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 without traverse of FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT Group I, claims 1, 3, 5-7, 11-14, and species SbPR1-like, in the reply filed on 07/15/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 3, 5, 11-14 read on the elected species and are examined herein. Claims 6, 7, 17-18, 20, 22-24, 30, 32-34, and 51 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species and inventions. Specification The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code on p. 20, [0115], line 1. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. 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, 5, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for genetically modified Sorghum bicolor plants wherein the modification results in inhibiting the expression of all the genes in the IAP locus, does not reasonably provide enablement for other types of modifications of the genes of the IAP locus. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The claims are drawn to a genetically modified Sorghum bicolor plant, comprising a modification of one or more genes contained in an inhibition of pollen (IAP) locus of the plant, wherein the one or more genes controls cross-incompatibility of the plant with other species of Sorghum. The specification teaches that Sorghum bicolor is cross-compatible with close relatives, such as Sorghum halepense, but is not cross-compatible with distant relatives, such as Sorghum plumosum. The specification teaches that the dominant wild-type allele of the IAP locus of S. bicolor prevents pollen tube growth from distant relatives into S. bicolor pistils and confers cross-incompatib i lity ([0006]). “Close relatives” is defined as plant relatives of S. bicolor that are cross-compatible with wild-type S. bicolor, and ‘distant relatives’ is defined as plant relatives that are cross-incompatible with wild-type S. bicolor ([0074], [0075]). The specification indicates that embodiments of the invention encompass modification of the gene(s) in the IAP locus increases cross-compatibility with other Sorghum species; modification of the gene(s) in the IAP locus to reduce their expression; modification of the gene(s) of the IAP locus to decrease cross-compatibility with other Sorghum species; and modification of the gene(s) of the IAP locus increases their expression ([0010], [0011]). There are five key genes in the IAP locus of S. bicolor , designated Sobic.002G023300 (SbPR1-LIKE, SEQ ID NO: 7; elected species), Sobic.002G023 4 00 (IAP2), Sobic.002G023 5 00 (IAP3, SEQ ID NO: 12), Sobic.002G023 6 00 (IAP4, SEQ ID NO: 17), and Sobic.002G023 7 00 (IAP5) . The Sobic.002G023300 gene encodes a cysteine-rich secretory defense-related protein that is highly expressed in floral tissues at anthesis ( Table 1, p. 15; [0096] , [0102], [0103] ). CRISPR/Cas9 genome engineering was used to knockout the functions of the genes ([0097, Table 2 ). gRNA used in targeting the SbPR1-LIKE, IAP3, and IAP4 genes are shown in Table 2. The CRISPR/Cas constructs were transformed into S. bicolor plants [0120]. However, the specification does not actually teach that the any of the five lines, in which one of the five IAP genes was modified to knockout that gene’s function, had a modified cross-incompatibility property. That is, the specification does not teach the affect that any of these genetic modifications had on S. bicolor cross-incompatibility, or cross-compatibility, with other Sorghum species. The specification also does not disclose what the changes are to the sequence of the IAP genes . The specification only asserts that gene function was knocked out. The prior art teaches that the homozygous recessive iap iap genotype in S. bicolor allows hybrids to be recovered between S. bicolor and wild Sorghum relatives (Kuhlman et al., J. Plant Reg., Vol. 5, No. 1, 2011, p. 133-134; p. 133, left col., 1 st paragraph). But the prior art does not specify which of the five genes within the IAP locus disclosed in the instant specification, when homozygous recessive, allows the S. bicolor plant to be cross-compatible with otherwise incompatible Sorghum species. The instant specification falls short of this guidance, as well. Trowbridge (Thesis titled “Toward Understanding the Genetic Basis of Cross-Incompatibility in Sorghum: de novo genome Assembly of Johnson grass and Resequencing of Iap and BAM1 loci”, 2019, University of Nevada, Reno; 84 pages; cited in the IDS) teaches that while it is widely known that the dominant wild-type allele of the Iap locus of sorghum prevents foreign pollen tube growth into sorghum pistils, and that the recessive allele enables foreign pollen tube growth to the ovary (confers compatibility), it is unknown which gene(s) at the Iap locus are involved (p. 11, 1 st full paragraph). As in the instant specification, Trowbridge teaches that the Sobic.002G023300.1 gene encodes a cysteine-rich secretory defense-related protein that is highly expressed in floral tissues at anthesis, but also indicates that future investigations are needed to determine its role, if any, in cross-incompatibility in sorghum (paragraph bridging p. 11-12 ; p. 33, 1 st paragraph ). The instant specification does not provide any further information regarding the role of the SbPR1-like gene, or of any of the other genes in the IAP locus, in cross-incompatibility of S. bicolor. Further, claims 1, 3, 5, and 11 encompass any type of modification of one or more genes in the IAP locus. This broadly encompasses an increase in expression