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 1-13 are pending.
Claims 1 and 13 are newly amended.
Claims 1-13 remain rejected.
Response to Applicant Arguments – Interview Summary Record
In response to Applicant’s remarks with respect to the Examiner Interview Summary Record dated 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but are not found to be persuasive.
These arguments urge that Examiner’s summary of the interview is materially incorrect and represents a gross misstatement of the substance of the interview.
Applicant urges this occurred because:
The examiner requested an interview to discuss a specific question about the deletion which was used to generate SEQ ID NO: 61. Specifically, if the deletion generated a CgRRS site.
The Examiner, then broadened the interview and asked questions about the scope of the invention and the utility of the claimed sequences.
The Examiner did not provide notice that the interview would include questions regarding all of the possible functionalities of the claimed invention.
Applicant’s representative stated explicitly that “regarding any other uses of functions of SEQ ID NO: 61, Applicant’s representative would need to review the application as filed and consult with the named inventors”
This argument is not found to be persuasive because both the initial and follow up questions were drawn to the function of the deletion used to make the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 61.
The Examiner’s interpretation of the First paragraph of page 6 of the Remarks is that Applicant’s representative stated that a use of the claimed invention was as a generic marker allele but that they would need to consult with the named inventors to provide any additional specific functional utility of the claimed invention.
In the more than six months since the interview, Applicant has not provided any additional information on the utility of the claimed invention or the function of the claimed deletion.
Further, while Applicant urges that the Examiner mischaracterized Applicant’s statements in the interview, no evidence has been provided by Applicant that demonstrates that the claimed sequence has any specific utility other than as a generic marker allele. This includes the instant specification, the Remarks dated August 25, 2025, the remarks dated April 20, 2026 and in the interview summarized in the Examiner Interview Summary Record dated December 19, 2025.
In fact, the section of the remarks provided by Applicant on August 25, 2025 drawn to the utility of the claimed invention can be summarized as follows:
Deletions in the 3’ junction polynucleotide sequence of INHT26 create “unique deletion junctions” which serve to improve identification of plant cells, plants, germplasm, etc. where the modified INHT26 transgenic locus has been introgressed and distinguishes these cells, plants, germplasms etc. from those containing the unmodified transgenic locus.
This function is undistinguishable from “generic utility for identifying the modified locus”.
The Examiner, apologizes for any confusion generated from the request for an interview but does not find Applicant Arguments to be persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (Indefiniteness)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because the claim is drawn to a DNA molecule comprising a modified DAS44406-6 transgenic locus comprising a deletion wherein the modified transgenic locus comprises the DNA molecule set forth in SEQ ID NO: 61 and where the original DAS44406-6 transgenic locus is set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1. However, the claim also includes limitations which describe characteristics of the transgenic locus, including the new limitation “wherein the deletion results in modifications that render the modified DAS44406-6 transgenic locus distinguishable from the original DAS444-6-6 transgenic locus”.
This is indefinite because the recitation of SEQ ID NO: 61 appears to limit sequences to those comprising that exact modified transgenic locus, however the claim also includes further limitations describing the locus. As such it is not clear if the claim is limited to DNA molecules comprising transgenic loci comprising the exact sequence of SEQ ID NO: 61 or if instead the claim is more broad than that and drawn to DNA molecules comprising a modified DAS44406-6 transgenic locus having the specific characteristics described in the claims.
As such the scope of the claim is not clear and therefore claim 1 is rejected as indefinite. Claims 2-12 are rejected for depending on an indefinite claim and failing to limit the claim to definite subject matter.
Claim 13 shares the same flaws as claim 1 and is rejected as indefinite on the same grounds.
Response to Applicant Arguments – Obviousness
Applicant’s arguments and amendments dated 04/20/2026 have been considered but are not found to be persuasive and the obviousness rejections of record are maintained. Applicant’s arguments are summarized and addressed below.
Applicant’s arguments are summarized and addressed as follows:
The Examiner mischaracterizes the claimed embodiments because the assertion that “”this invention had no other use by itself beyond the generic utility for identifying the modified locus” is incorrect.
This is because as noted in the remarks dated August 25, 2025, “the unique deletion junctions of the disclosure, such as those in SEQ ID NO: 61 serve to improve identification of germplasm, plant cells, plants, and plant parts (including seeds) where the modified INHT26 transgene has been introgressed, and to further distinguish that INHT26-containing germplasm, plant cells, plant parts from those containing the unmodified transgene.”
