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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claims 1-14 are examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang, AiYou, et al. "Characterization of small RNAs from Ulva prolifera by high-throughput sequencing and bioinformatics analysis." Chinese Science Bulletin 56.27 (2011): 2916-2921.
Applicant broadly claims a composition, comprising: a miRNA156 and/or miRNA399d containing extract, wherein the miRNA l56 and/or miRNA399d containing extract is obtained from an algae.
Huang discloses an extract from the macroalgae Ulva prolifera that comprises miRNAs including a miRNA156 and a miRNA399. (p. 2917 right col. ¶ 2, Table S2).
As such the claim is anticipated by the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-3 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maor (US 20120272408 A1) in view of Sammons et al. (US 20110296556 Al) and Huang, AiYou, et al. "Characterization of small RNAs from Ulva prolifera by high-throughput sequencing and bioinformatics analysis." Chinese Science Bulletin 56.27 (2011): 2916-2921.
Applicant broadly claim a method, comprising: feeding a plant or seed a composition comprising a miRNA156 and/or miRNA399d containing extract, wherein the miRNA l56 and/or miRNA399d containing extract is obtained from an algae and is used to improve the nutrient uptake, abiotic stress tolerance or growth in the plant or seed by interfering with gene expression through environmental RNA interference (Claim 1), wherein the plant is a dicotyledonous or a monocotyledonous plant (Claim 2), wherein the plant is selected from the group consisting of: Sugar beet (Bela vulgaris), Sugar cane (Saccharum officinarum), Corn (Zeamays) and Alfalfa (Medicago saliva) (Claim 3), the method of claim 1, wherein the composition further comprises substances able to modify a surface tension, surfactants, adjuvants, adhesives, wetting compounds and substances able to facilitate transport of the composition inside the plant towards a target site (Claim 10), wherein the composition is formulated as powder water soluble powder, granule, gel, tablet or emulsion, emulsifiable concentrate or as liquid solution or as liquid suspension (Claim 11), wherein the feeding is by root feeding, leaf spraying, or any combination thereof (Claim 12).
Maor teaches a method of improving abiotic stress tolerance in a plant by expressing within a plant an exogenous miRNA, including a miRNA156 or miRNA399d. (¶ 0011, 0013, 0053, 0103, Claims 1, 2, 8, 21), wherein the plant is a monocot or a dicot (Claims 55, 56), such as maize (Claim 57). Maor et al. teaches that the miRNA can be introduced directly into a plant as a “naked” molecule and that such a "naked" miRNA can be produced by any means (¶ 0105, 0204). Maor et al. teaches extraction of total RNA, including micro-RNAs such as mir156, from non-transformed maize plants and analyzing expression of the miRNAs through microarray analyses. Maor et al. teaches that maize plants naturally produce the recited miRNAs and that expression of the recited miRNAs can be upregulated by treating plants with stress conditions. (¶ 0273-0276, 0283, Table 3).
However, Maor does not teach extracting the miRNA from an algae and feeding the miRNA to a maize plant by a method such as leaf spraying.
Sammons et al. teaches methods of direct topical application of various RNA preparations, with ssRNAs or dsRNAs of various lengths, to plant surfaces causes suppression of the levels of mRNA of various target genes across several plant species (See Examples 1-7 para 0082-0099, Examples 10-11 para 0107-0120, Examples 13-23 para 0125-0164, Examples 25-33 para 0170-0223, Claims 1-106). Sammons et al. teaches that the RNA can be obtained by different means well known in the art, providing examples such as artificially synthesizing the RNA or obtaining an extract from bacteria engineered to produce the RNA. (¶ 0058). Sammons et al. teaches that the RNA can be a non-coding RNA such as microRNAs or trans-acting siRNAs. (¶ 0069). Sammons et al. teaches that the preparation that is applied to the plants can comprise an organosilicone surfactant such as Silwet L-77. (Claims 53, 60, 67, 74, 81). Sammons et al. teaches that the mechanism by which the methods operates is the RNA-mediated silencing mechanism known in plants, employing the DICER ribonuclease and RISC complex (commonly called RNAi). (¶0005). Sammons et al. teaches that the RNA compositions can be prepared as a liquid and sprayed on the plants to effect the topical application. (¶ 0074-0075). Sammons et al. teaches that plants that can be used with the method include corn. (¶ 0071).
