh [US 2007/0261139 A1; Published 11-08-2007] in view of Kofski [Front. Plant Sci. 9:949; Published 9 Jul 2018], Chung [Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences,27:5,295 — 341; Published 1 Sep 2008] and Mujeeb-Kazi [Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43: 129-134, 1996; Published 04-18-1995].
Due to Applicant' s amendment of the claims, the rejection is modified from that set forth in the Office action mailed 6 Feb 2026, as applied to claims 35-36, 38-40, 46-48, 52-56 & 58. Applicant's arguments filed 6 Jun 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims are drawn to production of allopolyploid hybrids from a tetraploid domesticated G. max and a diploid wild G. tomentella for the transfer of disease resistance alleles from wild germplasm to domesticated soybean.
Singh teaches methods of allopolyploid creation to improve resistance to soybean rust. Specifically, they disclose use of G. tomentella as the wild ‘donor’ in interspecific crosses to G. max, use of reciprocal crosses [p.7, ¶64], and backcrossing after polyploidization to transfer genes from the hybrid progeny to cultivated soybean background [Figure 1], as in claims 36, 46-48, 52-53 & 55-56 of the instant application.
This directly teaches use of the same crop species as Applicant, for the same phenotypic trait or selection target (i.e. rust resistance).
Singh teaches methods of using diploid G. max (GG), allopolyploid G. tomentella (DDEE) and creation of a ‘GGDE’ genotype [Figure 1], corresponding to Applicant’s claims 40, 54 & 58.
This teaches the creation of the same allopolyploid genotype as Applicant’s claimed hybrid progeny, GGDE.
Singh teaches the use of applying an auxin, 1-naphthalene acetic acid, to pollinated gynoecia to improve seed set [p.3, ¶27, l.10] and also describes the common practice of the manipulation or doubling of chromosomes in plants [p.3, ¶24, l.25], as in Applicant’s claims 35 and 39.
This teaches the same use of auxins as Applicant, wherein they are applied to increase the success rate when making interspecific G. max X G. tomentella crosses. They also teach doubling chromosomes to stabilize progeny from crosses between mis-matched genomes (i.e. diploid by tetraploid).
Singh does not teach using a tetraploid soy parent to balance the chromosome numbers of G. max and G. tomentella prior to making the interspecific cross, as their inventive research is focused on rescuing infertile hybrid progeny and not the genetic state of parental material per se.
Kofski teaches that the wild soybean species Glycine soja (2n = 40) can utilized as a source of disease resistance and agronomically beneficial alleles to improve G. max because the two species are able to cross and form fertile interspecific F1 hybrids [p.2, col.1, ¶2]. They tell the reader, “G. soja and G. max have the same chromosome number and can be easily crossed to create fertile hybrids, which make it possible to transfer useful genes from G. soja to G. max by traditional breeding practice” [p.7, col.1, ¶5].
Chung teaches that there are several soybean wild species in a polyploid series within the genus, notably that includes G. tomentella (2n = 80) and G. soja (2n = 40) [p.302, col.1, ¶1; Table 1]. They teach that although G. soja and G. max (2n = 40) are morphologically distinct (i.e. carry different traits) they are able to be crossed and achieve gene transfer because they have similar genomic complements of 2n = 40 chromosomes [p.302, col.1, ¶3].
They teach that when crossing a domesticated soybean with 40 chromosomes to a wild soybean with 40 chromosomes one can generate fertile hybrids and transfer potentially beneficial genes [id]. Chung teaches that when two soybean species have the same (i.e. balanced) numbers of chromosomes that vigorous progeny can be created (i.e. [2n=40] x [2n=40] = fertile interspecific hybrid).
Mujeeb-Kazi teaches methods of utilizing a domesticated tetraploid parent (4n) to generate an allopolyploid. Specifically, Mujeeb-Kazi teaches the crossing of a cultivated, tetraploid wheat plant/genome to the diploid wild species Aegilops tauschii [p.129, col.2, ¶1]. They teach this is done with the goal of transferring beneficial rust resistance alleles from wild species to the domesticated, tetraploid parent. While Mujeeb-Kazi’s work is in wheat, not soybean, it is drawn to similar creation of an allopolyploid from three progenitor genomes (i.e. ABD) to achieve rust resistance.
