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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, including claims 1-3, 47-61, 63-70, 72-74 drawn to a recombinant DNA construct, a bacterial host cell, a vector and a plant comprising the construct, in the reply filed on 10/20/2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant's election with traverse the species of DNA sequence of SEQ ID NO:3 encoding SEQ ID NO:4 in the reply filed on 10/20/2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant respectfully submits that at least Group II and Group III should be examined together with Group I. Applicant argues Group II, directed to a vascular promoter, specifies a promoter type present on the recombinant DNA construct of claim 1. Applicant argues Group III, directed to a rice tungro bacilliform virus (RTBV) promoter, further specifies this promoter type. Applicant argues as described in paragraph [0199] of the specification, an RTBV promoter is a specific type of vascular promoter: "For example, the GA2 oxidase transgene(s) may be expressed using a vascular promoter, such as a rice tungro bacilliform virus (RTBV) promoter, that drives expression in vascular tissues of plants." Applicant argues this is also demonstrated in Example 1 (paragraph [0337]), which describes the generation of three different recombinant DNA constructs comprising a transcribable DNA sequence encoding different GA2 oxidase proteins, each operably linked to a "RTBV vascular promoter" (Response to restriction election, page 12, paragraph 3).
Applicant argues Groups I-III all relate to the overlapping subject matter of recombinant DNA constructs comprising a transcribable DNA sequence encoding a GA2 oxidase protein and a plant-expressible promoter, wherein the transcribable DNA sequence is operably linked to the plant-expressible promoter. Applicant argues Groups I-III would not require a different field of search. Applicant respectfully submits that a search of Group I, drawn to a recombinant DNA construct, Group II, drawn to a vascular promoter, and Group III, drawn to an RTBV promoter, would not present an undue burden on the Office.
The arguments are fully considered but they are not persuasive since the each of group recite distinct promoter sequences. These sequences are thus deemed to normally constitute different inventive concepts under the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 121. Absent evidence to the contrary, each nucleotide and amino acid sequence is presumed to represent an independent and distinct inventive concept, subject to a restriction requirement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 121 ad CFR 1.141 et seq. Additionally, each sequence will require a separate search in order to find the closest prior art associated with, and there is no indication that each of the sequences would be directed to the same prior art. Therefore the restriction has been maintained. Furthermore, the restriction requirement in different invention groups as showed in the terminologies in bold letters in the last official action correspondence would require an additional reference and therefore, they would require additional searching to find the additional references.
Applicants are reminded if a linking claim is found allowable then all the inventions including the linking claim and claims with similar subject matter will be rejoined and examined.
Claims 36-46, 75-86 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made with traverse in the reply filed on 10/20/2025.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Thus Claims 1-3, 36-61, 63-70, and 72-86 are pending. Claims 1-3, 47-61, 63-70, 72-74 along with species of DNA sequence of SEQ ID NO:3 encoding SEQ ID NO:4 are examined in this office action.
For following analysis, the substitute specification-clean submitted on 06/24/2024 has used for referring to the page and paragraph numbers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 47-61, 63-70 and 72-74 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Breadth of the Claim
Claim 1 recite DNA construct comprising any GA2 oxidase protein with a plant expressible promoter.
The claims 2-3 comprises large genus of polypeptides and polynucleotides molecules that are at least 80% identical to SEQ ID NO:4 encoded by DNA sequence that is at least 80% identical to SEQ ID NO:3.
Applicant has not described the transgenic plant comprising SEQ ID NO:3 encoding SEQ ID NO:4 would have any other trait or GA level modification other than shorter plant height (claims 49-55).
What is Described in the Specification
Applicant describes the following:
transformation vectors were created comprising DNA sequence encoding one of three GA2 oxidase genes from corn: Zm.GA2 oxidase_2 (nucleotide coding and protein sequences being SEQ ID NOs: 3 and 4, respectively) (pages 131-132, paragraph 337).
page 33, Tables 18 and 19 showed the gene GA2ox2 caused the lower mean height in V5 and V9 stage in the corn plant compared to control plant both in homozygous and hemizygous inbred lines.
in transgenic hybrid plants expressing the GA2ox2 transgene construct the reduction in plant height was significant for only one event (Event 8) at V9 stage (page134, paragraph 341, Table 20).
Difference Between What was Described and What is Claimed
Applicant has not described a recombinant DNA construct comprising DNA sequence encoding any GA2 oxidase protein and a plant expressible promoter.
Applicant has not described an amino acid sequence that is at least 80% identical to SEQ ID NO:4 encoded by DNA sequence that is at least 80% identical to SEQ ID NO:3 (claims 2 and 3).
Applicant has not described the transgenic plant comprising SEQ ID NO:3 encoding SEQ ID NO:4 would have any other trait modification other than shorter plant height (claims 49, 50).
Applicant has not described the transgenic plant comprising SEQ ID NO:3 encoding SEQ ID NO:4 would have any effect on the stalk or stem diameter (claim 52, 53).
Applicant has not described the transgenic plant comprising SEQ ID NO:3 encoding SEQ ID NO:4 would have shorter plant height compared to any control standard other than the control plant not comprising the transgene (claims 49-50).
Applicant has not described the transgenic plant comprising SEQ ID NO:3 encoding SEQ ID NO:4 would have lower level of GAs in internode tissue (claims 54-55).
Applicant has not described the transgenic plant comprising SEQ ID NO:3 encoding SEQ ID NO:4 would not have significant off-types for ear (claim 56).
Analysis
The purpose of the written description is to ensure that the inventor had possession at the time the invention was made, of the specific subject claimed. For a broad generic claim, the specification must provide adequate written description to identify the genus of the claim.
Applicant has not described an amino acid sequence that is at least 80% identical to SEQ ID NO:4 encoded by DNA sequence that is at least 80% identical to SEQ ID NO:3.
