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 30-33, 35-38, 40-41, and 43-44 are pending and being examined.
All previous objections and rejections not set forth below have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The claim amendments by the Applicant by adding new issues, which was not present in any of the claims before, necessitated new grounds of rejections. It is a new rejection necessitated by the claim amendments, as discussed below.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner interprets the term “non-transgene”, as recited in claims 30 and 35, as organisms including plants, whose genetic material (nucleic acid) has not been altered by inserting genetic material from a different species. The term does not confer any structure, and merely recites how the genetic material (nucleic acid) was made.
Claims 32-33 recite, “…a sequence from the group….”. This claim is interpreted as being anticipated by any dinucleotide or larger oligonucleotide, and does not need the full sequence set forth by the respective SEQ ID NO.
It is suggested that the “a” be replaced by “the”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
Claims 30, 35, 37, and 43-44 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gao et al. (WO 2018/071362 A1).
Amended claim 30, adding a new issue which was not present before, recites, “…wherein the modified genomic locus is non-transgenic”. Gao et al. teaches a corn plant comprising modified genomic loci (page 2, line 17-24; page 4, line 5-8) which are not transgenic. The loci comprise one or more modified target site(s), wherein the target sites comprise an endogenous or native polynucleotide sequence encoding Ht1 (page 2, line 28-29) and another endogenous or native polynucleotide sequence encoding the NLB18 (page 4, line 5-8) polypeptides. The native polynucleotide sequence encoding Ht1 polypeptide would read on to the “first native polypeptide” while the other native polynucleotide sequence encoding NLB18 polypeptide would read on to the “second native polypeptide”. Both are native corn polynucleotide sequences, thus non-transgenic, while encoding the native Ht1 and NBL18 polypeptides were translocated to a different locus in the same corn genome. Both sequences confer enhanced disease resistance against the fungal pathogen causing northern leaf blight disease (page 1, abstract; page 2, line 3-6; page 4, line 20-24). Gao et al. also teaches methods to introduce resistant alleles of Ht1 and NLB18 to another distal site, Complex Trait Locus (CTL) 1, (page 60, line 1-6) in the corn genome (page 1, abstract, line 4-6; page 2, line 20-22), wherein the two polynucleotide sequences encoding Ht1 and NLB18 alleles would be heterologous to the modified genomic locus.
Regarding claim 35, Gao et al. describes relocating disease resistant genes (NLB18-PH26N, Ht-PH4GP, and NLB18-PH26N) to a distal and modified site in chromosome 1 (page 60, line 3-6) in a corn plant, where the polynucleotide sequences would be heterologous to the corresponding genomic locus.
Regarding claims 37, Gao et al. teaches a method breeding northern leaf blight resistance maize lines (Summary at page 4, line 16-24) by introducing resistant genes, which would include both transgenic and/or indigenous/native genes, conferring disease resistant traits at a single locus (example 4 at page 59-63) through homologous recombination (page 62, line 8-11). Gao et al. teaches introgressing a single genomic locus comprising multiple resistance genes/loci into elite maize lines (page 2, line 9-10 and line 17-24) through backcrossing (page 46, line 6-11).
Regarding claims 43-44, Gao et al. teaches introgressing a single genomic locus comprising multiple resistance genes/loci into the genetic background of elite maize lines (page 2, line 9-10 and line 17-24) through backcrossing (page 46, line 6-11) and minimize linkage drag from non-elite resistant donor lines (page 46, line 6-11).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 32 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al.
Claim 32 depends from claim 31 which, in turn, depends from claim 30. Claim 32 is drawn to a polypeptide comprising a sequence selected from the group consisting of RppK (SEQ ID NO: 11), Htl (SEQ ID NO: 8), NLB18 (SEQ ID NO: 3 or 5), NLRO1 (SEQ ID No: 29), NLR02 (SEQ ID No: 26), RCG1 (SEQ ID No: 31), and RCGlb (SEQ ID No: 33).