These arguments have been fully considered but are not found to be persuasive because while Applicant urges that the examiner’s statement that “this invention had no other use by itself beyond the generic utility for identifying the modified locus” the support Applicant provides for this argument appears to confirm the statement by the Examiner. See bolded sections of Applicant’s remarks submitted August 25, 2025:
The specification notes that the INHT26 locus can comprise "one or more targeted genetic changes" wherein said targeted changes may be "insertions, deletions, and substitutions of one or more nucleotides in the crop plant genome." In the instant case, SEQ ID NO: 61 contains deletions in the DAS44406 event, specifically the deletion of one or more nucleotides in the 3' junction polynucleotide sequence. The deletion of one or more nucleotides in the 3' junction polynucleotide sequences creates "unique deletion junctions" in the INHT26 transgenic locus. "Such deletion junction[s] ... are useful for identifying ... INHT26 transgenic plants containing deletions of the aforementioned DNA element" (i.e., one or more nucleotides from the 3' junction polynucleotide sequence). Accordingly, the unique deletion junctions of the disclosure, such as those in SEQ ID NO: 61 serve to improve identification of germplasm, plant cells, plants, and plant parts (including seeds) where the modified INHT26 transgene has been introgressed, and to further distinguish that INHT26-containing germplasm, plant cells, plants, and plant parts from those containing the unmodified transgene.
These highlighted sections when combined can be summarized as follows:
Deletions in the 3’ junction polynucleotide sequence of INHT26 creates “unique deletion junctions” which serve to improve identification of plant cells, plants, germplasm, etc. where the modified INHT26 transgenic locus has been introgressed and distinguishes these cells, plants, germplasms etc. from those containing the unmodified transgenic locus.
It does not appear that this is different than the statement that “this invention had no other use by itself beyond the generic utility for identifying the modified locus” because Applicant’s supporting evidence appears to state that the claimed invention can be used to identify the modified INHT26 transgenic locus and differentiate this locus from the unmodified locus. This appears to be generic utility allowing for the identification of the modified locus.
As such Applicant’s arguments summarized in 1. above are not found to be persuasive.
The Examiner fails to provide a reason or basis for arriving at SEQ ID NO: 61 specifically in view of a large number of potential solutions disclosed by Borchardt. Rather than identifying predictable solutions for developing unique deletion junctions, Borchardt broadly states that an artificial marker allele can be made in any genomic locus in any plant genome so long as the genomic locus is linked to a nucleic acid of interest.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not found to be persuasive because while Applicant urges that given the teachings of Borchardt Examiner has provided no motivation to arrive at the specific sequence of SEQ ID NO: 61, this argument is not found to be persuasive because the “unique deletion junction” of the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 61 appears to be a generic marker allele. Applicant urges that the Examiner has provided no evidence to arrive at the claimed sequence from a pool of generic markers and in response the Examiner notes that Applicant has not provided any evidence that the claimed invention is more than a generic marker allele at a specific locus. As such the Examiner’s position is that because the claimed invention is drawn to a generic marker allele at a specific locus without any further specific utility or properties this invention is obvious in view of any teaching of a marker allele at the DAS44406 transgenic locus. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments that the Examiner fails to provide motivation to arrive at the specifically claimed sequence is not found to be persuasive because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention is to a generic marker allele at the DAS44406 transgenic locus.
Borchardt demonstrates that the development of an “artificial” functional marker requires significant testing and development of a sequence selected from a large number of potential solutions. Specifically, Borchardt’s own teachings demonstrate that the selection of markers, whether endogenous or artificial, requires a selection and identification process, however the Examiner has not provided evidence sufficient to establish why or how a skilled artisan would make the specific deletions in SEQ ID NO: 61 as claimed, nor are the specific deletions arbitrary or an inherent result of the gene editing methods described by Borchardt.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not found to be persuasive because while Applicant urges that the specific deletions described in the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 61 are not arbitrary or an inherent result of gene editing methods, Applicant has provided no evidence supporting this assertion. In fact, while the statement from Applicant’s Remarks dated August 25, 2025 does not use the specific phrase “the generic utility for identifying the modified locus” to describe the use of the claimed invention the Remarks appear to state that is the use of the claimed invention, see response to Applicant’s Arguments summarized in 2. above.