For example a polypeptide sequence of SEQ ID NO: 4 is 362 amino acid (AA) long and SEQ ID NO: 3 is 1089 nucleotide (NT) long. For example, a 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 4 would have ~36 AA changes (i.e., substitutions, deletions, insertions, or additions) relative to SEQ ID NO: 4, and this encompasses a genus of proteins that includes at least ~2036 molecules. Furthermore, 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 3 would have ~108 NT changes (i.e., substitutions, deletions, insertions, or additions) relative to SEQ ID NO: 3, and this encompasses a genus of proteins that includes at least ~4108 molecules. For this reason, the genus of proteins and polynucleotides having at least 80% identity to SEQ ID NO: 4 and 3 are a very large genus of molecules. Instead, applicant has described the recombinant DNA construct encoding SEQ ID NO:4 and 3 themselves.
Furthermore, the state of the art at the time of the instant invention was that although the skilled artisan would appreciate the recombinant nucleic acid comprising SEQ ID NO: 3 encoding protein of SEQ ID NO:4, one would not be able to readily predict function of nucleic acid and protein which has at least 80% identity to SEQ ID NOs: 3 and 4 and it is impossible to predict such a broad sequence variation will have any required function. For example, Guo et al. (Published Year: 2004, Journal: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 101(25), pages: 9205-9210) teaches that while proteins are fairly tolerant to mutations resulting in single amino acid changes, increasing the number of substitutions additively increases the probability that the protein will be inactivated (page 9209, right. col., paragraph 2).
Ci et al. (Published: 2021, Journal: PLoS ONE 16(5): e0250349. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0250349) teaches in the sample of 27 Gibberellin-dioxygenases genes in maize the found specific conserved motifs with various functions (page 6, last paragraph, see Figure 4 below). Therefore applicant has not described which motifs needs to be conserved in the nucleic acid and protein which has at least 80% identity to SEQ ID NOs: 3 and 4 to have any functions to be useful as an invention. Instead, applicant has only showed construct comprising SEQ ID NO:3 encoding SEQ ID NO:4 would have reduced plant height. Therefore, there is dearth of description of the construct comprising the nucleic acid and protein which has at least 80% identity to SEQ ID NOs: 3 and 4 the nucleic acid and protein which has at least 80% identity to SEQ ID NOs: 3 and 4.
PNG
media_image1.png
694
1271
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant has not described a recombinant DNA construct comprising DNA sequence encoding any GA2 oxidase protein and a plant expressible promoter. GA2 oxidase protein is a large genus of proteins with various functions. For example Hsieh et al. (Published: 2021, Journal: Rice 14:70 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12284-021-00499-4) teaches phytohormone gibberellin (GA) regulates a broad spectrum of plant growth and development aspects wherein GA2oxs into three classes I, II and II (page2, left paragraphs 1 and 2). Hsieh et al. teaches the gene number of GA2oxs expanded and evolved independently after the divergence of eudicots and monocots which have either lost their functions or retained their function wherein the promoter and coding region diverged to form various expression patterns and functions in the family (page 2, left last and right first paragraph). Hsieh et al. teaches some genes may have function of stem elongation in tomato, lodging resistance, rhizobial infection, nodule development etc. (page3, left paragraph 2). Hsieh et al. teaches functional divergence among genes in a family might also have evolved from amino acid sequence variations (page 3, right paragraph 2). Therefore, applicant has not described the function of any GA2 oxidase gene in a recombinant DNA construct that would have any use other then GA2 oxidase as SEQ ID NO:4 that reduce the plant height. Therefore, there is dearth of description of any GA2 oxidase gene in a recombinant DNA construct.
Applicant has not described the transgenic plant comprising any of the GA2 oxidase gene or SEQ ID NO:3 encoding SEQ ID NO:4 would have any other trait modification other than shorter plant height (claims 49-55). For example, Hsieh et al. teaches the gene number of GA2oxs expanded and evolved independently after the divergence of eudicots and monocots which have either lost their functions or retained their function wherein the promoter and coding region diverged to form various expression patterns and functions in the family (page 2, left last and right first paragraph). Hsieh et al. teaches some genes may have function of stem elongation in tomato, lodging resistance, rhizobial infection, nodule development etc. (page3, left paragraph 2). Since the gene would have large function specific to independent evolution they would have different functions. Instead, applicant has not described the transgenic plant comprising any of the GA2 oxidase gene or SEQ ID NO:3 encoding SEQ ID NO:4 would have any other trait modification other than shorter plant height (claims 49, 50). Therefore, there is dearth of description of the transgenic plant comprising SEQ ID NO:3 encoding SEQ ID NO:4 would have any other trait modification other than shorter plant height.
Given the large structural variable associated with these embodiments, the claims read on an extremely broad and highly diverse structures would be useful for causing shorter plant height. Furthermore, the sequence would require to have various functions as recited in claims 49-55. Thus, in view of the analysis presented above, a skilled artisan would appreciate that the claims are directed to extremely broad and highly diverge genus of sequence variants that are required to have the specific function of useful for causing shorter plant height.
Given the large size and structural diversity associated with the claimed genus, Applicant’s disclosure is not representative of the claimed genus as a whole. This point is particularly relevant because, as discussed above, the prior art speaks to the disconnection between the structure of the broadly claimed variants in any plants and plant of maize with that would have recited specific function.
"The test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to one skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date." Ariad Pharm, Inc, v EH Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, ina, 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). "An applicant shows possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations. Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPG2d at 1966". While the written description requirement does not demand either examples or an actual reduction, actual "possession" or reduction to practice outside of the specification is not enough. Ariad Pharm, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F,3d 1336,1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Rather, it is the specification itself that must demonstrate possession. Id.