Gao et al. describes a corn plant comprising a modified genomic locus, the locus comprising one or more modified target sites, wherein the one or more modified target sites comprise two polynucleotide sequences conferring enhanced disease resistance to northern leaf blight in corn, wherein the polynucleotide sequences are heterologous to the modified genomic locus, as described above. Gao et al. also describes a nucleotide sequence encoding a polypeptide (SEQ ID NO: 64) having 100% identity to instant SEQ ID NO: 3 (data not shown).
However, Gao et al. does not describe one or more modified target sites comprise at least one target site selected from SEQ ID NO: 12, SEQ ID NO: 13, SEQ ID NO: 14, SEQ ID NO: 15, SEQ ID NO: 16, SEQ ID NO: 17, SEQ ID NO: 18, SEQ ID NO: 19, SEQ ID NO: 20, SEQ ID NO: 21).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to introduce the nucleotide sequence encoding the native (corn) NLB 18 (SEQ ID NO: 3) disease resistance polypeptide into different modified genomic locus comprising multiple disease resistance genes, as described by Gao et al., to broaden the disease resistance spectrum of the corn plant. Introducing the nucleotide sequence encoding the native (corn) NLB 18 in a target site including SEQ ID NO: 12, SEQ ID NO: 13, SEQ ID NO: 14, SEQ ID NO: 15, SEQ ID NO: 16, SEQ ID NO: 17, SEQ ID NO: 18, SEQ ID NO: 19, SEQ ID NO: 20, SEQ ID NO: 21), which can be achieved using the method described by Gao et al., and would not realistically change the outcome of the disease resistance trait of the NLB18 (SEQ ID NO: 3) polypeptide.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to introduce the nucleotide sequence encoding the native (corn) NLB18 (SEQ ID NO: 3) disease resistance polypeptide into a different modified genomic locus comprising multiple disease resistance genes to broaden the disease resistance spectrum of the corn plant, which is a commercially important crop.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. as applied to claims 30, 35, 37, 43-44 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) above, and further in view of Jaqueth et al. (WO 2019/182884 A1).
Claim 33 depends from claim 31 which, in turn, depends from claim 30. Claim 33 recites a polypeptide comprising a sequence selected from the group consisting of PRR03 (SEQ ID No: 36), PRRO1 (SEQ ID No: 38), NLRO1 (SEQ ID No: 41), and NLR04 (SEQ ID No: 44).
Gao et al. describes a corn plant comprising a modified genomic locus, the locus comprising one or more modified target sites, wherein the one or more modified target sites comprise two polynucleotide sequences conferring enhanced disease resistance to northern leaf blight in corn, wherein the polynucleotide sequences are heterologous to the modified genomic locus, as described above.
However, Gao et al. does not describe PRR03 (SEQ ID No: 36), PRRO1 (SEQ ID No: 38), NLRO1 (SEQ ID No: 41), and NLR04 (SEQ ID No: 44). Gao et al. also does not describe one or more modified target sites comprise at least one target site selected from SEQ ID NO: 12, SEQ ID NO: 13, SEQ ID NO: 14, SEQ ID NO: 15, SEQ ID NO: 16, SEQ ID NO: 17, SEQ ID NO: 18, SEQ ID NO: 19, SEQ ID NO: 20, and SEQ ID NO: 21.
Jaqueth et al. describes a corn disease resistance gene NLR01 comprising 100% sequence identity to instant SEQ ID NO: 41 (data not shown).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to introduce the nucleotide sequence encoding the native (corn) NLR01 disease resistance polypeptide, as described by Jaqueth et al., into a modified genomic locus (Complex Trait Locus) comprising multiple resistance genes/loci, as described by Gao et al., with a realistic goal to broaden disease resistance spectrum of the corn plant. A different target site, as described by Gao et al. (page 60, line 1-6), to introduce the nucleotide sequence encoding the native (corn) NLR01 disease resistance polypeptide (SEQ ID NO: 41), would be a functional equivalent of the target sites listed in claim 33, and would not realistically change the outcome of the disease resistance trait of the NLR01 (SEQ ID NO: 41) polypeptide.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to introduce the nucleotide sequence encoding the native (corn) NLR01 (SEQ ID NO: 41) disease resistance polypeptide into the modified genomic locus comprising multiple disease resistance genes to broaden the disease resistance spectrum of the corn plant.
