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 .
The Applicants’ Amendment to the Claims filed 06/18/2026 is entered.
The Applicants’ Amendment to the Specification filed 06/18/2026 is entered.
Claims 1-12 and 14 are canceled.
Claims 20-26 are new.
Claims 13 and 15-26 are pending and under examination.
Priority
This US 18/264,174 filed on 08/03/2023 which is a 371 of PCT/BR2022/050037 filed on 02/04/2022 claims foreign priority to BRAZIL 1020210023937 filed on 02/08/2021. Presently, applicant may not rely on the foreign priority date because an English language translation of the BRAZIL 1020210023937 has not been received.
Response to Amendment
All objections made in the previous office action are WITHDRAWN in view of the applicants’ submission filed on June 18, 2026.
The rejection of claims 1-7, 10, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is WITHDRAWN in view of the Applicants’ Amendment to the Claims filed on June 18, 2026.
The rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 8, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is WITHDRAWN in view of the Applicants’ Amendment to the Claims filed on June 18, 2026.
The rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Araujo et al (JBC 2014) is WITHDRAWN in view of the Applicants’ Amendment to the Claims filed on June 18, 2026.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 and 26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Argument regarding the Araujo et al reference
The Applicants Response filed on 06/18/2026 has been fully considered but is unpersuasive as it may relate to the new grounds of rejection over the presently amended claims 13, 15-20, and 22-26. The applicants’ arguments regarding the Araujo et al reference is fully considered as it may relate to the new grounds of rejection over presently amended claims. The applicants argue:
The amended claim set defines the application of the preservative additive to plant cells, tissues and/or food derived therefrom. In this context, it is important to highlight that the Araujo Article is restricted to the disclosure of the application of Pep5-CPP in mammalian cells. Applicant submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would not undertake the transposition of the Pep5-CPP's effect from mammalian cells to plant cells, as these types of cells are very distinct from each other.
Examples 2-5 illustrate the various effects of the claimed synthetic peptides on plants, fruits, and flowers, highlighting the versatility of the peptides. Specifically, Example 2 shows how the claimed synthetic peptides prevent or delay the onset of pests, such as bacteria or fungi. Example 3 demonstrates their effectiveness in preventing or delaying rotting. Example 4 shows their effect on the modulation of germination. Example 5 illustrates their role in preventing wilting and maintaining the quality and integrity of flowers or inflorescences for an extended period, even after harvesting.
Paragraph [0012] of the Specification describes that the synthetic peptide in the present invention is selected from the peptide of SEQ ID NO: 1 and SEQ ID NOs: 4 to 14. Additionally, paragraph [0058] states that: "peptides from SEQ ID NOs: 4 to 14 are considered within the inventive concept of the present invention due to the small changes in the amino acid sequence in relation to SEQ ID NO: 1 and SEQ ID NO: 9".
In addition, the applicants argue (page 14 of “Remarks”) that a Figure in the instant specification shows a reduction in % of spoiled strawberries over time using SEQ ID NO: 3 or ΔN1-pep5-cpp (SEQ ID NO: 4 with peptide tail) compared to a control treatment. Thus, the applicants argue:
It is clear that the peptides of the present invention and the additives containing them have preservative activity on plant cells, demonstrated by the curves of SEQ ID NO: 3 and the AN1-pep5-cpp peptide (SEQ ID NO: 4 with peptide tail).
In this context, it is important to highlight that the Araujo Article is restricted to the disclosure of the application of Pep5-CPP in mammalian cells. Applicant submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would not undertake the transposition of the Pep5-CPP's effect from mammalian cells to plant cells, as these types of cells are very distinct from each other.
As the Araujo Article does not disclose, claim, or fairly teach the subject matter of current independent Claims 13 and 22, Applicant submits that the Araujo Article does not anticipate current independent Claims 13 and 22 under 35 USC 102 (a)(1). Applicant submits that current independent Claims 13 and 22 are allowable over the Araujo Article.
