DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Amendments dated 2026-05-26 are entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending, with claim 1 being independent.
Claims 1 and 7 are amended.
Claims 10-12 and 18-20 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-9 and 13-17 are examined herein
Status of Objections and Rejections
All previous objections and rejections not set forth below have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and/or upon consideration of Applicant’s arguments.
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code, not included in this action, can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Arguments
All claim rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) are withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendments.
Applicant traverses the rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 101 which allege that the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The Examiner agrees and withdraws the rejection in light of Applicant's amendments to the claims such that the currently amended claim 1 and dependent claims, including claims 2-4, are drawn to patent-eligible subject matter.
Largely referencing the new amendments to claim 1, Applicant traverses the rejection of claims 1-9 and 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Yingru, Shan, and Kim. However, it is initially noted that the claim amendments require the Examiner to conduct a new search and consideration. Accordingly, the new claim amendments necessitated the new grounds of rejections under 35 USC § 103, as described infra.
Claim Interpretations
Regarding claims 1-9 and 13-17, “maturation medium” is not defined in the Specification. Instead, the Specification recites in para 0105(emphasis provided) that:
“In some embodiments, the maturation mediums described herein can facilitate or promote maturation of cells, such as maturation of cotton cells. A maturation medium can comprise one or more salts, macronutrients, micronutrients, organic molecules, and/or hormones (such as those that can facilitate or promote maturation). In some embodiments, the maturation medium can comprise a maturation reagent. In some embodiments, the maturation reagent of the maturation medium can be a wall-regeneration reagent.”
This, is such that a maturation medium can also not do or comprise the recited function or characteristics.
Also, absent of a definition of “maturation medium” and combined with the recitation “Maturation is recognized by secondary cell wall deposition” in para 0149 of the Specification, a maturation medium can be any medium that allows deposition of a secondary cell wall (i.e., deposition of cellulose).
Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejection
The is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Langi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file
provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111 (a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-9 and 13-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12, and 14-19 of copending Application No. 18033957 (i.e., ‘957; See reference application publication US-20230399668-A1) in view of Yingru (U.S. Patent Publication No. US8049069B2, assigned to Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization CSIRO, titled ‘Genes involved in plant fibre development’, published 11/01/2011). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Details are listed below. This a new rejection necessitated by the claim amendments.
Claim 1 of ‘957 is drawn to a method for producing cotton fiber, the method comprising:
inoculating a bioreactor with cotton cells;
multiplying the cells in the bioreactor;
elongating the multiplied cells; and
harvesting cotton fiber from the elongated cells,
wherein the cotton cells are derived and/or obtained from cotton plants of a varietal selected from PAYMASTER HS26, PAYMASTER HS200, PD 2164, SA 2413, SEALAND #1 (G.B. X G.H.), SOUTHLAND Ml, STATION MILLER, TASHKENT 1,TIDEWATER 29 (G.B. X G.H.), TOOLE, WESTERN STORMPROOF, ACALA 5, ALLEN 33, CD3HCABCUH- 1-89, DELTAPINE 14, DES 24,DIXIE KING, FJA, M.U.8B UA 7-44, NC 88-95, PAYMASTER HS200, Pima S-7, Acala and MAXXA, or a progeny of any thereof.
The currently amended instant claim 1 is drawn to a method for producing cotton fiber, the method comprising:
modifying cotton cells such that they comprise at least one differently expressed gene,
wherein said differently expressed gene has altered expression in the modified cotton cells relative to expression of a corresponding gene in unmodified cotton cells, and affects growth of the modified cotton cells and/or improves and/or modulates cotton fiber development;
culturing the modified cotton cells in vitro by:
preparing a friable callus by contacting the cotton cells with a callus induction medium;
forming dedifferentiated cell masses using the callus induction medium;
culturing the dedifferentiated cell masses using a callus growth medium;
dissociating cells from the friable callus to form a cell suspension;
homogenizing the cell suspension to form a homogeneous cell suspension;
inoculating a bioreactor with the homogeneous cell suspension;
multiplying the modified cotton cells in the bioreactor;
elongating the multiplied modified cotton cells to produce elongated cotton cells comprising cotton pre-fibers; and
maturing the elongated cotton cells using a maturation medium; and
harvesting cotton fiber from the cultured cells.