The Federal Circuit has clarified the application of the written description requirement to inventions in the field of biotechnology. The court stated that, “A description of a genus of cDNAs may be achieved by means of a recitation of a representative number of cDNAs, defined by nucleotide sequence, falling within the scope of the genus or of a recitation of structural features common to members of the genus, which features constitute a substantial portion of the genus.” See University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 119 F. 3d 1559; 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Thus, based on the analysis above, Applicant has not met either of the two elements of the written description requirement as set forth in the court's decision in Eli Lilly. As a result, it is not clear that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus at the time this application was filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Anticipated by Maize inbred B73
Claims 1-3, and 47-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Troyer et al. (Published: 1999, Journal: Crop Sci. 39:601-626).
Claims are drawn a recombinant DNA construct comprising a GA2 oxidase protein or polynucleotide of SEQ ID NO:3 encoding polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 4 and a plant cell, a plant comprising the recombinant construct.
Applicant defines “The term "recombinant" in reference to a polynucleotide (DNA or RNA) molecule, protein, construct, vector, etc., refers to a polynucleotide or protein molecule or sequence that is man-made and not normally found in nature.” Applicant defines “As used in this definition, the phrase "not normally found in nature" means not found in nature without human introduction.” (page 33, paragraph 184).
The claim is interpreted as “product by process claim” wherein [E]ven though product by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. If the product in the product by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process."
Regarding claims 1-3, Troyer et al. discloses inbred line B73 was developed by cycle 5 of general combining ability recurrent selection of stiff stalk synthetic (BSSS-C5) wherein ten S1 line were selected by Dr. Lowell H. penny in cycle 5 where the B37 was developed from one of the 10S2 lines (page615, left second paragraph).
Furthermore, alignment of SEQ ID NO:4 encoded by 3 has 100% identity to the locus 0PKF3 of inbred line B73 (see alignment below). Therefore the DNA sequence anticipate the claim since the B73 has been gone through human selection and the locus 0PKF3 would have been operably linked to maize expressible promoter since it produce protein.
Regarding claim 47, the DNA molecule comprise the locus 0PKF3 which is the GA2 oxidase.
Regarding claim 48-50, the claim recite a plant comprising the DNA sequence encoding protein of locus 0PKF3 and the specific characteristic of protein for example shorter plant height compared to any plant.
Therefore locus 0PKF3 of B73 anticipates the claim.
RESULT 1
C0PKF3_MAIZE
ID C0PKF3_MAIZE Unreviewed; 362 AA.
AC C0PKF3;
DT 05-MAY-2009, integrated into UniProtKB/TrEMBL.
DT 05-MAY-2009, sequence version 1.
DT 18-JUN-2025, entry version 92.
DE RecName: Full=gibberellin 2beta-dioxygenase {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00066708};
DE EC=1.14.11.13 {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00066708};
GN ORFNames=ZEAMMB73_Zm00001d002999 {ECO:0000313|EMBL:ONM15862.1};
OS Zea mays (Maize).
OC Eukaryota; Viridiplantae; Streptophyta; Embryophyta; Tracheophyta;
OC Spermatophyta; Magnoliopsida; Liliopsida; Poales; Poaceae; PACMAD clade;
OC Panicoideae; Andropogonodae; Andropogoneae; Tripsacinae; Zea.
OX NCBI_TaxID=4577 {ECO:0000313|EMBL:ACN35669.1};
RN [1] {ECO:0000313|EMBL:ACN35669.1}
RP NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE.
RC STRAIN=B73 {ECO:0000313|EMBL:ACN35669.1};
RX PubMed=19936069; DOI=10.1371/journal.pgen.1000740;
RA Soderlund C., Descour A., Kudrna D., Bomhoff M., Boyd L., Currie J.,
RA Angelova A., Collura K., Wissotski M., Ashley E., Morrow D., Fernandes J.,
RA Walbot V., Yu Y.;
RT "Sequencing, mapping, and analysis of 27,455 maize full-length cDNAs.";
RL PLoS Genet. 5:E1000740-E1000740(2009).
RN [2] {ECO:0000313|EMBL:ONM15862.1, ECO:0000313|Proteomes:UP000007305}
RP NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE [LARGE SCALE GENOMIC DNA].
RC STRAIN=cv. B73 {ECO:0000313|Proteomes:UP000007305};
RC TISSUE=Seedling {ECO:0000313|EMBL:ONM15862.1};
RG Maize Genome Sequencing Project;
RA Ware D.;
RT "Update maize B73 reference genome by single molecule sequencing
RT technologies.";
RL Submitted (DEC-2015) to the EMBL/GenBank/DDBJ databases.
RN [3] {ECO:0000313|EnsemblPlants:Zm00001eb077080_P001}
RP NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE [LARGE SCALE GENOMIC DNA].
RC STRAIN=cv. B73 {ECO:0000313|EnsemblPlants:Zm00001eb077080_P001};
RA Seetharam A., Woodhouse M., Cannon E.;
RL Submitted (JUL-2019) to the EMBL/GenBank/DDBJ databases.
RN [4] {ECO:0000313|EnsemblPlants:Zm00001eb077080_P001}
RP IDENTIFICATION.
RC STRAIN=cv. B73 {ECO:0000313|EnsemblPlants:Zm00001eb077080_P001};
RG EnsemblPlants;
RL Submitted (MAY-2021) to UniProtKB.