While Borchardt may teach some steps and processes for developing markers, given that Applicant’s invention appears to be drawn to a generic marker allele and that Applicant has not provided any evidence to support the claim that the claimed sequence has any specific utility beyond acting as a marker allele nor has Applicant provided any evidence that the deletions are specific rather than arbitrary Applicant’s arguments that Borchardt teaches away from the claimed invention because Borchardt teaches some steps which may be used to generate marker alleles is not found to be persuasive.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
This rejection is maintained for the reasons of record, because the amendments and remarks by Applicants in response to Office Action mailed on December 12, 2025, have been fully considered but not deemed persuasive. See above for the response to Applicant's remarks.
Claims 1-13 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borchardt, EP 3571925 A1, Published 11/27/2019 in view of Cui, US 9,540,655 B2, patented January 10, 2017 as evidenced by Elsner, WO 2024/018016, Published January 25, 2024.
Independent claim 1 is drawn to a DNA molecule comprising a modified DAS44406-6 transgenic locus. This modified transgenic locus is set forth in SEQ ID NO: 61 and is a 4 base pair deletion in the downstream region flanking the DAS44406-6 transgene. As such this deletion is found in endogenous soybean DNA. Applicant provides information on this sequence in the remarks dated 8/25/2025, specifically, Applicant states the following with respect to the deletions in SEQ ID NO: 61:
“the unique deletion junctions of the disclosure, such as those in SEQ ID NO: 61 serve to improve identification of germplasm, plant cells, plants, and plant parts (including seeds) where the modified INHT26 transgene has been introgressed, and to further distinguish that INHT26-containing germplasm, plant cells, plants and plant parts from those containing the unmodified transgene” (Remarks, Paragraph spanning pages 10-11).
This interpretation was confirmed in an interview on 12/12/2025, see Examiner Interview Summary Record dated 12/19/2025.
Given the statement from Applicant remarks recited above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 is drawn to a DAS44406-6 soybean transgenic locus comprising a modification to introduce a generic marker sequence wherein the modified locus comprises the sequence of instant SEQ ID NO: 61.
With respect to claim 1, Borchardt teaches a method for making an artificial marker allele for the identification of a nucleic acid of interest preferably encoding a polypeptide conferring a trait of interest, comprising the steps of identifying at least one genomic locus in the target genome which is genetically linked to a nucleic acid of interest and introducing at least one insertion or deletion modification into that target locus (Borchardt, Page 148, Claim 1).
Borchardt clarifies this method in claim 8 on page 148, which states that the insertion or deletion of any of the preceding methods, including the method of claim 1, comprises a deletion in the range of 1-60 contiguous base pairs. In claim 10 on page 148, Borchardt provides further clarification of this method. This claims states “The method according to any preceding claim, wherein said nucleic acid of interest may be an endogenous gene, a heterologous gene, a mutated gene, a transgenic gene or a modified gene introduced or generated by gene editing or base editing”.
Further, Borchardt teaches that providing artificial marker alleles would be advantageous in plant breeding for crop improvement (Borchardt, Page 2, Paragraphs 0007 and 0002). To this end Borchardt teaches that the target plant can be selected from a group including Glycine max (Soybean) and that the trait of interest can be herbicide tolerance which is a typical trait of interest (Borchardt, Page 5, Paragraph 0032; Borchardt, Page 4, Paragraph 0020). Finally, Borchardt teaches that introducing the marker into the target locus can be carried out using CRISPR systems, preferably the CRISPR/Cas9 or CRISPR/Cpf1 systems (Borchardt, Page 7, Paragraphs 0045 and 0047).
In summary, Borchardt teaches methods for making an artificial marker allele for the identification of a transgene encoding traits including herbicide tolerance, in crop plants including soybean through the use of gene editing to introduce a deletion of between 1 and 60 contiguous nucleotides that is linked to the transgene encoding the trait of interest (herbicide tolerance).
With respect to claim 1, Borchardt does not teach making a deletion in the 3’ flanking region of the DAS44406-6 transgenic locus, wherein the resulting modified transgenic locus has the sequence of instant SEQ ID NO: 61.