As described above, research literature establishes that (a) G. tomentella is a wild soybean relative with 2n = 80 chromosomes that serves as source of beneficial alleles including rust resistance that can potentially hybridize with G. max, that (b) domesticated soybean with 2n = 40 can exchange alleles with wild relatives via interspecific hybridization when chromosome numbers are balanced between species, and that (c) tetraploid domesticated crops (4n) can be used as parental material when attempting to transfer rust resistances from wild relatives. A tetraploid form of the domesticated soybean G. max would be 4n = 80 chromosomes.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the interspecific breeding methodology taught by Singh to that of using a doubled, or tetraploid, domesticated parent as described in Mujeeb-Kazi in wheat rust breeding. Doing so would more equally match, or balance, the chromosomes of G. max (2n = 40, 4n = 80) with those of G. tomentella (2n = 80) and potentially allow transfer of genes in similar fashion to ‘balanced’ G. max X G. soja crosses taught by Kofsky and Chung.
One would be motivated to do this to better match the parental chromosome numbers during transfer of disease resistance genes from G. tomentella to G. max. This would avoid the additional embryo rescue and fertile plant recovery steps required using Singh’s methodology. One would be motivated to do this to access the reported ‘untapped genetic reservoir’ of wild soybean alleles and for ‘broadening the genetic base of soybean’ with G. tomentella.
One would be motivated to do this because such a system would bypass the post-pollination tissue culture bottlenecks and the low success rate described by Singh, thus saving time and resources when attempting to transfer alleles, such as rust resistance, from the wild G. tomentella. Further, Singh’s teaching of the use of auxin to improve pollination success would provide additional improvements to known general methods of crossing dissimilar species.
Because such a breeding approach in soybean would have been obvious view of prior art at the time of filing, claims 35-36, 38-40, 46-48, 52-56 & 58 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant urges (i) previous rejection of claims 35-36, 38-40, 46-48, 52-56 & 58 under U.S. 103 as obvious is improper because references do not describe doubling of domesticated G. max prior to cross-pollination with the wild species. Applicant argues that Singh and Mujeeb-Kazi teach the opposite [Remarks, p.1, ¶5 – p.2, ¶1].
This is not found persuasive because Applicant’s argument is directed to the timing of colchicine application. However, this avoids the issue that the proposed inventive method, at its core, is use of a tetraploid parent to balance chromosome number. The research literature clearly establishes that balancing chromosome number allows allele exchange between domesticated and wild soybean and that one can use tetraploid parents for generating allopolyploids [Kosky, p.7, col.1, ¶5; Mujeeb-Kazi, p.129, col.2, ¶1].
Regarding the argument that Singh and Mujeeb-Kazi teach the opposite of this; teaching ‘away from’ (i.e. the opposite) would necessitate that both reports teach or describe Applicants method (i.e. pre-crossing application of a doubling agent) and indicate that such attempts failed or were counter-productive in comparison to an opposite approach. Applicant states references do not ‘teach or suggest the specified timing’ [p.1, ¶5, l.4—p.2, ¶1, l.2]. This statement admits the reference does not teach away from, since they make no assessment of the relative effectiveness of the approach.
Review of both references indicates that neither describe nor state that negative results were obtained from pre-treatment of the parental material with a microtubule inhibitor. It is true both describe doubling after pollination, and teach that such processes which balance or stabilize chromosome number improve recovery of stable progeny [Singh, Figure 1 & ¶45-48; Mujeeb-Kazi p.130, col.2, ¶1]. Both references indicate balancing the chromosome number of an allopolyploid confers stability. This echoes the teachings of Kosky and Chung, which teach balanced chromosome numbers improve the viability of progeny when making interspecific crosses involving wild soybean relatives.
Thus, the previously cited art does not teach that one should not attempt doubling before flowering, or indicate that the balancing of chromosome number between G. tomentella and G. max would somehow be counterproductive. Pre-treatment of parents with chemical doubling agents was not part of their particular research studies. They both clearly indicate a chemical step of chromosome doubling (i.e. method of balancing) is beneficial to stability and successful allopolyploid creation.
One skilled in the art, upon reading that chromosome doubling via colchicine improves success when making such wide crosses, and reviewing literature on transfer of alleles from wild G. soja (2n = 40) would recognize that there are only two options for timing a chemically induced doubling to stabilize genomes. This would occur either (a) before crossing, within the parent species, or (b) after crossing, applied to the presumably sterile F1. Both Singh and Mujeeb-Kazi teach that use of colchicine is beneficial in (b) but are silent as regards (a). Absent specific teaching that (a) does not work, it would be obvious for one to try shifting timing of chemical treatment. Furthermore, it would be obvious that doubling G. max (2n = 40, 4n = 80) would create plants with chromosome numbers similar to G. tomentella (2n = 80).