The currently amended instant claim 1 and ‘957 claim 1 are both methods for producing cotton fiber. The currently amended instant claim 1 comprises “a method for producing cotton fiber, the method comprising:
inoculating a bioreactor with cotton cells [i.e., inoculating a bioreactor with the homogeneous cell suspension];
multiplying the cells in the bioreactor [i.e., multiplying the modified cotton cells in the bioreactor];
elongating the multiplied cells [i.e., elongating the multiplied modified cotton cells]; and
harvesting cotton fiber from the elongated cells [i.e., harvesting cotton fiber from the cultured cells],
wherein the cotton cells are derived and/or obtained from cotton plants of a varietal selected from PAYMASTER HS26, PAYMASTER HS200, PD 2164, SA 2413, SEALAND #1 (G.B. X G.H.), SOUTHLAND Ml, STATION MILLER, TASHKENT 1,TIDEWATER 29 (G.B. X G.H.), TOOLE, WESTERN STORMPROOF, ACALA 5, ALLEN 33, CD3HCABCUH- 1-89, DELTAPINE 14, DES 24,DIXIE KING, FJA, M.U.8B UA 7-44, NC 88-95, PAYMASTER HS200, Pima S-7, Acala and MAXXA, or a progeny of any thereof” (‘957 claim 1). Regarding the derivation and/or source of the cotton cells, the currently amended instant claim 1 is silent such that the modified cells recited therein could be from any cotton plant varietal including those recited in ‘957’s claim 1 because these are typical cotton varieties that are used in agriculture and the textile industry. Thus, it is obvious that even modified cells from these cotton plants can be cultured using ‘957 method of claim 1.
Further, ‘957’s claims 12 and 14-15 are drawn to the method of ‘957’s claim 1, wherein the bioreactor is inoculated with cells from a proliferating cell aggregate, wherein the proliferating cell aggregate is a friable callus.; and wherein the method further comprises:
obtaining cells from a cotton explant; and
contacting the cells from the cotton explant with a callus induction medium to produce the friable callus (i.e., instant claim 1’s recitation of “preparing a friable callus by contacting the cotton cells with a callus induction medium; forming dedifferentiated cell masses using the callus induction medium”). Cells in a friable callus are dedifferentiated, absent evidence to the contrary.
Further still, the list below highlights other ‘957 claims and their relation to instant claim 1:
Claim 17, which depends from claim 15, recites “dissociating cells from the friable callus;culturing the dissociated cells; and inoculating the bioreactor with the cultured dissociated cells”
and reads on instant claim 1’s recitation of “culturing the dedifferentiated cell masses using a callus growth medium; dissociating cells from the friable callus to form a cell suspension.”
Claim 18 depends from claim 17 and recites “culturing the dissociated cells in a liquid or semi-solid medium to form a cell suspension; cryopreserving the cell suspension; and inoculating the bioreactor with the cryopreserved cell suspension”
which reads on instant claim 1’s recitation of “culturing the dedifferentiated cell masses using a callus growth medium; dissociating cells from the friable callus to form a cell suspension.”
Claim 19 recites “the method of claim 18, wherein the method further comprises homogenizing the cell suspension to form a fine cell suspension”
which reads on instant claim 1’s recitation of “homogenizing the cell suspension to form a homogeneous cell suspension.”
Also, given that the instant specification does not define “maturation medium,” that ‘957’s claim 1 recites “harvesting cotton fiber from the elongated cells,” and that cotton fibers are the outcome of cellulose deposition in the cell wall, ‘957’s claim 1 inherently comprises maturation of the elongated cotton cells regardless of the medium on which it occurs.
‘957 does not explicitly claim modifying cotton cells.
Yingru is in the field of plant fiber development and teaches:
and claims “A method of increasing fibre initiation and/or elongation in a fibre producing plant [i.e., cotton cells] comprising introducing into the plant a nucleotide sequence [i.e., modifying cotton cells] encoding a polypeptide” (claim 1).
The method “such that production of the polypeptide is increased [in modified cotton cells] when compared to a wild-type [cotton cells]” (i.e., modifying cotton cells such that they comprise at least one differently expressed gene wherein said differently expressed gene has altered expression in the modified cotton cells relative to expression of a corresponding gene in unmodified cotton cells)(claim 1).