Likewise, as the remaining dependent Claims depend from or ultimately from either independent Claim 13 or independent Claim 22, Applicant submits that the remaining dependent claims also are allowable over the Araujo Article as dependent claims depending from allowable base claims.
However, this argument is not persuasive for reasons provided in the body of the rejection above. As noted in the new grounds of rejection, the present claims do not require plant cells because “plant cells” is written in the alternative with the limitation “tissues”. The base claims do not specify “plant tissues”. Regarding presently amended claims 13, 15-20, and 22-25, Araujo et al teach a method comprising treating tissue with compositions comprising a Pep5-CPP, specifically using peptides consisting of instant SEQ ID NO: 3 or instant SEQ ID NO: 15. (See Abstract, entire article; showing 100% identical sequences to instant SEQ ID NOs 3 and 15 and page 16717, Table 2). Thus, Araujo et al meets the limitations of method claims 13, 15-20, and 22-25. The applicants’ argument is unpersuasive because the amended base claims 13 and 22 now recite the intended use in the preamble: “A method for preservation of plant cells, tissues, and/or food derived therefrom…”. Claim 13 recites the active method step: “comprising treating plant cells, tissues and/or food derived therefrom with an effective dose of at least one preservative additive comprising a synthetic peptide…” Claim 22 recites the active method step: “comprising treating plant cells, tissues and/or food with an effective dose of at least one preservative additive comprising a synthetic peptide…”
Claim interpretation: M.P.E.P. § 2111.02 reads, "If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention's limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction." As long as the reference composition is in a format suitable for the intended use, then the claim limitations are deemed to be met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 – new grounds of rejection
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Currently amended claims 13, 15-16, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araujo et al (JBC 2014 Vol 289, No 24, pages 16711-16726; of record).
Regarding base claims 13 and 22, Araujo et al disclose treating tissues of rat animal models with an effective amount of the peptide WELVVLGKL-YGRKKRRQRRR (aka: pep5-cpp). This pep5-cpp is identical to instant SEQ 3. Instant SEQ ID NO: 3 is the peptide WELVVLGKL-YGRKKRRQRRR which is instant SEQ ID NO:1 linked to instant SEQ ID NO: 2. Araujo et al disclose this treatment reduced tumor growth in the animals. (See page 16719, left col., para 2; Fig9). Also, Araujo et al disclose treating tissues of rat animal models with an amount of the peptide instant SEQ 15 which is WELVVL-YGRKKRRQRRR (aka: ΔC3-pep5-cpp) but this had less effect on tumor reduction. Araujo et al disclose that pep5 “has potential therapeutic applications” (see Abstract). Thus, Araujo et al teach a method comprising treating tissue with compositions comprising a Pep5-CPP which is a synthetic peptide comprising instant SEQ ID NO: 1 linked to instant SEQ NO: 2 or a synthetic peptide comprising instant SEQ ID NO: 9 or 14 linked to instant SEQ NO: 2 Specifically Araujo et al disclose using peptides consisting of instant SEQ ID NO: 3 or instant SEQ ID NO: 15. Instant SEQ ID NO: 3 consists of instant SEQ ID NO: 1 linked to a cell-penetrating peptide tail of instant SEQ ID NO: 2. Further, instant SEQ ID NO: 15 consists of instant SEQ NO: 9 (or 14) linked to the cell-penetrating peptide tail of instant SEQ ID NO: 2. (See Abstract, entire article; showing 100% identical sequences to instant SEQ ID NOs 3 and 15 and page 16717, Table 2). See Abstract; page 16717; Table 2. Note that instant SEQ 3 is WELVVLGKL-YGRKKRRQRRR (aka pep5-cpp) which is instant SEQ ID NO:1 linked to instant SEQ ID NO: 2, and instant SEQ 15 is WELVVL-YGRKKRRQRRR (aka ΔC3-pep5-cpp) which is instant SEQ ID NO: 9 or 14 linked to instant SEQ ID NO: 2.
Regarding claim 15, Araujo et al disclose the cell-penetrating peptide tail is SEQ ID NO: 2.