Applicant urges (ii) that it is not well-known in the art that balancing chromosome numbers would be critical to creation of stable allopolyploids. Applicant argues it is not valid to state that timing of the chromosome doubling process can be optionally performed either before or after crossing [Remarks, p.2, ¶2]. Applicant argues such statement is unsupported because none of the cited references teach generating a tetraploid parent prior to crossing [Remarks, p.2, ¶3].
This is not found persuasive because research reports directed specifically to transfer of wild resistance alleles via interspecific crosses in soybean point out that balanced chromosome numbers between parents can facilitate production of fertile F1s in soybean [Kosky, p.7, col.1, ¶5]. Literature on transfer of disease resistances in man-made polyploids such as synthetic wheat highlight use of tetraploid parental material [Mujeeb-Kazi, p.129, col.2, ¶1]. It is routine in plant breeding to double chromosomes via colchicine or similar microtuble inhibitors to convert diploid (2n) breeding material into tetraploid (4n) breeding material.
If the cited prior art of Singh explicitly recited all steps of Applicant’s method including the exact timing of the specified doubling of G. max, as being argued, claims would be anticipated. However, the rejection of claims is based on obviousness rather than direct anticipation. This determination of obviousness is based on the collective teachings of all cited references as well as the reasonable consideration that a skilled plant breeder would understand they could convert a diploid 2n = 40 plant to a tetraploid 4n = 80 plant via the routine use of colchicine.
Applicant urges (iii) that lack of recent soybean research reports describing the doubling of a parent, prior to crossing, to stabilize allopolyploid offspring indicates their method is not obvious [Remarks, p.3, ¶2].
This is not found persuasive because Applicant’s argument is based on pointing to a single reference (Singh, 2007) which happens to reference to existing literature from 1979 in describing their invention. It is unclear how the disclosure of Singh would indicate lack or provide proof of absence of other research reports directed to polyploid breeding and the transfer of rust resistance alleles from wild soybean. There are more recent reports drawn to the same concerns of transfer of wild disease resistance alleles in soybean, such as Kosky [2018], which teach a need to balance chromosome number between domesticated and wild parents.
Moreover, Applicant appears to be arguing that the concept of balancing chromosome numbers to stabilize interspecific hybrids is not obvious based on reference to soybean specific literature alone, although this concept is well established in polyploid breeding as seen in diverse other crops, such as wheat.
Applicant urges (iv) that methods which chemically induce a tetraploid parent are not obvious, and that prior art describing amphidiploid wheat would not motivate one to cross-apply such approaches to amphidiploid soybean [Remarks, p.3, ¶3]. Applicant argues that creation of synthetic hexaploids in wheat (i.e. allopolyploid, amphidiploid wheat) is not analogous art for methods of creation of synthetic allopolyploid, amphidiploid soybean [Remarks, p.4, ¶3].
This is not found persuasive because it is unclear how polyploid breeding methods for integrating wild rust resistance in one crop would not be analogous or informative to breeders seeking wild rust resistance in another crop.
Moreover, Applicant contrasts the wheat literature as describing creation of “synthetic hexaploids” while their method involves what they argue to be unrelated “creation of an amphidiploid”. This argument, which presents very specific terms in a specific manner, seemingly ignores that a synthetic hexaploid is a type of amphidiploid. An amphidiploid is a newly formed allopolyploid in which the chromosomes of the hybrid plant are doubled (i.e. balanced), ensuring that each chromosome has a pairing partner. Wheat is an amphidiploid, albeit a hexaploid form.
Creating a synthetic hexaploid wheat is creation of an amphidiploid plant. That synthetic hexaploids are amphidiploids was referenced in the previous rejection mailed 6 Feb 2026 [p.21, ¶4]. It is unclear how prior art describing creation of amphidiploids utilizing a tetraploid parent (i.e. synthetic hexaploid wheat) would be non-analogous to methods in soybean attempting to create amphidiploids utilizing a tetraploid parent.
Applicant urges (v) that methods of using tetraploid soybeans are non-obvious due to the previous report of Chen (1985) having shown cross-pollination of diploids and autotetraploids to be unsuccessful at producing triploid progeny [Remarks, p.3, ¶3].