The method wherein “the nucleotide sequence [is] set forth in SEQID NO:38” and is the coding region of GhMyb25-like clone which is characterized as a “fibre initiation gene” (i.e., said differently expressed gene modulates cotton fiber development) (claim 1; col 34, lines 40-45: col 4, table 5),
“Cotton ovule culture…(Beasley and Ting, 1973)” (i.e., culturing cotton cells in vitro) where “effective culture conditions include, but are not limited to, effective media,
bioreactor, temperature, pH and oxygen conditions” and where “Cells of the invention… can be cultured in conventional fermentation bioreactors, shake flasks, test tubes, microtiter dishes, and petri plates (i.e., multiplying the modified cotton cells in the bioreactor) (Example 2, col 30; col 19, lines 34-35).
That “cotton fibres develop only from the epidermal cells of the outer integument of ovules”(col 33 lines 34-42) such that “fibres being removed [from ovules]” ( col 12 lines 50-56) is the harvesting of cotton fiber from the epidermal cells.
“Laser capture microdissection (LCM)… to isolate fibre… from… ovules” (i.e., harvesting cotton fiber from the cells) (col 44 lines 10-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to combine the modified cotton cell teachings of Yingru with the in vitro culture of cotton cells using bioreactors teachings of ‘957 to culture modified cotton cells and harvest the cotton fibers directly from the cultured cells. One would have been motivated to this because cotton fiber is an “important contributor to world economies” and to produce fiber from cells with “desirable fibre traits” (Yingru, col 1 lines 25-28; col 2 line 11).
Regarding claims 2-3, which depend from claim 1, ‘957’s claim 1 recites “harvesting cotton fiber from the elongated cells” (i.e., cotton fiber harvested directly from the cultured cells, and without growing a cotton plant) (page 6, col 1, para 1).
Regarding claim 4, which depends from claim 3, Yingru teaches differentially expressed genes selected for modulation of cotton fiber development (Yingru, col 2 lines 17-31 and FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 4, Yingru teaches that the differentially expressed gene is a transgene (Yingru, col 46 line 49 to col 47 line 67).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Yingru teaches that “the coding sequence of a gene of the invention may be operably linked to a promoter” and that “the promoter may be expressed constitutively throughout the plant, for example, a Subterranean clover stunt virus promoter (S7: WO96/06932)”( Example 13) (i.e., transgene is operably connected toa promoter). Further, Yingru teaches that promoters can be chosen based on desired expression pattern (col 24-col 25 line 37).
Regarding claim 8, which depends from claim 6, Yingru teaches in Example 13 (col 46, lines 52-67) that “for over-expression of genes in a fibre producing plant such as cotton, the coding sequence of a gene of [Yingru’s] invention may be operably linked to a promoter and a 3′ transcription termination and polyadenylation signal functional in plants, to form a chimeric gene [which is] introduced into a T-DNA vector [and then] are transformed [into Cotton plants] using the Agrobacterium mediated transformation technique.”
Regarding claim 9, Yingru claims “a method of increasing fibre initiation and/or elongation in a fibre producing plant comprising introducing into the plant a nucleotide sequence encoding a polypeptide…, such that the production of the polypeptide is increased when compared to a wild-type fiber producing plant” (i.e., the differently expressed gene is expressed at a higher level compared with a cotton cell prior to the modifying) (emphasis provided; Yingru claim 1).
Regarding claims 13-14, Yingru teaches that the term “altering fibre initiation and/or elongation” refers “to increasing the number and/or size of the fibres” (emphasis provided; col 16, lines 12-14), teaches “three genes, GhMyb25, the GHHD1 and GhcycD3:1, had a Class I expression profile suggesting a role in the early events of fibre initiation at anthesis” and therefore a role in determining the number and/or size of the fibres (emphasis provided; col 35, lines 48-50). This reads on the instant claim 13 recitation of “the differently expressed gene is a gene selected for improvement and/or modulation of cotton fiber development.”