With respect to claim 1, Cui teaches the soybean event pDAB8264.44.06, which confers resistance to glyphosate, aryloxyalkanoate, and glufosinate herbicides (Cui, Abstract). Elsner provides evidence of an intrinsic characteristic of the teachings of Cui, specifically, Elsner makes clear that the pDAB8264.44.06.1 event of Cui is also known as DAS44406-6 (Elsner, Page 27, Line 2; Elsner, Page 26, Lines 32-33). Further, Cui teaches transgenic soybean plant cells, plant parts and seeds comprising the transgenic event (Cui, Columns 117-118, Claims 1-2 and 9).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify the method of Borchardt to generate an artificial marker allele linked to the DAS44406-6 event of Cui as evidenced by Elsner because this would be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
This rationale requires resolving the following Graham factual inquiries (MPEP 2143 D):
a finding that the prior art contained a “base” device (method, or product) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement”;
a finding that the prior art contained a known technique that is applicable to the base device (method, or product);
a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and
whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
Addressing these inquiries one by one, Cui teaches a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement”. Specifically Cui teaches soybeans containing the DAS44406-6. In fact the only distinction between the claimed invention and the soybeans of Cui is a 4 base pair deletion in the genomic soybean DNA flanking the transgene. Applicant made clear in the interview on 12/12/2025 and in the remarks dated 8/25/2025 that this deletion acts as a generic marker allowing sequences comprising this deletion to be identified, further Applicant stated that by itself this sequence has no function other than as a generic marker, see attached interview summary and the paragraph spanning pages 10-11 of Applicant’s Remarks dated 8/25/2025.
At the time of filing Borchardt taught a method of creating artificial marker alleles for traits of interest which include traits carried on transgenes and herbicide tolerance. These marker alleles can be created through the introduction of 1-60 base pair deletions in sequences linked to the trait of interest. Further Borchardt teaches that these methods are applicable to crop plants including soybean plants. Therefore, at the time of filing there was a finding that there was a known technique for creating artificial marker alleles linked to transgenes conferring traits of interest including herbicide tolerance. The base invention taught by Cui is a soybean plant comprising herbicide tolerance traits conferred by a transgene. Therefore the method of Borchardt is applicable to the base invention of Cui.
Third, at the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Borchardt to the transgenic soybean plants of Cui would have had the predictable result of producing a unique marker allele of the DAS44406-6 transgenic event that would allow for easy screening for this unique allele and correspondingly the transgenic event.
This would have had a predictable result because the techniques used in the method of Borchardt, specifically gene editing using the CRISPR/Cas system are well known in the art. These techniques are known for their applicability to a wide variety of organisms, accuracy, ease of use, and predictability in generating targeted modifications to a sequence. Given that the target sequence was taught by Cui and known in the art at the time of filing and that the unique marker alleles of Borchardt can be introduced using the CRISPR/Cas system, at the time of filing, the ordinary artisan would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved transgenic soybean plant.
Given, that applicant’s invention is a generic marker allele and that the combined teachings of Borchardt in view of Cui as evidenced by Elsner teach soybean plants having unique marker alleles linked to transgenes that are produced by generating deletions of 1-60 contiguous nucleotides that are linked to transgenes encoding a trait of interest, applicant’s marker allele having the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 61 which is a 4 base pair deletion linked to the DAS44406-6 transgene is obvious.
With respect to claim 2, Borchardt in view of Cui as evidenced by Elsner collectively teach all of the limitations of claim 1, see above.
Further, Cui as evidenced by Elsner teaches progeny plants, soybeans, seeds, and/or regenerable parts of the plants and seeds and progeny comprising soybean event pDAB8264.44.06.1 (DAS44406-6), as well as food or feed products made from any thereof (Cui, Column 4, Lines 10-14). As such Cui teaches processed (made) products (food or feed products) comprising the DNA molecule of Cui.
With respect to claim 3, Borchardt in view of Cui as evidenced by Elsner collectively teach all of the limitations of claim 2, see above.
With respect to claim 4, Borchardt in view of Cui as evidenced by Elsner collectively teach all of the limitations of claim 1, see above.
Further, Cui teaches DNA molecules comprising the pDAB8264.44.06.1 (DAS44406-6) transgenic event while Borchardt teaches creating marker alleles by introducing 1-60 contiguous nucleotide deletions linked to transgenes encoding herbicide tolerance, see analysis with respect to claim 1 above. Further, Cui explicitly teaches the DNA molecules comprising the transgenic event (Cui, Column 13, Lines 43-48).
With respect to claim 5, Borchardt in view of Cui as evidenced by Elsner collectively teach all of the limitations of claim 1, see above.
Further, Cui teaches “probes”, isolated nucleic acid molecules which are attached to a conventional detectable label or reporter molecule and which is complementary to a strand of genomic DNA from the soybean event of Cui (Cui, Column 21, Lines 47-54)
With respect to claim 6, Borchardt in view of Cui as evidenced by Elsner collectively teach all of the limitations of claim 5, see above.
With respect to claim 7, Borchardt in view of Cui as evidenced by Elsner collectively teach all of the limitations of claim 1, see above.