CC -!- CATALYTIC ACTIVITY:
CC Reaction=gibberellin A1 + 2-oxoglutarate + O2 = gibberellin A8 +
CC succinate + CO2; Xref=Rhea:RHEA:15005, ChEBI:CHEBI:15379,
CC ChEBI:CHEBI:16526, ChEBI:CHEBI:16810, ChEBI:CHEBI:30031,
CC ChEBI:CHEBI:58524, ChEBI:CHEBI:58594; EC=1.14.11.13;
CC Evidence={ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00052204};
CC -!- COFACTOR:
CC Name=L-ascorbate; Xref=ChEBI:CHEBI:38290;
CC Evidence={ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00001961};
CC -!- SIMILARITY: Belongs to the iron/ascorbate-dependent oxidoreductase
CC family. GA2OX subfamily. {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00061282}.
CC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC Copyrighted by the UniProt Consortium, see https://www.uniprot.org/terms
CC Distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) License
CC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR EMBL; BT068772; ACN35669.1; -; mRNA.
DR EMBL; CM007648; ONM15862.1; -; Genomic_DNA.
DR RefSeq; NP_001148252.1; NM_001154780.1.
DR SMR; C0PKF3; -.
DR FunCoup; C0PKF3; 9.
DR STRING; 4577.C0PKF3; -.
DR PaxDb; 4577-GRMZM2G006964_P01; -.
DR EnsemblPlants; Zm00001eb077080_T001; Zm00001eb077080_P001; Zm00001eb077080.
DR Gramene; Zm00001eb077080_T001; Zm00001eb077080_P001; Zm00001eb077080.
DR KEGG; zma:100281860; -.
DR eggNOG; KOG0143; Eukaryota.
DR HOGENOM; CLU_010119_15_1_1; -.
DR OMA; CDFGELN; -.
DR OrthoDB; 288590at2759; -.
DR Proteomes; UP000007305; Chromosome 2.
DR ExpressionAtlas; C0PKF3; baseline and differential.
DR GO; GO:0005737; C:cytoplasm; IEA:EnsemblPlants.
DR GO; GO:0005634; C:nucleus; IEA:EnsemblPlants.
DR GO; GO:0045543; F:gibberellin 2-beta-dioxygenase activity; IBA:GO_Central.
DR GO; GO:0046872; F:metal ion binding; IEA:UniProtKB-KW.
DR GO; GO:0010336; P:gibberellic acid homeostasis; IEA:EnsemblPlants.
DR GO; GO:0045487; P:gibberellin catabolic process; IBA:GO_Central.
DR FunFam; 2.60.120.330:FF:000021; Gibberellin 2-beta-dioxygenase 8; 1.
DR Gene3D; 2.60.120.330; B-lactam Antibiotic, Isopenicillin N Synthase, Chain; 1.
DR InterPro; IPR026992; DIOX_N.
DR InterPro; IPR044861; IPNS-like_FE2OG_OXY.
DR InterPro; IPR027443; IPNS-like_sf.
DR InterPro; IPR050231; Iron_ascorbate_oxido_reductase.
DR InterPro; IPR005123; Oxoglu/Fe-dep_dioxygenase_dom.
DR PANTHER; PTHR47990; 2-OXOGLUTARATE (2OG) AND FE(II)-DEPENDENT OXYGENASE SUPERFAMILY PROTEIN-RELATED; 1.
DR Pfam; PF03171; 2OG-FeII_Oxy; 1.
DR Pfam; PF14226; DIOX_N; 1.
DR SUPFAM; SSF51197; Clavaminate synthase-like; 1.
DR PROSITE; PS51471; FE2OG_OXY; 1.
PE 2: Evidence at transcript level;
KW Dioxygenase {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00022964};
KW Iron {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00023004, ECO:0000256|RuleBase:RU003682};
KW Metal-binding {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00022723,
KW ECO:0000256|RuleBase:RU003682};
KW Oxidoreductase {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00023002,
KW ECO:0000256|RuleBase:RU003682};
KW Reference proteome {ECO:0000313|Proteomes:UP000007305}.
FT DOMAIN 208..307
FT /note="Fe2OG dioxygenase"
FT /evidence="ECO:0000259|PROSITE:PS51471"
SQ SEQUENCE 362 AA; 38914 MW; 47E2FC39A49CA1F8 CRC64;
Query Match 100.0%; Score 1888; Length 362;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 362; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 MRYVAATPTMPSLVAESAAEPPLVDSYLELLRRGGGGGGIAAATEGCVQERELPLIDLTC 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 MRYVAATPTMPSLVAESAAEPPLVDSYLELLRRGGGGGGIAAATEGCVQERELPLIDLTC 60
Qy 61 LQGSAGEAARTTCADAMARAASEWGFFQVTGHGVSRALLERLRAEQARLFRLPFETKAKA 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 LQGSAGEAARTTCADAMARAASEWGFFQVTGHGVSRALLERLRAEQARLFRLPFETKAKA 120
Qy 121 GLLNGSYRWGAPTATSLRHLSWSEAFHVPLASISGTACDFGELSSLRDVVQEVADAMSRV 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 GLLNGSYRWGAPTATSLRHLSWSEAFHVPLASISGTACDFGELSSLRDVVQEVADAMSRV 180
Qy 181 AKTVAVALAGSLLGHDEAAAFPAGCGETTCYLRLNRYPACPFAANTFGLVPHTDSDFLTV 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 AKTVAVALAGSLLGHDEAAAFPAGCGETTCYLRLNRYPACPFAANTFGLVPHTDSDFLTV 240
Qy 241 LSQDQVGGLQLMTDAGWVAVKPRPDALIVNIGDLFQAWSNNLYKSVEHKVVANAAAERFS 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 LSQDQVGGLQLMTDAGWVAVKPRPDALIVNIGDLFQAWSNNLYKSVEHKVVANAAAERFS 300
Qy 301 AAYFLCPSYDSLVGTCGEPSPYRDFTFGEYRRKVQEDVKRTGRKIGLPNFLKHRPPPQSR 360
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 301 AAYFLCPSYDSLVGTCGEPSPYRDFTFGEYRRKVQEDVKRTGRKIGLPNFLKHRPPPQSR 360
Qy 361 PA 362
||
Db 361 PA 362
Anticipated by Yi-dan et al.