Claims 38 and 40 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. as applied to claims 30, 35, 37, 43-44 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) above, and further in view of Agapito-Tenfen et al. (Effect of stacking insecticidal cry and herbicide tolerance epsps transgenes on transgenic maize proteome, 2014, BMC Plant Biol., 14:346).
Claim 38 indirectly depends from claim 30, and is drawn to a method of breeding plants comprising a locus comprising at least one heterologous polynucleotide sequence encoding an insecticidal or herbicide resistance polypeptide.
Gao et al. describes a corn plant comprising a modified genomic locus, the locus comprising one or more modified target sites, wherein the one or more modified target sites comprise two polynucleotide sequences conferring enhanced disease resistance to northern leaf blight in corn, wherein the polynucleotide sequences are heterologous to the modified genomic locus, as discussed above.
However, Gao et al. does not describe to any plant comprising a locus containing at least one heterologous polynucleotide sequence encoding an insecticidal or herbicide resistance polypeptide.
Agapito-Tenfen et al. describes corn plants containing nucleotide sequences encoding insecticidal and herbicide tolerance (or resistance) polypeptides clustered together (page 1, abstract). The Applicant describes the terms "tolerance" and "resistance" to be used interchangeably (Spec, page 18, line 18-19).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to introduce the nucleotide sequences encoding insecticidal and herbicide tolerance/resistance polypeptides, as described by Agapito-Tenfen et al., into the same plant already containing multiple disease resistance genes, as described by Gao et al., with the realistic goal to incorporate more agronomically beneficial traits in the same corn plant, which is a commercially important crop.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to introduce the nucleotide sequences encoding insecticidal and herbicide tolerance/resistance polypeptides in the same plant with the realistic goal to incorporate more agronomically beneficial traits in the same corn plant which already contains more than one gene conferring resistance against a plant disease.
Regarding claim 40, Gao et al. describes a method to introduce resistant genes at a single locus (CTL1) through homologous recombination (page 60, line 1-6; page 62, line 8-11). The nucleotide sequences encoding insecticidal and herbicide tolerance/resistance polypeptides, as described by Agapito-Tenfen et al., would have been introgressed into the same single genomic locus (CTL1) already having multiple disease resistance genes in the corn plant, as described by Gao et al., to broaden the number agronomically beneficial traits located to a single locus in a chromosome. That would help breeding future corn varieties more efficiently and would reduce linkage drag associated with introgression, as described by Gao et al. (page 2, line 9-14). The nucleotide sequences encoding insecticidal and herbicide tolerance/resistance polypeptides would read on “ a third heterologous polynucleotide”.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 30-33, 35-38, 40-41 and 43-44 remain provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16, 30, 32-33, 35-38, 40-44 of copending Application No. US17404109/US20220056470A1 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim limitations for instant claims 30-33, 35-38, 40-41, 43-44 would read on the claims 16, 30, 32-33, 35-38, 40-41 of the reference application, as described below.
Reference claim 30 recites a corn plant comprising a modified genomic locus, the locus comprising one or more modified target sites, wherein the one or more modified target sites comprise a first native polynucleotide sequence that confers enhanced disease resistance to a first plant disease and a second native polynucleotide sequence that confers enhanced disease resistance to the first plant disease or to a second plant disease, wherein the first and the second polynucleotide sequences are heterologous to the modified genomic locus and are present within a genomic window of less than about 1 cM. The reference claim 30 would satisfy all the claim limitations of instant claim 30.
Reference claim 16 is dependent from reference claim 15, and is a drawn to introducing a site-specific modification at least one target site in a genomic locus in a plant cell; wherein the at least one target site comprises a target site selected from Table 2 comprising SEQ ID NO: 12, SEQ ID NO:13, SEQ ID NO: 14, SEQ ID NO: 15, SEQ ID NO: 16, SEQ ID NO: 17, SEQ ID NO: 18, SEQ ID NO: 19, SEQ ID NO: 20, and SEQ ID NO: 21. Reference SEQ ID NO: 21 is 100% identical to instant SEQ ID NO: 21 of instant claim 31 (data not shown).