Regarding claim 16, Araujo et al disclose instant SEQ ID NO: 3. Instant SEQ ID NO: 3 consists of instant SEQ ID NO: 1 linked to a cell-penetrating peptide tail of instant SEQ ID NO: 2. Also, Araujo et al disclose instant SEQ ID NO: 15. Instant SEQ ID NO: 15 consists of instant SEQ NO: 9 (or 14) linked to the cell-penetrating peptide tail of instant SEQ ID NO: 2. (See Abstract, entire article; showing 100% identical sequences to instant SEQ ID NOs 3 and 15 and page 16717, Table 2).
Regarding claim 23, Araujo et al disclose instant SEQ ID NO: 3. Instant SEQ ID NO: 3 consists of instant SEQ ID NO: 1 linked to a cell-penetrating peptide tail of instant SEQ ID NO: 2. Also, Araujo et al disclose instant SEQ ID NO: 15. Instant SEQ ID NO: 15 consists of instant SEQ NO: 9 (or 14) linked to the cell-penetrating peptide tail of instant SEQ ID NO: 2. (See Abstract, entire article; showing 100% identical sequences to instant SEQ ID NOs 3 and 15 and page 16717, Table 2).
The level of skill in the art was high before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the pep5-cpp for treating tissues of rat animal models with an effective amount of the peptide WELVVLGKL-YGRKKRRQRRR (aka: pep5-cpp) for the rationale of studying the properties of such therapeutic peptide. This pep5-cpp is identical to instant SEQ 3. Instant SEQ ID NO: 3 is the peptide WELVVLGKL-YGRKKRRQRRR which is instant SEQ ID NO:1 linked to instant SEQ ID NO: 2. Araujo et al disclose this treatment reduced tumor growth in the animals. (See page 16719, left col., para 2; Fig9). Also, Araujo et al disclose treating tissues of rat animal models with an amount of the peptide instant SEQ 15 which is WELVVL-YGRKKRRQRRR (aka: ΔC3-pep5-cpp) but this had less effect on tumor reduction.
M.P.E.P. § 2111.02 reads, "If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention's limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction." As long as the reference composition is in a format suitable for the intended use, then the claim limitations are deemed to be met.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the pep5-cpp because Araujo et al disclose that pep5 “has potential therapeutic applications” (see Abstract). In view of the high skill in the art it is considered that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to follow the reference of Araujo et al to arrive at the presently claimed invention as presently written.
Currently amended claims 13, 15-20, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araujo et al (JBC 2014 Vol 289, No 24, pages 16711-16726; of record, in view of Sabbaga & Araujo (WO2018018121-A1 as evidenced by attached SCV Result for SEQ ID NO:3 for Sabbaga & Araujo).
Claims 13, 15-16, and 22-23 are rendered obvious over Araujo et al (JBC 2014) for reasons provided above.
In summary, Araujo et al disclose treating tissues of rat animal models with an effective amount of the peptide WELVVLGKL-YGRKKRRQRRR (aka: pep5-cpp). This pep5-cpp is identical to instant SEQ 3. Instant SEQ ID NO: 3 is the peptide WELVVLGKL-YGRKKRRQRRR which is instant SEQ ID NO:1 linked to instant SEQ ID NO: 2. Araujo et al disclose this treatment reduced tumor growth in the animals. (See page 16719, left col., para 2; Fig9). Also, Araujo et al disclose treating tissues of rat animal models with an amount of the peptide instant SEQ 15 which is WELVVL-YGRKKRRQRRR (aka: ΔC3-pep5-cpp) but this had less/no effect on tumor reduction.
However, Araujo et al differs from present claims because Araujo et al disclose treating rat tissues for tumor reduction rather than treating plants or food. Further, Araujo et al does not disclose the intended uses of preservation of plant cells or food (base claims 13, 22), preservation of plants (claim 17), modulating germination or plant development (claim 18), prevent or delay wilting, rotting, or occurrence of pests, or maintain quality of flowers (claims 19, 24), post-harvest preservation of flowers (claims 20, 25).