Claims 1-3, 47 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yi-dan et al. (Foreign Document ID: CN 111778265 A, Date Published: 10/16/2020) For following analysis both the English translation and original document has been added wherein the page numbers refers to the English translation version and figure number refers to the original document) and as evidenced by Mousavi et al. (Published: 2014, Journal: Emir. J. Food Agric. 2014. 26 (6): 1-11 doi: 10.9755/ejfa.v26i5.15722).
Claims are drawn a recombinant DNA construct comprising a GA2 oxidase protein or polynucleotide of SEQ ID NO:3 encoding polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 4 and a plant cell, a plant comprising the recombinant construct.
Regarding claims 1-3, Yi-dan et al. discloses the overexpression of ZmGA2ox6 gene reduce plant height (page 1, abstract). Yi-dan et al. discloses the expression of ZmGA2ox6 gene in A. thaliana wherein the expressed plant has decreased plant height (page 4, figures 3-4, see figure below from foreign copy). ZmGA2ox6 gene has 100% identity to applicant’s SEQ ID NO:4 as protein and SEQ ID NO:3 as gene (see alignment below).
PNG
media_image2.png
301
767
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 47, Yi-dan et al. discloses recombinant plant expression vector pCAMBIA-3301 comprising ZmGA2ox6 gene (page 8, Embodiment 3, first paragraph). The vector would comprise CAMV 35S promoter which is plant expressible. For example Mousavi et al. showed the evidence the vector comprise the plant expressible CAMV 35S promoter (page 499, Figure 1).
Regarding claim 57, Yi-dan et al. discloses their recombinant vector is in E. coli (page 4, first paragraph) which is a bacterial cell.
Alignment of SEQ ID NO:4 to the A_Geneseq database:
RESULT 1
BIL93538
(NOTE: this sequence has 6 duplicates in the database searched)
ID BIL93538 standard; protein; 362 AA.
XX
AC BIL93538;
XX
DT 10-DEC-2020 (first entry)
XX
DE Maize gibberellin oxidase (ZmGA2ox6) protein, SEQ ID 4.
XX
KW GA2ox6 protein; crop improvement; drought resistance; gene expression;
KW genetic engineering; gibberellin oxidase; plant.
XX
OS Zea mays.
XX
CC PN CN111778265-A.
XX
CC PD 16-OCT-2020.
XX
CC PF 14-JUL-2020; 2020CN-10675989.
XX
PR 14-JUL-2020; 2020CN-10675989.
XX
CC PA (JLAA ) JILIN ACAD AGRIC SCI.
XX
CC PI Li Y, Guo J, Liu X, Liu Y, Chu W, Cui X, Li H, Xiao B;
XX
DR WPI; 2020-A3032J/090.
DR N-PSDB; BIL93535.
XX
CC PT New mutant gene of corn gibberellin oxidase useful for improving plant
CC PT type of plants and drought tolerance of plants.
XX
CC PS Claim 4; SEQ ID NO 4; 32pp; Chinese.
XX
CC The invention relates to a novel corn gibberellin oxidase mutant gene,
CC useful for improving plant type of plants and drought tolerance of
CC plants. The invention further claims: 1) a mutant of corn gibberellin
CC oxidase encoded by the mutant gene; and 2) an expression vector
CC comprising the mutant gene. The mutant gene of corn gibberellin oxidase
CC is useful for improving plant type of plants and drought tolerance of
CC plants, constructing plant expression vectors and transform them into
CC Arabidopsis and other crops, observing the phenotype of transgenic
CC Arabidopsis thaliana before and after drought stress, reducing the plant
CC height of plants and improving the drought tolerance of plants
CC Arabidopsis. Note: The present sequence is used as the parent sequence
CC for the creation of variants (see BIL93539-BIL93540) based on the
CC information given in the specification.
XX
SQ Sequence 362 AA;
Query Match 100.0%; Score 1888; Length 362;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 362; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 MRYVAATPTMPSLVAESAAEPPLVDSYLELLRRGGGGGGIAAATEGCVQERELPLIDLTC 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 MRYVAATPTMPSLVAESAAEPPLVDSYLELLRRGGGGGGIAAATEGCVQERELPLIDLTC 60
Qy 61 LQGSAGEAARTTCADAMARAASEWGFFQVTGHGVSRALLERLRAEQARLFRLPFETKAKA 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 LQGSAGEAARTTCADAMARAASEWGFFQVTGHGVSRALLERLRAEQARLFRLPFETKAKA 120
Qy 121 GLLNGSYRWGAPTATSLRHLSWSEAFHVPLASISGTACDFGELSSLRDVVQEVADAMSRV 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 GLLNGSYRWGAPTATSLRHLSWSEAFHVPLASISGTACDFGELSSLRDVVQEVADAMSRV 180
Qy 181 AKTVAVALAGSLLGHDEAAAFPAGCGETTCYLRLNRYPACPFAANTFGLVPHTDSDFLTV 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 AKTVAVALAGSLLGHDEAAAFPAGCGETTCYLRLNRYPACPFAANTFGLVPHTDSDFLTV 240
Qy 241 LSQDQVGGLQLMTDAGWVAVKPRPDALIVNIGDLFQAWSNNLYKSVEHKVVANAAAERFS 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 LSQDQVGGLQLMTDAGWVAVKPRPDALIVNIGDLFQAWSNNLYKSVEHKVVANAAAERFS 300
Qy 301 AAYFLCPSYDSLVGTCGEPSPYRDFTFGEYRRKVQEDVKRTGRKIGLPNFLKHRPPPQSR 360
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 301 AAYFLCPSYDSLVGTCGEPSPYRDFTFGEYRRKVQEDVKRTGRKIGLPNFLKHRPPPQSR 360
Qy 361 PA 362
||
Db 361 PA 362
Alignment of SEQ ID NO:3 to the N_Geneseq database:
RESULT 1
BIL93535
(NOTE: this sequence has 3 duplicates in the database searched)
ID BIL93535 standard; DNA; 1089 BP.