of any or all of the five IAP locus genes. But the specification does not teach the effect of such increase in expression, and what affect it would have on cross compatibility of the plant, if any. Nor does the prior teach any such examples of an increase in expression of the IAP locus or of any gene within it . No guidance is provided in the specification or prior art regarding how to make any such gene modification, or how to use such plants even if they were made. For these reasons, and in the absence of further guidance, undue experimentation would be required by one skilled in the art to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 3, 5, 11-14 are 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. As discussed above, t he specification indicates that embodiments of the invention include modification of the gene(s) in the IAP locus in S. bicolor to increase cross-compatibility with other Sorghum species; modification of the gene(s) in the IAP locus to reduce their expression; modification of the gene(s) of the IAP locus to decrease cross-compatibility with other Sorghum species; and modification of the gene(s) of the IAP locus increases their expression ([0010], [0011]). There are five key genes in the IAP locus of S. bicolor , designated Sobic.002G023300 (SbPR1-LIKE, SEQ ID NO: 7; elected species), Sobic.002G023 4 00 (IAP2), Sobic.002G023 5 00 (IAP3, SEQ ID NO: 12), Sobic.002G023 6 00 (IAP4, SEQ ID NO: 17), and Sobic.002G023 7 00 (IAP5) . The Sobic.002G023300 gene encodes a cysteine-rich secretory defense-related protein that is highly expressed in floral tissues at anthesis ( Table 1, [0096], [0102], [0103]). CRISPR/Cas9 genome engineering was used to knockout the functions of the genes ([0097, Table 2 ). gRNA used in targeting three IAP genes are shown in Table 2. The CRISPR/Cas constructs were transformed into S. bicolor plants [0120]. However, the specification does not actually indicate that any of the five lines, in which one of the five IAP genes was modified to knockout that gene’s function, had a modified cross-incompatibility property. That is, the specification does not teach the effect of any of these genetic modifications on S. bicolor cross-incompatibility, or cross-compatibility, with other Sorghum species. It also is unclear just how these genes were modified. The specification does not describe the changes to the five IAP genes in the CRISPR-engineered lines. The specification only asserts that gene function was knocked out. While the prior art teaches that the iap iap genotype eliminates cross- incompatibility in S. bicolor (as discussed above) , and the specification indicates that the CRISPR/Cas9 constructs were transformed into S. bicolor plants, the specification does not describe the cross - compatibility phenotype of those plants, and does not correlate the function of controlling cross-incompatibility to any of those individual five genes within the IAP locus . As discussed above, Trowbridge teaches that it is unknown which gene(s) at the Iap locus are involved in preventing foreign pollen tube growth into sorghum pistils. Given the breadth of the claims encompassing any type of genetic modification of one or more genes in the IAP locus in a S. bicolor plant, wherein the function of the individual genes have not been correlated to the function of controlling cross-incompatibility, it is submitted that the specification fails to provide an adequate written description of the broad genus of genetically modified plants encompassed by the claims. 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. Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 11, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuhlman et al. (J. Plant Reg., Vol. 5, No. 1, 2011, p. 133-134 ) . Kuhlman et al. teach S. bicolor cultivar Tx3361. Tx3 3 61 plants are homozygous recessive for the inhibition of alien pollen locus (paragraph bridging p. 133-134, Table 1). Kuhlman et al. teach that the homozygous recessive genotype allows hybrids to be recovered between S. bicolor and wild Sorghum relatives (p. 133, left col., 1 st paragraph). The inability to repress alien pollen-tube growth increases the frequency of interspecific fertilization in sorghum (abstract). Instant claim 1 recites, “A genetically modified plant of the species Sorghum bicolor…”. The instant specification broadly defines, “genetically modified” as “Any genetic change in the genome of an organism induced by molecular mechanisms ” ([0094]). The specification does not limit what is encompassed by “molecular mechanisms”. The development of the iap iap locus in the sorghum taught by Kuhlman et al. is considered to read on ‘genetically modified’ and ‘molecular mechanism’ , and a modification of the genes contained in t he IAP locus. As evidenced by the instant specification, the SbPR1-like gene is located in this locus in S. bicolor. Functional protein is not expressed from this locus in Tx3661, as Kuhlman et al. teach that it has been used to obtain interspecific crosses, indicating that the protein(s) that repress alien pollen-tube growth is not expressed. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ASHWIN D . MEHTA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-0803 . The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30AM-5PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Patrick Nolan can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-0847 . 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. /ASHWIN D MEHTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 6211