Regarding claim 14, Yingru specifically teaches “the fact that GhMyb25 is down-regulated in all the lintless mutants,… points to a role as a positive regulator of fibre initiation”(i.e., increasing the number and/or size of the fibres) (col 48, lines 58-60), then claims increased production of GhMyb25 in plants where heterologous expression GhMYB25 in (i.e., instant claim 14 recitation of “the differently expressed gene increases cotton fiber yield”) (Yingru Claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, which depends from claim 13, Yingru teaches the “over-expression of genes in a fibre producing plant such as cotton” using “the coding sequence of a gene of [Yingru’s] invention” of which GhHD1 is one (SEQ ID NOs: 1, 17-18, Example 2, Example 13).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Yingru teaches the collection of ovules (i.e., cotton cells) from the flowers and bolls of cotton plants (Yingru, col 30, lines 7-15). See also ‘957 claim 16, which depends from claim 15 therein.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-9 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yingru (U.S. Patent Publication No. US8049069B2, assigned to Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization CSIRO, titled ‘Genes involved in plant fibre development’, published 11/01/2011), Kim (cited in IDS; Hee Jin Kim, and Barbara A. Triplett, Cotton Fiber Growth in Planta and in Vitro. Models for Plant Cell Elongation and Cell Wall Biogenesis, Plant Physiology, Volume 127, Issue 4, December 2001, Pages 1361–1366, https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.010724, published 12/01/2001), Rajasekaran (cited in IDS; Rajasekaran K. Regeneration of plants from cryopreserved embryogenic cell suspension and callus cultures of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Plant Cell Rep. 1996 Aug;15(11):859-64. doi: 10.1007/BF00233157. PMID: 24178225., published 08/31/1996), Montes (cited in IDS; Montes, R. A. 0. "Comparative Characterization of Bioreactors for In Vitro Cotton Culture," Masters of Science in Chemical Engineering Texas Tech University, 31 May 1993, Pgs. 1-87, Available at: <https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/bitstream/handle/2346/60739/31295007146227.pdf>.; published MAY 31st 1993) and Shan (Shan, CM. et al. Control of cotton fibre elongation by a homeodomain transcription factor GhHOX3. Nat Commun 5, 5519 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms6519, published 11/21/2014). This is anew rejection necessitated by the claim amendments.
Claim 1 is drawn to a method comprising:
modifying cotton cells such that they comprise a differently expressed gene that has altered expression in the modified cotton cells relative to expression of a corresponding gene in unmodified cotton cells, and modulates cotton fiber development;
culturing the modified cotton cells in vitro; and
harvesting/removing cotton fiber from the cultured cells.
The currently amended instant claim 1 is drawn to a method for producing cotton fiber, the method comprising:
modifying cotton cells such that they comprise at least one differently expressed gene,
wherein said differently expressed gene has altered expression in the modified cotton cells relative to expression of a corresponding gene in unmodified cotton cells, and affects growth of the modified cotton cells and/or improves and/or modulates cotton fiber development;
culturing the modified cotton cells in vitro by:
preparing a friable callus by contacting the cotton cells with a callus induction medium;
forming dedifferentiated cell masses using the callus induction medium;
culturing the dedifferentiated cell masses using a callus growth medium;
dissociating cells from the friable callus to form a cell suspension;
homogenizing the cell suspension to form a homogeneous cell suspension;
inoculating a bioreactor with the homogeneous cell suspension;
multiplying the modified cotton cells in the bioreactor;
elongating the multiplied modified cotton cells to produce elongated cotton cells comprising cotton pre-fibers; and
maturing the elongated cotton cells using a maturation medium; and
harvesting cotton fiber from the cultured cells.
Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “harvest” as meaning “to remove or extract (something, such as living cells, tissues, or organs) from culture (see culture entry 1 sense 5) or from a living or recently deceased body especially for transplanting.”
Regarding claim 1, Yingru teaches:
“A method of increasing fibre initiation and/or elongation in a fibre producing plant [i.e., cotton cells] comprising introducing into the plant a nucleotide sequence [i.e., modifying cotton cells] encoding a polypeptide” (claim 1).
The method “such that production of the polypeptide is increased [in modified cotton cells] when compared to a wild-type [cotton cells]” (i.e., modifying cotton cells such that they comprise at least one differently expressed gene wherein said differently expressed gene has altered expression in the modified cotton cells relative to expression of a corresponding gene in unmodified cotton cells)(claim 1).
The method wherein “the nucleotide sequence [is] set forth in SEQID NO:38” and is the coding region of GhMyb25-like clone which is characterized as a “fibre initiation gene” (i.e., said differently expressed gene modulates cotton fiber development) (claim 1; col 34, lines 40-45: col 4, table 5),
“Cotton ovule culture…(Beasley and Ting, 1973)” (i.e., culturing cotton cells in vitro) where “effective culture conditions include, but are not limited to, effective media,
bioreactor, temperature, pH and oxygen conditions” and where “Cells of the invention… can be cultured in conventional fermentation bioreactors, shake flasks, test tubes, microtiter dishes, and petri plates (i.e., multiplying the modified cotton cells in the bioreactor) (Example 2, col 30; col 19, lines 34-35).