XX
AC BIL93535;
XX
DT 10-DEC-2020 (first entry)
XX
DE Maize gibberellin oxidase (ZmGA2ox6) gene, SEQ ID 1.
XX
KW GA2ox6 gene; crop improvement; drought resistance; ds; gene;
KW gene expression; genetic engineering; gibberellin oxidase; plant.
XX
OS Zea mays.
XX
FH Key Location/Qualifiers
FT CDS 1..1089
FT /*tag= a
FT /product= "gibberellin oxidase protein"
XX
CC PN CN111778265-A.
XX
CC PD 16-OCT-2020.
XX
CC PF 14-JUL-2020; 2020CN-10675989.
XX
PR 14-JUL-2020; 2020CN-10675989.
XX
CC PA (JLAA ) JILIN ACAD AGRIC SCI.
XX
CC PI Li Y, Guo J, Liu X, Liu Y, Chu W, Cui X, Li H, Xiao B;
XX
DR WPI; 2020-A3032J/090.
DR P-PSDB; BIL93538.
XX
CC PT New mutant gene of corn gibberellin oxidase useful for improving plant
CC PT type of plants and drought tolerance of plants.
XX
CC PS Claim 2; SEQ ID NO 1; 32pp; Chinese.
XX
CC The invention relates to a novel corn gibberellin oxidase mutant gene,
CC useful for improving plant type of plants and drought tolerance of
CC plants. The invention further claims: 1) a mutant of corn gibberellin
CC oxidase encoded by the mutant gene; and 2) an expression vector
CC comprising the mutant gene. The mutant gene of corn gibberellin oxidase
CC is useful for improving plant type of plants and drought tolerance of
CC plants, constructing plant expression vectors and transform them into
CC Arabidopsis and other crops, observing the phenotype of transgenic
CC Arabidopsis thaliana before and after drought stress, reducing the plant
CC height of plants and improving the drought tolerance of plants
CC Arabidopsis.
XX
SQ Sequence 1089 BP; 165 A; 365 C; 394 G; 165 T; 0 U; 0 Other;
Query Match 100.0%; Score 1089; Length 1089;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 1089; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 ATGCGTTACGTAGCTGCCACTCCGACCATGCCGTCCCTTGTCGCGGAGAGCGCCGCCGAA 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 ATGCGTTACGTAGCTGCCACTCCGACCATGCCGTCCCTTGTCGCGGAGAGCGCCGCCGAA 60
Qy 61 CCGCCTCTGGTGGACAGCTACCTGGAGCTGCTCCGGCGCGGCGGCGGCGGCGGCGGCATT 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 CCGCCTCTGGTGGACAGCTACCTGGAGCTGCTCCGGCGCGGCGGCGGCGGCGGCGGCATT 120
Qy 121 GCGGCGGCGACCGAGGGCTGCGTGCAGGAGCGCGAGCTGCCCTTGATCGACCTGACGTGC 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 GCGGCGGCGACCGAGGGCTGCGTGCAGGAGCGCGAGCTGCCCTTGATCGACCTGACGTGC 180
Qy 181 CTGCAGGGCAGCGCGGGCGAGGCGGCGAGGACGACGTGCGCGGACGCCATGGCGAGGGCG 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 CTGCAGGGCAGCGCGGGCGAGGCGGCGAGGACGACGTGCGCGGACGCCATGGCGAGGGCG 240
Qy 241 GCCTCGGAGTGGGGCTTTTTCCAGGTGACCGGGCACGGCGTGAGCCGGGCGCTGTTGGAG 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 GCCTCGGAGTGGGGCTTTTTCCAGGTGACCGGGCACGGCGTGAGCCGGGCGCTGTTGGAG 300
Qy 301 CGGCTGCGGGCGGAGCAGGCGCGGCTGTTCCGGCTGCCGTTCGAAACCAAGGCCAAGGCC 360
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 301 CGGCTGCGGGCGGAGCAGGCGCGGCTGTTCCGGCTGCCGTTCGAAACCAAGGCCAAGGCC 360
Qy 361 GGGCTTCTCAACGGCTCCTACCGCTGGGGCGCCCCCACGGCCACGTCGCTCCGCCACCTC 420
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 361 GGGCTTCTCAACGGCTCCTACCGCTGGGGCGCCCCCACGGCCACGTCGCTCCGCCACCTC 420
Qy 421 TCGTGGTCGGAGGCGTTCCACGTCCCGCTCGCCAGCATCTCCGGCACTGCCTGCGACTTC 480
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 421 TCGTGGTCGGAGGCGTTCCACGTCCCGCTCGCCAGCATCTCCGGCACTGCCTGCGACTTC 480
Qy 481 GGAGAGCTCAGCTCCTTGAGGGACGTGGTGCAGGAGGTGGCGGACGCGATGTCGCGGGTG 540
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 481 GGAGAGCTCAGCTCCTTGAGGGACGTGGTGCAGGAGGTGGCGGACGCGATGTCGCGGGTG 540
Qy 541 GCCAAGACCGTGGCGGTGGCGCTGGCGGGGAGCCTTCTGGGCCACGACGAGGCGGCGGCG 600
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 541 GCCAAGACCGTGGCGGTGGCGCTGGCGGGGAGCCTTCTGGGCCACGACGAGGCGGCGGCG 600
Qy 601 TTCCCGGCGGGGTGCGGCGAGACCACCTGCTACCTGCGGCTCAATCGGTACCCGGCGTGC 660
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 601 TTCCCGGCGGGGTGCGGCGAGACCACCTGCTACCTGCGGCTCAATCGGTACCCGGCGTGC 660
Qy 661 CCGTTCGCGGCGAACACCTTCGGGCTGGTGCCCCACACGGACAGCGACTTCCTGACGGTG 720
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 661 CCGTTCGCGGCGAACACCTTCGGGCTGGTGCCCCACACGGACAGCGACTTCCTGACGGTG 720
Qy 721 CTGTCCCAGGACCAGGTCGGGGGCCTGCAGCTCATGACGGACGCCGGCTGGGTGGCCGTC 780
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 721 CTGTCCCAGGACCAGGTCGGGGGCCTGCAGCTCATGACGGACGCCGGCTGGGTGGCCGTC 780
Qy 781 AAGCCCCGCCCCGACGCGCTCATCGTCAACATCGGCGATCTGTTTCAGGCCTGGAGCAAC 840