Huang teaches an extract from the macroalgae Ulva prolifera that comprises miRNAs including a miRNA156 and a miRNA399. (p. 2917 right col. ¶ 2, Table S2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of Maor in view of the teachings of Sammons et al. to extract the miRNA from an algae such as Ulva prolifera, and subsequently spray it onto plant leaves of a plant such as maize. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because Sammons et al. teaches a method of topical application of a simple preparation of an RNA extract to plants to activate the RNAi pathway to control gene expression. Sammons et al. teaches that topical application of RNA to plants was sufficient to introduce the RNA molecules into plant tissues where they modulated levels of RNA through RNAi interference and produced phenotypic effects. Although Sammons et al. does not teach that the miRNA is extracted from an algae, Maor teaches plants that naturally express the claimed miRNAs and extraction of RNA from the plants including micro-RNAs, and Marín-González et al. teaches that phloem exudates are enriched in specific miRNAs including miR156 and miR399 and Huang teaches that the same miRNAs can be obtained from extracts of algae such as Ulva prolifera. As such, algae such as Ulva prolifera would have been an obvious and readily available source of miRNAs for preparing compositions to apply to plants as taught by Sammons et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the effects as taught by Maor et al. because Sammons et al. teaches that topical application of RNAs operates by the RNA-mediated silencing mechanism known in plants (RNAi) which utilizes the same mechanism by which miRNAs regulate gene expression.
Claims 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maor (US 20120272408 A1) in view of Sammons et al. (US 20110296556 Al) and Huang, AiYou, et al. "Characterization of small RNAs from Ulva prolifera by high-throughput sequencing and bioinformatics analysis." Chinese Science Bulletin 56.27 (2011): 2916-2921 as applied to claims 1-3, 10-12 above, and further in view of Conn et al. Plant methods 9.1 (2013): 4 and Conn et al. Plant methods 9.1 (2013): 4, Supplement.
Applicant broadly claim a method, comprising: feeding a plant or seed a composition comprising a miRNA156 and/or miRNA399d containing extract, wherein the miRNA l56 and/or miRNA399d containing extract is obtained from an algae and is used to improve the nutrient uptake, abiotic stress tolerance or growth in the plant or seed by interfering with gene expression through environmental RNA interference (Claim 1), wherein the composition further comprises micronutrients (Claim 4), wherein the micronutrients of Claim 4 are present in a concentration ranging from 0. 1 to 20% w/w (Claim 5), wherein the micronutrients of Claim 4 are selected from the group consisting of KCl, H3BO3, MnS04, CuS04, ZnS04, and Fe-EDTA (Claim 6), wherein the composition of Claim 1 further comprises macronutrients (Claim 7), wherein the macronutrients of Claim 7 are present in a concentration ranging from 0.5 to 50% w/w (Claim 8), wherein the macronutrients of Claim 7 are selected from the group consisting of KNO3, Ca(NO3)2, MgSO4 and KH2PO4 (Claim 9).
The instant Specification, on page 10, provides “In a further preferred embodiment of the invention, the biostimulant composition can be administered as powder, preferably water-soluble powder, granules, gel, tablets, emulsion, emulsifiable concentrate, or as a liquid solution (a medium) or a liquid suspension. More preferably, the composition can be diluted or undiluted before being administered.” As such, Claims 5-8 that recite that the micro- and macronutrients are “present” at various concentrations are interpreted to include stock solutions and various dilutions of the stock solutions.
The teachings of Maor, Sammons et al. and Huang as they are applied to Claims 1-3 and 10-12 are set forth previously herein.
Maor, Sammons et al. and Huang do not teach that the method further comprises adding micronutrients, wherein the micronutrients are present at some point in a concentration of 0.1 to 20% w/w, 1 to 10% w/w, 2 to 6% w/w, wherein the micronutrients are selected from a list including Zinc Sulfate (ZnSO4), wherein the method of Claim 35 further comprises adding macronutrients wherein the micronutrients are present at some point in a concentration of 0.5 to 50% w/w, 10 to 30% w/w, 12 to 25% w/w wherein the macronutrient is selected from a list including potassium nitrate (KNO3).