That “cotton fibres develop only from the epidermal cells of the outer integument of ovules”(col 33 lines 34-42) such that “fibres being removed [from ovules]” ( col 12 lines 50-56) is the harvesting of cotton fiber from the epidermal cells.
“Laser capture microdissection (LCM)… to isolate fibre… from… ovules” (i.e., harvesting cotton fiber from the cells) (col 44 lines 10-16).
Yingru does not explicitly teach culturing cotton cells in vitro by the all active steps recited in lines 8-26 of the instant claim 1.
However, Kim teaches cotton fiber growth in planta and in vitro (entire document; see Title, Abstract, for example).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim teaches:
Advantages of cotton fiber development in vitro
“a culture method for cotton ovules was perfected three decades ago” (page 1363 col 1; see partial snippet of figure 1 besides).
that “ovule cultures have obvious advantages over whole plants” and that “early comparison suggested substantial similarity between the fibers produced in planta and in vitro” (emphasis provided; page 1363 col 2).
Rajasekaran is in the field of cotton cell suspension cultures (Title) and teaches that “cotyledon and hypocotyl explants ...were placed on callus induction medium [then] callus formed on these explants within 3 to 4 weeks was selectively subcultured to enrich for friable, yellowish green callus every 3 to 4 weeks on the same medium” (i.e., preparing a friable callus by contacting the cotton cells with a callus induction medium) where “Embryogenic callus capable of forming small globular somatic embryos appeared two to four subcultures after initiation” ( paragraph bridging page 859-860). Embryonic callus are composed of dedifferentiated cells such that Rajasekaran’s teachings above also read on claim 1’s active step of “forming dedifferentiated cell masses using the callus induction medium.” In the same paragraph, Rajasekaran teaches that the “embryogenic callus was maintained and multiplied by routine subculture every 3 to 4 weeks on MS medium” (i.e., culturing the dedifferentiated cell masses using a callus growth medium).
Rajasekaran teaches that “cell suspension cultures were initiated from finely dispersed embryogenic callus cultures in liquid maintenance medium shaken… on gyratory shaker”(i.e., dissociating cells from the friable callus to form a cell suspension) (emphasis provided; page 860, col 1, first two paras).
Rajasekaran then teaches that “suspension cells were filtered to get a homogeneous <840um fraction” (i.e. homogenizing the cell suspension to form a homogeneous cell suspension) (page 860, col 1, para 6).
Montes teaches a method for producing cotton fiber which is “a three-week, two-stage cycle has been designed to grow cotton fibers as shown in Figure 14”(page 48, first full para). Initially Montes teaches "Cotton cell suspension cultures... of... the cell lines which were subcultured every two weeks... suspended in shake flasks maintained at 20°C and 100-rpm [i.e., a homogenous cell suspension] ... [were used as] inoculum for each reactor" (i.e., inoculating a bioreactor with the homogeneous cell suspension)(emphasis provided; para bridging page 13 and 16; top right corner of Figure 14, page 49). Montes then teaches that “Cells [grown “in a 15,000 L airlift bioreactor (i.e., homogenizing the cell suspension to form a homogeneous cell suspension)] are harvested, split and used to inoculate four 12,500 L Stage II airlift bioreactors” (i.e., inoculating a bioreactor with the homogeneous cell suspension)(figure 3 on page 15; page 48, first full para). Montes also teaches a “proliferation phase” that “allows cells to multiply [in the] bioreactor” (i.e., multiplying the modified cotton cells in the bioreactor) and an “elongation [phase] …in which the cells increase in length and begin to deposit a thick secondary cell wall of about 34% cellulose” (i.e., elongating the multiplied modified cotton cells to produce elongated cotton cells comprising cotton pre-fibers) (page 48, first full para).
Absent of a definition of “maturation medium” and combined with the recitation “Maturation is recognized by secondary cell wall deposition” in para 0149 of the Specification, a maturation medium can be any medium that allows deposition of a secondary cell wall (i.e., deposition of cellulose). Thus, Montes’s above teaching of an “elongation [phase] …in which the cells…begin to deposit a thick secondary cell wall of about 34% cellulose” reads on instant claim 1’s “maturing the elongated cotton cells using a maturation medium” step (page 48, first full para).