Reference claim 32 is drawn to a polypeptide sequences having a sequence selected from the group consisting of RppK (SEQ ID NO: 11), Ht1 (SEQ ID NO: 8), NLB18 (SEQ ID NOs: 3 or 5), NLR01 (SEQ ID No: 29), NLRO2 (SEQ ID No: 26), RCG1 (SEQ ID Nos: 31), and RCG1b (SEQ ID Nos: 33).
The SEQ ID NO: 3 in the reference claim 32 has 100% identity to SEQ ID NO: 3 in the instant claim 32 (data not shown).
Reference claim 33 is drawn to a polypeptide comprising a sequence selected from the group consisting of PRRO3 (SEQ ID No: 36), PRR01 (SEQ ID No: 38), NLR01 (SEQ ID No: 41), or NLRO4 (SEQ ID No: 44). The SEQ ID NO: 38 in the reference claim 33 has 100% identity to SEQ ID NO: 38 in the instant claim 33 (data not shown).
Reference claim 35 is drawn to a method for obtaining a plant cell with an modified genomic locus comprising at least two polynucleotide sequences that confer enhanced disease resistance to at least one plant disease, or at least two traits resulting in resistance to at least one disease through two different modes of action, wherein said at least two polynucleotide sequences are heterologous to the corresponding genomic locus, wherein the genomic locus is located in the distal region of chromosome 1. The reference claim 35 would satisfy all the claim limitations of instant claim 35.
Reference claim 36 depends from reference claim 35, and recites, “… wherein the genomic locus is located in the telomeric region.” Reference claim 36 would anticipate instant claim 36 because it includes instant SEQ ID NO: 21, as recited in instant claim 31. Instant SEQ ID NO: 21 is one of the target sites in the genomic locus (CTL1), as described above, and it is in the telomeric region.
Reference claim 37 is drawn to a method of breeding transgenic and native disease traits at a single locus in a plant comprising: a. inserting at a single locus in a plant a first heterologous polynucleotide sequence that confers enhanced disease resistance to a first plant disease, and second heterologous polynucleotide sequence that confers enhanced disease resistance to the first plant disease or to a second plant disease; b. inserting at least one heterologous polynucleotide sequence encoding an insecticidal polypeptide, agronomic trait polypeptide, or a herbicide resistance polypeptide at the single locus; c. crossing the plant with the single locus with a different plant; and d. obtaining a progeny plant comprising the single locus; and wherein the single locus allows for fewer backcrosses compared to a plant with traits at more than one locus. Reference claim 37 would satisfy all the claim limitations of instant claim 37.
Reference claim 38 depends from reference claim 37, and is drawn to a method wherein different plant comprising a second locus comprising at least one heterologous polynucleotide sequence encoding an insecticidal or herbicide resistance polypeptide. The reference claim 38 would anticipate instant claim 38.
Reference claim 40 is drawn to a modified plant comprising a first heterologous polynucleotide encoding a first polypeptide that confers enhanced disease resistance to a first plant disease, and a second heterologous polynucleotide encoding a second polypeptide that confers enhanced disease resistance to a second plant disease; and a third heterologous polynucleotide encoding an insecticidal polypeptide or a herbicide resistance polypeptide; wherein the first heterologous polynucleotide, second heterologous polynucleotide, and third heterologous polynucleotide are located at a single locus in a plant. The reference claim 40 would satisfy all the claim limitations of instant claim 40.
Reference claim 41 is drawn to a single locus comprising about 1cM, 5cM, or 10cM. The reference claim 41 would anticipate instant claim 41.
Reference claim 43 is drawn to a method of introgressing or forward breeding multiple disease resistance loci into an elite germplasm, wherein the timeframe for inserting two or more heterologous polynucleotides from different donor plants into the elite line and developing the homozygous resistant lines is shorter. Instant claim 43 would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan considering reference claim 43 because introgressing or forward breeding would produce progeny plants having the modified genomic locus in the genetic background of the elite line.