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 781 AAGCCCCGCCCCGACGCGCTCATCGTCAACATCGGCGATCTGTTTCAGGCCTGGAGCAAC 840
Qy 841 AACCTGTACAAGAGCGTGGAGCACAAGGTGGTGGCCAACGCCGCGGCGGAGCGCTTCTCG 900
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 841 AACCTGTACAAGAGCGTGGAGCACAAGGTGGTGGCCAACGCCGCGGCGGAGCGCTTCTCG 900
Qy 901 GCGGCCTACTTCCTGTGCCCGTCCTACGACTCGCTCGTCGGCACGTGCGGCGAGCCGTCA 960
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 901 GCGGCCTACTTCCTGTGCCCGTCCTACGACTCGCTCGTCGGCACGTGCGGCGAGCCGTCA 960
Qy 961 CCGTACAGAGACTTCACCTTCGGGGAGTACAGGAGGAAGGTGCAGGAGGACGTCAAGAGG 1020
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 961 CCGTACAGAGACTTCACCTTCGGGGAGTACAGGAGGAAGGTGCAGGAGGACGTCAAGAGG 1020
Qy 1021 ACCGGAAGAAAGATTGGGCTCCCCAACTTTCTCAAACACCGGCCACCCCCTCAATCACGG 1080
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1021 ACCGGAAGAAAGATTGGGCTCCCCAACTTTCTCAAACACCGGCCACCCCCTCAATCACGG 1080
Qy 1081 CCCGCCTAA 1089
|||||||||
Db 1081 CCCGCCTAA 1089
Anticipated by Weeks et al.
Claims 1, 47-50, 57-59 and 72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) and /or (a) (2) as being anticipated by Weeks et al. (Patent No.: US 7,598.430 B2, Date of Patent: Oct. 6, 2009).
Claims are drawn a recombinant DNA construct comprising a GA2 oxidase protein and a maize plant cell, a maize plant comprising the recombinant construct.
Regarding claims 1, 47 and 48, Weeks et al. claim 1, 7-9 and 47 discloses a polynucleotide encoding a GA2 oxidase wherein claims 10-11 recites the polynucleotide is operably linked to promoter that occur in plant. Therefore, the promoter is plant expressible.
The method of transformation of claim 1 would produce of transgenic corn plant of Applicant’s claim 48.
Regarding claim 57, Weeks et al. claim recites a Agrobacterium strain harbors the polynucleotide.
Regarding claim 58-59 and 72, Weeks et al. claims 1, 7-9 and 47 recites transforming GA2 oxidase gene comprising the plant expressible promoter in to a maize plant via Agrobacterium mediated transformation (Weeks et al. claim 3) and cultivating and screening the plant for the stable integration of the construct in at least one cell.
Regarding claims 49-50, Weeks et al. claim 7 recites the expression of polynucleotide confers reduced height of the plant.
Therefore Weeks et al. anticipates the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 the 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.
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.
Obvious over Weeks et al. and further in view of Lo et al.
Claims 1, 48 and 51 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weeks et al. and further in view of Lo et al. (Published: 2017, Journal: Plant Biotechnology Journal 15: 850–864).
Claims are drawn a recombinant DNA construct comprising a GA2 oxidase protein and a maize plant cell, a maize plant comprising the recombinant construct. Claims are further drawn to the transgenic corn plant is at least 10% shorter than the wild type control plant.
Regarding claims 1 and 48, Weeks et al. claim 1, 7-9 and 47 teaches a polynucleotide encoding a GA2 oxidase wherein claims 10-11 recites the polynucleotide is operably linked to promoter that occur in plant. Therefore, the promoter is plant expressible. The method of transformation of claim 1 would produce of transgenic corn plant of Applicant’s claim 48. Weeks et al. claim 7 recites the expression of polynucleotide confers reduced height of the maize plant.
Regarding claim 51, Furthermore, Lo et al. teaches the overexpression of a rice GA2ox6 causes the rice height decrease (page 850, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious from teaching, suggestion and motivation of Weeks et al. to integrate a construct comprising GA2 oxidase gene in maize plant that would have reduce height further suggested by Lo et al. that the overexpression of a relate rice gene GA2ox6 causes the rice height decrease that would lead to screening of the progenies for change in height of the transgenic corn plant leading to transgenic corn plant is at least 10% shorter than the wild type control plant.
Obvious over Weeks et al. and further in view of Voorend et al.
Claims 1, 48 and 52-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weeks et al., and further in view of Voorend et al. (Published: 2016, Journal: Plant Biotechnology Journal 14:997–1007).