This is not found persuasive because Applicant is referencing a paper drawn to germplasm with genic male sterility factors. Germplasm with sterility genes present is fundamentally different germplasm from soybean that does not have genetically conditioned male sterility factors present. The instant application does not describe germplasm which carries such genic male sterility factors.
Furthermore, Applicant points to this reference without indicating relevant passages, paragraphs or lines to support their argument.
It is notable that the introduction to the cited reference further suggests that imbalanced chromosome numbers lower success of atypical soybean crosses. Thus, the introduced reference provides support that it would be obvious for a breeder to attempt to balance the chromosome or genomic complement of parental lines when working with soybean to avoid the apparent sterility observed when generating triploids [Chen, p.400, col.2, ¶1].
Applicant urges (vi) that one “would not be motivated to breed using tetraploid soybean” and would have no reasonable expectation of success at such, based on research literature as well as statements made in a Declaration provided by an inventor of the instant application [Remarks, p.3, ¶4 – p.4, ¶2].
This is not found persuasive because the claims of the proposed invention are drawn to interspecific polyploid sources of rust resistance. They are not drawn to the creation nor strict use of tetraploid soybeans per se, and no claim recites the production of a tetraploid soybean cultivar for use other than as a stepwise component of creating the interspecific amphidiploids. The instant application does not claim development of a tetraploid G. max cultivar.
Applicant is presenting research disclosures apparently directed to the question of whether tetraploid G. max is equivalent or superior compared to commercial diploid soybean cultivars [Sen, p.321, ¶6-p.322, ¶2]. Applicant also references a cytological paper which describes a singular ‘asynaptic plant’ from a collection of normally behaving autotetraploids [Kumar 2007, p.24, ¶3, l.9-11 & l.22-24]. Applicant’s argument mischaracterizes the Kumar reference as indicating all tetraploids are less fertile when in fact it is describing a single mutant plant (i.e. the exception rather than the rule).
References cited are not drawn to the same use of tetraploid soybean as in Applicant’s method, which merely uses tetraploid soybeans as an intermediary in the larger, more complex, processes of interspecific gene transfer and creation of allopolyploids. As such, the references cited are non-analogous art.
Moreover, use of a tetraploid soybean in the process of making more complex allopolyploids would, in the strict sense, merely require evidence that fertile tetraploid G. max plants can be created and potentially used in crossing (i.e. would be able to set seed). Applicant’s attached declaration shows this to be the case.
Tetraploid soybean plants are shown, as is seed they have produced [Affidavit 4 June 2026; Appendix A & Appendix B]. This clearly demonstrates fertile tetraploid soybean germplasm can be generated and potentially be used similar to the tetraploid parents seen in wheat. Such tetraploids need not be agronomically superior to elite commercial cultivars to find use as a parent in an interspecific cross.
Applicant urges (vii) that obviousness rejection by the Office is based on impermissible hindsight reconstruction [Remarks, p.5, ¶2]. Applicant states the only apparent reason one would use a tetraploid domestic parent in making an interspecific cross is through their disclosure used as a blueprint of such process.
This is not found persuasive because as referenced in the previous Office action dated 6 Feb 2026, literature from both wheat and Brassica clearly describe manipulation or doubling of chromosomes to create stable polyploid progeny and use of tetraploid domesticated germplasm [Final Rejection, p.15-18; p.25-26]. Newly referenced art above clearly indicates that transfer of wild alleles via interspecific crosses in soybean is facilitated by balancing the chromosome numbers of the domesticated and wild germplasm [see above, p.5-6].
If the sole differentiation of the proposed invention is that Applicant uses colchicine to arrive at a tetraploid parent, it would be obvious to one skilled in plant breeding that a tetraploid domesticated soybean (4n = 80) can clearly be generated from a diploid (2n = 40) via use of colchicine or similar chemical means.
Applicant’s argument focuses on the strict biological differences between tetraploid soybean and other crop species, as well as timing, taking the position that it would not be obvious for a trained plant breeder to translate attempts to manipulate chromosomes from one crop to another. Clearly one working on polyploid breeding with wild soybean relatives would familiarize themselves with existing literature relevant to the specific area of polyploid breeding, generally, and be aware of the various ways to manipulate chromosomes to generate viable hybrid progeny.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh, Kofski, Chung, and Mujeeb-Kazi as applied to claims 35 & 36 above, and further in view of Priyadarshan [Priyadarshan, P.M. (2019). Backcross Breeding. In: PLANT BREEDING: Classical to Modern. p.203-221; Published 11-10-2019].