Shan teaches control of cotton fibre elongation (entire document; see Title, Abstract, for example). Shan, while “uncover[ing] a new molecular mechanism underlying the role of [Gibberellic acid] in promoting cotton fibre elongation”(page 4, Discussion), teaches:
production of cotton fiber with wild type and transformed cotton plants (methods page 6) (i.e., modifying cotton cells…) where a differentially expressed gene “GhHOX3 regulates cotton fibre elongation” (page 2 col 2) (i.e., modulates cotton fiber development).
ovule culture (methods page 7 cols 1-2) and that fibres were collected by scraping the ovule in liquid nitrogen including cultured ovules (methods page 6 col 1, Figure 2) (i.e., harvesting cotton fiber from the cultured cells).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to combine the modified cotton cell teachings of Yingru and Shan, the in vitro culture of cotton cells teachings of Kim and Rajasekaran, and the in vitro culture of cotton cells using bioreactors teachings of Montes to culture modified cotton cells and harvest the cotton fibers directly from the cultured cells. One would have been motivated to this because cotton fiber is “important contributor to world economies”(Yingru, col 1 lines 25-28) and “ovule cultures have obvious advantages over whole plants” including less agricultural land use requirement and that compared to “in vitro fibers continue to divide for [more days than fibers produced in vivo]” (Kim, page 1363 col 2 and page 1364 col 1 para 2).
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1, Shan teaches “fibres were collected by scraping the ovule” (i.e., cotton fiber harvested directly from the cultured cells) (page 6, col 1, para 1).
Regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 2, Shan teaches “expression levels of GhHOX3 and two downstream genes in ovule (O) and/or fibre (F), which were taken from GhHOX3-silenced line 5–8 and the [wildtype] cotton at 2 DPA and cultured in vitro with addition of the hormone GA3 (1 mM) for 6 days” Figure 2 caption). Ascertaining transcript levels in fibers of cultured ovules inherently requires harvesting the fibers from the cultured epidermal cells, for example by scraping of the cultured ovules which does not include growing a cotton plant (i.e., cotton fiber is harvested from the cells without growing a cotton plant).
Regarding claim 4, which depends from claim 3, Yingru and Shan both teach differentially expressed genes selected for modulation of cotton fiber development (Yingru, col 2 lines 17-31 and FIG. 1 ; Shan, page 2 col 1 to page 3 col 1).
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 4, Yingru and Shan both teach the differentially expressed genes are transgenes (Yingru, col 46 line 49 to col 47 line 67; Shan, page 3, col 1, “Strikingly, compared with the wild-type, fibre length was increased up to 20% in the 35S::GhHOX3g lines in which GhHOX3 expression was elevated”).
Regarding claim 6 and 7, Yingru teaches that “the coding sequence of a gene of the invention may be operably linked to a promoter” and that “the promoter may be expressed constitutively throughout the plant, for example, a Subterranean clover stunt virus promoter (S7: WO96/06932)”( Example 13) (i.e., transgene is operably connected toa promoter). Further, Yingru teaches that promoters can be chosen based on desired expression pattern (col 24-col 25 line 37).
Regarding claim 8, which depends from claim 6, Shan “used the 35S promoter to drive the cDNA and transferred the constructs into G. hirsutum” both teach (i.e., modifying cotton cells comprising introducing the transgene and promoter via transformation) (page 2, col 1).
Regarding claims 9 and 13-14, Shan teaches that “compared with the wild-type, fibre length was increased up to 20% in the 35S::GhHOX3g lines in which GhHOX3 expression was elevated” (i.e., GhHOX3 was expressed at a higher level compared with a cotton cell prior to modifying, gene selected for modulation of cotton fiber development, differently expressed gene increases cotton fiber length) (page 2 col 2 to 3 col 1). Also see Yingru’s claims 1-8.
Regarding claim 15, which depends from claim 13, Yingru teaches the “over-expression of genes in a fibre producing plant such as cotton” using “the coding sequence of a gene of [Yingru’s] invention” of which GhHD1 is one (SEQ ID NOs: 1, 17-18, Example 2, Example 13).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Yingru and Shan respectively teach collection of ovules (i.e., cotton cells) from the flowers and bolls of cotton plants (Yingru, col 30, lines 7-15; Shan, page 7, col 1, para 4).
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Examiner’s Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YVETTE B TAMUKONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1040. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 730-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bratislav Stankovic can be reached at (571) 270-0305. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YVETTE B. TAMUKONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1662
/BRATISLAV STANKOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Units 1661 & 1662
Prosecution Insights