Reference claim 44 depends from reference claim 43, and is drawn to improving agronomic traits with multiple disease resistance with reduced yield drag from breeding. The reference claim 44 would make instant claim 44 obvious.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Applicants’ arguments
The argument set forth in the Applicant’s response on 11/25/2025 has been fully considered but is not found persuasive. All the arguments against the anticipation, obviousness, and double patenting rejections boil down to, “… the modified genomic locus in Gao is transgenic” (response, page 7, para 2, last line).
The Applicant argues, “what Gao actually describes is the translocation of HT1 and NLB18 sequences to a genomic locus that is modified to contain transgenic site-specific integration (SSI) target sites. Thus, Gao's modified genomic locus is transgenic” (response, page 3, line 3-6). The argument continues, “the modified genomic locus cited in the Office Action and described by Gao is CTL1. As indicated in Example 4 of Gao, CTL1 refers to "[a] maize genomic window spanning from ZM01:13.7MM to ZM01:16.4MM on chromosome 1 [that] was identified and developed to become Complex Trait Locus (CTL) 1 (W02016040030)". Gao, page 60, lines 1-3 (emphasis added) citing WO 2016/040030 to Cigan et al. ("Cigan"). ( response, page 7, para 4, line 1-6) … “Regarding the specific CTL1 locus used in Gao, Examples 3 and 6 of Cigan describe the guide RNAs, donor DNA, and process used to develop CTL1 (emphasis added): ""Guide RNA expression cassettes, Cas9 endonuclease expression cassettes and donor DNA's for introduction of transgenic target sites for SSI in a maize genomic window."Cigan, page 137, (Response, bridging paragraph between page 7 and 8).
The Examiner disagrees. The Applicant further restricts the base claim 30 by adding, “wherein the modified genomic locus is non-transgenic.” Applicant’s arguments against all the USC § 102, § 103, and Double Patenting rejections basically revolve around that amendment.
The Applicant is remined that the term “non-transgene” does not confer any structure, and merely recites how the nucleic acid was made. Thus, the limitation is not directed to significantly more to product(s) (i.e., “modified genomic locus” and the corn plant containing the modified genomic locus) and does not patentably distinguish the product from the product(s) of nature.
Moreover, Cigan et al. explains, “The guide RNA (gRNA)/Cas9 DNA constructs targeting various maize genomic sites that were constructed for the introduction of transgenic SSI (Site Specific Integration) target sites into Cas endonuclease target sites through homologous recombination listed in Table 5 and Table 7” (page 138, para 2, line 1-3). “The bases of the guide RNA that comprise the variable targeting domain are listed in the Tables 6 and 8 as well” (page 138, para 2, line 5-6). The gRNA molecule(s) itself and/or the polynucleotide encoding the Cas9 endonuclease was not integrated in the target genomic locus that were being edited. It is known in the art that gRNA molecule(s) only direct(s) the repair and/or indel mutations (as a template) via (naturally occurring process of) homologous recombination without being integrated, while the actual nucleotides used to do the repair/indel come(s) from the cell itself using the naturally occurring process and as used in any other homologous recombination in the nucleus. It is prudent to mention here that many countries including the United States consider that genome edited plants do not contain any transgene and, hence, do not recognize genome edited plants as GMO1.
Instant specification also describes using gRNAs (page 46, line 2; page 48, line 6-7) and Cas endonuclease (page 48, line 6-7) while using the same homologous recombination (as described in Gao et al. and Cigan et al.) based “Homology-directed repair (HDR) templates were designed to enable the insertion of disease resistance genes at the desired target sites” (instant spec, page 48, line 12-13).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY CHATTERJEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1329. The examiner can normally be reached (Mon - Fri) 8.30 am to 5.30 pm..
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.
Jay Chatterjee
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1662
/Jay Chatterjee/Examiner, Art Unit 1662
/BRATISLAV STANKOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Units 1661 & 1662
1 Schmidt et al. (The evolving landscape around genome editing in agriculture, 2020, EMBO Reports, 21: e50680) provides the evidence that genome edited plants are not GMO, in the United States and many other countries. (Fig. 1).