Due to Applicant' s amendment of the claims, the rejection is modified from that set forth in the Office action mailed 6 Feb 2026, as applied to claim 57. Applicant's arguments filed 6 Jun 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Singh, Kofski, Chung, and Mujeeb-Kazi teach the creation of interspecific polyploid crosses in Glycine using the wild G. tomentella, describe use of a domestic autotetraploid, and use of balanced chromosomes for crossing, as well as the generation of subsequent BC1 generations using G. max.
They do not teach alternating from the G. max recurrent parent used for the first backcross (BC1) to a wild Glycine recurrent parent for the second backcross (BC2).
However, such breeding methodology is taught by Priyadarshan in their chapter ‘Backcross Breeding’ in Plant Breeding: Classical to Modern. In their text, they describe the use of AB-QTL analysis, wherein one alternates between the recurrent parents used in a backcrossing scheme – this is typically done to map QTL or map genes [p.214, 10.4.2]. In the instant application, alternating from G. max in the first backcross to the wild soybean parent (G. tomentella) in the second backcross is representative of such an AB-QTL analysis. This approach would allow mapping of target genes or QTL in the populations being claimed by Applicant. Broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, as written, would also include any such AB-QTL analysis approach used in a domesticated X wild soybean mapping population.
It would be obvious for one to use the methods of generating an interspecific Glycine population as described by Singh & Mujeeb-Kazi, combined with a desire to apply the AB-QTL analysis methodology taught by Priyadarshan to arrive at the claimed method, alternating between the recurrent Glycine parents at the second stage of backcrossing.
One would be motivated to do this because in addition to creating a functional breeding population, the claimed alteration of recurrent parents at the BC2 stage would generate a mapping resource that could be used to further elucidate the genetic architecture of beneficial traits derived by the wide cross.
Response to Arguments
Applicant urges claim 37 is allowable for the reason of dependence on claim 35 [Remarks, p.5, ¶4-5]. This is not found persuasive because the rejection of claim 35 is maintained and without other comment from Applicant, the argument is unconvincing.
Claim 57 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh, Kofski, Chung, and Mujeeb-Kazi, as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Akperty [Crop Sci. 58:1277–1291 (2018); Published 05-15-2018].
Due to Applicant' s amendment of the claims, the rejection is modified from that set forth in the Office action mailed 6 Feb 2026, as applied to claim 57. Applicant's arguments filed 6 Jun 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Singh, Kofski, Chung, and Mujeeb-Kazi teach the creation of interspecific polyploid crosses in Glycine using the wild G. tomentella as a source of disease resistance, and use of a domestic autotetraploid for crossing.
They do not teach the use of the wild relative as a source for improved agronomic traits such as yield, drought tolerance, or other characteristics typically associated with cultivated germplasm.
However, this is remedied by Akperty, who teaches the use of wild germplasm, specifically G. tomentella, to improve agronomic traits such as yield. In, ‘Genetic Introgression from Glycine tomentella to Soybean to Increase Seed Yield’ they specifically describe high-yielding material derived from interspecific wild crosses [p.1289, c.1, ¶2]. As such, Akperty points directly to the possibility of transferring alleles with major beneficial yield impact from G. tomentella to cultivated soybean.
It would be obvious for one to use the methods of generating an interspecific Glycine population disclosed by Singh & Mujeeb-Kazi, combined with the teachings of Akperty drawn to agronomic traits. These disclosures combined teach that wild germplasm can improve not only disease resistance, but agronomic traits per se, to arrive at the proposed limitations of claim 57.
One would be motivated to use the wild G. tomentella as a source of such agronomically beneficial alleles because yield has a known value and high priority in crop improvement programs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant urges claim 57 is allowable for the reason of dependence on claim 35 [Remarks, p.5, ¶6-7]. This is not found persuasive because the rejection of claim 35 is maintained and without other comment from Applicant, the argument is unconvincing.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH R WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3911. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 9:30 - 5:30 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, Amjad Abraham can be reached on (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.
/KEITH R. WILLIAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 1663
/Amjad Abraham/SPE, Art Unit 1663
Prosecution Insights