Regarding claim 17, Araujo et al does not disclose the intended use of preservation of plants or fruits of agronomic, botanical, or medicinal interest.
Regarding claim 18, Araujo et al does not disclose the method for the intended use of modulating germination or plant development of plants of agronomic, botanical, or medicinal interest.
Regarding claim 19, Araujo et al does not disclose that the treatment step is carried out for the intended use of preventing or delaying wilting, rotting or the occurrence of pests, and/or to maintain the quality or integrity of flowers and/or inflorescences for a longer period.
Regarding claim 20, Araujo et al does not disclose that the method is carried out for the intended use of the post-harvest preservation of flowers and/or inflorescences of ornamental or phytochemical interest.
Regarding claim 24, Araujo et al does not disclose that said method is carried out for the intended use of preventing or delaying rotting and/or fungal contamination in fruits, delaying germination of legumes, and/or is carried out for preventing or delaying wilting of flowers and/or inflorescences for a longer period than without treating plant cells, tissues and/or food derived therefrom with the effective dose of the preservative additive.
Regarding claim 25, Araujo et al does not disclose that said method is carried out for the intended use of post-harvest preservation of flowers and/or inflorescences of ornamental or phytochemical interest.
Sabbaga et al disclose treating and effectively killing parasites with an effective amount of a pharmaceutical comprising WELVVL-YGRKKRRQRRR (called “pep5-cpp 6aa”; instant SEQ NO: 15) and WELVVLGKL-YGRKKRRQRRR (called: pep5-cpp; instant SEQ ID NO:3). See FIG 1-8. Sabbaga et al recite that:
the “term "cell penetration peptide" or "CPP" refers to short amino acid sequences that facilitate the entry of the major peptide into the intracellular environment and thereby acts as a transportation means of peptides to the intracellular medium . The preferred CPP in the present application is defined in SEQ ID NO: 2 - YGRKKRRQRRR.
The level of skill in the art was high before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in view of Araujo et al and Sabbaga et al to treat tissue and parasites with the pep5-cpp therapeutic peptides for the rationale of reducing tumors and killing parasites. It would have been obvious for one of skill in the art to do such because the cited references explicitly show treatment.
As presently written, the intended use phrases of claims 17-20 and 24-25 are not generally afforded patentable weight for purpose of applying prior art.
M.P.E.P. § 2111.02 reads, "If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention's limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction." As long as the reference composition is in a format suitable for the intended use, then the claim limitations are deemed to be met.
Thus, it is considered that one of ordinary skill in the art having the cited references before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success applying the pep5-cpp peptides to tissues for therapeutic use.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Related art which may be applied in a future office action if appropriate:
Heimann (BR-102022002182 A2, published 08/23/2022). Note that Heimann is inventor’s own work and is filed before the effective filing date but published after and thus is not prior art.
De Araujo et al “Pep5, a Fragment of Cyclin D2, Shows Antiparasitic Effects in Different Stages of the Trypanosoma Cruzi Life Cycle and Blocks Parasite Infectivity” (Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy May 2019 Vol 63, No 5, pages 1-15). Discloses contacting cells infected with trypomastigotes (strain Y) with an effective amount of a peptide WELVVL-YGRKKRRQRRR (instant SEQ ID NO: 15) to kill parasites.
Ferro et al (BR102014000521-A2 published 12/22/2015; IDS ref). Inventor’s own work describes the Pep5 peptide 100% identical to instant SEQ ID NO 3 used in pharmaceutical for treating human tissue and hyperplasia.
ScvUi_Result_SEQ_15_US17422309C, of record;
ScvUi_Result_SEQ_ID_NO_3_100_identical_Sabbage_et_al, of record;
ScvUi_Result_SEQ_3_US17422309C_100__identical, of record.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE S HIBBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-3053. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Melissa Fisher can be reached at 571-270-7430. 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.
/CATHERINE S HIBBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1658
Prosecution Insights