Claims are drawn a recombinant DNA construct comprising a GA2 oxidase protein and a maize plant cell, a maize plant comprising the recombinant construct. Claims are further drawn to the transgenic plant has greater stalk diameter in first, second, third or fourth internode below the ear with at least greater than 5% compared to wildtype control plant.
Regarding claims 1 and 48, Weeks et al. claim 1, 7-9 and 47 teaches a polynucleotide encoding a GA2 oxidase wherein claims 10-11 recites the polynucleotide is operably linked to promoter that occur in plant. Therefore, the promoter is plant expressible.
Regarding claims 52-53, Voorend et al. teaches ectopic expression of one of the gibberellic acid (GA) gene GA20-OXIDASE1 effects on stem diameter throughout development (page997, Abstract, page 998, right paragraph 1).
Therefore, someone skilled in the art would have screened the maize plant comprising Weeks et al.’s gene encoding GA2 oxidase protein leading to the transgenic plant with greater stalk diameter in first, second, third or fourth internode below the ear with at least greater than 5% compared to wildtype control plant.
Obvious over Weeks et al. and further in view of Lo et al.
Claims 1, 48 and 54-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weeks et al., and further in view of Lo et al. (Published: 2017, Journal: Plant Biotechnology Journal 15: 850–864).
Claims are drawn a recombinant DNA construct comprising a GA2 oxidase protein and a maize plant cell, a maize plant comprising the recombinant construct. Claims are further drawn to the transgenic plant has at least 5% lower GA levels in at least one internode compared to wild-type control plant.
Regarding claims 1 and 48, Weeks et al. claim 1, 7-9 and 47 discloses a polynucleotide encoding a GA2 oxidase wherein claims 10-11 recites the polynucleotide is operably linked to promoter that occur in plant. Therefore, the promoter is plant expressible.
Regarding claims 54-55, Lo et al. teaches in their overexpression plants the GA level were lower (page 854, Figure 3).
Therefore, someone skilled in the art would have screened the maize plant comprising Week et al.’s gene encoding GA2 oxidase protein leading to the transgenic plant with at least 5% lower GA levels in at least one internode compared to wild-type control plant.
Regarding claim 56, Lo et al. teaches their dwarf transgenic plant comprise normal flower and grain development (page 855, Figure 5).
PNG
media_image3.png
823
1166
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Obvious over Weeks et al. and further in view of Yi-dan et al., Lo et al. and Svitashev et al.
Claims 1, 58, 60-61, 63-70, and 72-74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weeks et al., and further in view of Yi-dan et al., and further in view of Lo et al. and further in view of Svitashev et al. (Published: 2015, Journal: Plant Physiology, 169: 931–945).
Claims are drawn a recombinant DNA construct comprising a GA2 oxidase protein and a maize plant cell, a maize plant comprising the recombinant construct. Claims are further drawn to the site directed integration of the GA2 oxidase gene in the maize plant.
Regarding claims 1 and 58, Weeks et al. claims 1, 7-9 and 47 recites transforming GA2 oxidase gene comprising the plant expressible promoter in to a maize plant via Agrobacterium mediated transformation (Weeks et al. claim 3) and cultivating and screening the plant for the stable integration of the construct in at least one cell.
Regarding claims 60-61, Weeks et al. does not teach specific sequence of a GA2 oxidase gene to target in targeted genome editing.
Yi-dan et al. teaches the overexpression of ZmGA2ox6 gene reduce plant height (page 1, abstract). Yi-dan et al. teaches the expression of ZmGA2ox6 gene in A. thaliana wherein the expressed plant has decreased plant height (page 4, figures 3-4, see figure below from foreign copy). ZmGA2ox6 gene has 100% identity to applicant’s SEQ ID NO:4 as GA2 oxidase protein. Therefore, someone skilled in the art would integrate the gene for site directed integration since the produced maize plant would have predictable shorter stature.
Furthermore, Lo et al. teaches the overexpression of a rice GA2ox6 causes the rice height decrease (page 850, Abstract).
Weeks et al., Yi-dan et al. and Lo et al. does not teach site directed integration using DNA donor template with homology arms.
Svitashev et al. teaches insertion of a trait gene at a site near LIG1 by homology-directed repair (page 931, Abstract). Svitashev et al. teaches regeneration of two events with a single copy of an intact MoPAT gene indicative of homology-directed gene insertion at the LIG target site (page 938, right last paragraph, Figure 4). Svitashev et al. teaches homology region 1 and 2 (i.e. homology arms) (page 942, right paragraph 40.
Therefore, someone skilled in the art before the effective date of filing of the invention from teaching, suggestion and motivation of Weeks et al. and Yi-dan et al. would integrate the Yi-dan et al.’s ZmGA2ox6 gene in a maize line leading to development of shorter stature of the plant and develop the method of targeted genome editing technique as taught by Svitashev et al.
Regarding claim 63, given the Yi-dan et al.’s ZmGA2ox6 and public corn genome available, creating homology arm for example with at least 20 consecutive nucleotides of a target site in the genome is within the skill of the art. For example, Svitashev et al. teaches homology region 1 and 2 (i.e. homology arms) (page 942, right paragraph 40, see figure 4 below). Therefore, someone skilled in the art would develop such integration using Yi-dan et al.’s ZmGA2ox6.
Regarding claim 64-66, Svitashev et al. teaches Cas9 is a RNA-guided site specific endonuclease (page 931, Abstract).
Regarding claim 67, Svitashev et al. teaches maize cell transformed with guide RNA (page 931, Abstract).
Regarding claim 68, Svitashev et al. teaches Double-strand breaks generated by RNA-guided Cas9 endonuclease (page 931, Abstract).
Regarding claim 69, Svitashev et al. teaches use of single gRNA (page 942, left paragraph 1, page 932, left paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 70, Svitashev et al. teaches NGG PAM sequence for C