With respect to claim 8, Borchardt in view of Cui as evidenced by Elsner collectively teach all of the limitations of claim 7, see above.
With respect to claim 9, Borchardt in view of Cui as evidenced by Elsner collectively teach all of the limitations of claim 8, see above.
With respect to claim 10, Borchardt in view of Cui as evidenced by Elsner collectively teach all of the limitations of claim 9, see above.
With respect to claim 11, Borchardt in view of Cui as evidenced by Elsner collectively teach all of the limitations of claim 10, see above.
Further, Cui teaches a method of self-crossing the soybean plant and collecting seed thereof and selecting second progeny plants that demonstrate herbicide resistance (Cui, Column 13, Lines 5-21).
With respect to claim 12, Borchardt in view of Cui as evidenced by Elsner collectively teach all of the limitations of claim 10, see above.
Further, Cui teaches a method of the soybean plant comprising the transgene with another plant and selecting second progeny plants that demonstrate herbicide resistance (Cui, Column 13, Lines 5-11).
With respect to claim 13, Borchardt in view of Cui as evidenced by Elsner collectively teach all of the limitations of claim 1, see above.
Further, Cui teaches methods and assays for the detection of the pDAB8264.44.06.1 (DAS44406-6) transgenic event (Cui, Abstract).
As noted above in the obviousness analysis with respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to modify the method of Borchardt to generate an artificial marker allele linked to the DAS44406-6 event of Cui as evidenced by Elsner because this would be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Finally, it would have been obvious to modify the method of Cui to defat the soybean seed to produce defatted soybean seed meal, because this is an obvious use of soybean seed.
This rationale requires resolving the following Graham factual inquiries (MPEP 2143 D):
a finding that the prior art contained a “base” device (method, or product) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement”;
a finding that the prior art contained a known technique that is applicable to the base device (method, or product);
a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and
whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
Addressing these inquiries one by one, Cui teaches a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement”. Specifically Cui teaches soybeans containing the DAS44406-6. In fact the only distinction between the claimed invention and the soybeans of Cui is a 4 base pair deletion in the genomic soybean DNA flanking the transgene. Applicant made clear in the interview on 12/12/2025 and in the remarks dated 8/25/2025 that this deletion acts as a generic marker allowing sequences comprising this deletion to be identified, further Applicant stated that by itself this sequence has no function other than as a generic marker, see attached interview summary and the paragraph spanning pages 10-11 of Applicant’s Remarks dated 8/25/2025.
At the time of filing Borchardt taught a method of creating artificial marker alleles for traits of interest which include traits carried on transgenes and herbicide tolerance. These marker alleles can be created through the introduction of 1-60 base pair deletions in sequences linked to the trait of interest. Further Borchardt teaches that these methods are applicable to crop plants including soybean plants. Therefore, at the time of filing there was a finding that there was a known technique for creating artificial marker alleles linked to transgenes conferring traits of interest including herbicide tolerance. The base invention taught by Cui is a soybean plant comprising herbicide tolerance traits conferred by a transgene. Therefore the method of Borchardt is applicable to the base invention of Cui.
Third, at the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Borchardt to the transgenic soybean plants of Cui would have had the predictable result of producing a unique marker allele of the DAS44406-6 transgenic event that would allow for easy screening for this unique allele and correspondingly the transgenic event.
This would have had a predictable result because the techniques used in the method of Borchardt, specifically gene editing using the CRISPR/Cas system are well known in the art. These techniques are known for their applicability to a wide variety of organisms, accuracy, ease of use, and predictability in generating targeted modifications to a sequence. Given that the target sequence was taught by Cui and known in the art at the time of filing and that the unique marker alleles of Borchardt can be introduced using the CRISPR/Cas system, at the time of filing, the ordinary artisan would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved transgenic soybean plant.
Given, that applicant’s invention is a generic marker allele and that the combined teachings of Borchardt in view of Cui as evidenced by Elsner teach soybean plants having unique marker alleles linked to transgenes that are produced by generating deletions of 1-60 contiguous nucleotides that are linked to transgenes encoding a trait of interest, applicant’s marker allele having the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 61 which is a 4 base pair deletion linked to the DAS44406-6 transgene is obvious.
As such claims 2-13 are rejected as obvious under Borchardt in view of Cui as evidenced by Elsner.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN JAMES SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0561. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 to 5:00.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN JAMES SULLIVAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1663
/Amjad Abraham/SPE, Art Unit 1663
Prosecution Insights