Conn et al. teaches a method of growing Arabidopsis plants in hydroponic systems using a variety of different nutritional media, and methods of optimizing the amounts of nutrients in the systems to promote growth. (p. 6. right col. ¶ 2 – p. 8 left col. ¶ 1). Conn et al. teaches that the hydroponic growth system has a variety of advantages for experimental protocols including low cost and low contamination rates. (Table 1). The Conn et al. Supplement teaches specific formulation of nutrient media concentrated stock solutions that contain 52% w/w macronutrients and 2.5% micronutrients (basal media), 46% w/w macronutrients and 2.5% micronutrients (low sodium media), 45% w/w macronutrients and 2.5% micronutrients (low calcium media) that each contain the macronutrient potassium nitrate (KNO3) and the micronutrient Zinc Sulfate (ZnSO4) and that the stock solutions were diluted (whole supplement). Conn et al. teaches that the system can be adapted for other plants (p. 9 right col. ¶ 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combined method of Maor, Sammons et al. and Huang such that the plants are grown with the addition of nutrient media as taught by Conn et al. and at concentrations of macronutrients ranging from 12 to 25% w/w or micronutrients ranging from 2 to 6% w/w. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because Conn et al. teaches that the hydroponic growth system has a variety of advantages for experimental protocols including low cost and low contamination rates and that the system can be adapted for other plants (such as maize), which would motivate one of ordinary skill to use such systems for routine experimental evaluation of plants produced by the combined method of Maor and Sammons et al. The stock solutions contain 2.5% w/w micronutrients, falling into the claimed range of 2-6% w/w, and because Conn et al. teaches optimization of the concentrations of the various micro- and macronutrients in the system and the creation of stock solutions requiring dilution, it is reasonable to conclude that any of the claimed ranges for macronutrients would be routinely produced during the dilution process to obtain a working concentration to promote plant growth.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maor (US 20120272408 A1) in view of Sammons et al. (US 20110296556 Al) and Huang, AiYou, et al. "Characterization of small RNAs from Ulva prolifera by high-throughput sequencing and bioinformatics analysis." Chinese Science Bulletin 56.27 (2011): 2916-2921 as applied to claims 1-4, 10-12 above, and further in view of Shekoofa et al. Journal of agronomy 7.1 (2008): 41.
Applicant broadly claim a method, comprising: feeding a plant or seed a composition comprising a miRNA156 and/or miRNA399d containing extract, wherein the miRNA l56 and/or miRNA399d containing extract is obtained from an algae and is used to improve the nutrient uptake, abiotic stress tolerance or growth in the plant or seed by interfering with gene expression through environmental RNA interference (Claim 1), the method of claim 1, further comprising applying biostimulants, hormones, plant growth regulators (PGRs), plant growth promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR), or any combination thereof in combination with the feeding (Claim 13).
The teachings of Maor, Sammons et al. and Huang as they are applied to Claims 1-3 and 10-12 are set forth previously herein.
Maor, Sammons et al. and Huang do not teach that the extracted miRNA is applied in combination with the administration of PGRs.
Shekoofa et al. teaches a method of applying the PGR ethephon to maize plants grown under water stress and that such application resulted in changes to plant phenotypes including increased yield when the plants were grown under stress. (p. 42 left col. ¶ 1 – p. 43 left col. ¶1, p. 45 right col. ¶ 3 – p. 46 left col. ¶1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of Maor, Sammons et al. and Huang as set forth previously herein such that the extracted miRNA is applied in combination with the administration of PGRs such as ethephon. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because Maor teaches that the upregulation of miRNA including miRNA156 or miRNA399d improves abiotic stress tolerance and Sammons et al. teaches the extract spray method, and Shekoofa teaches that maize plants grown under water (abiotic) stress produces plants with the valuable trait of increased yield. It would therefore be obvious to apply PGRs such as ethephon to the plants of the method of Maor and Sammons et al. as set forth previously herein to produce plants with this valuable trait.
Conclusion
No Claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES A LOGSDON whose telephone number is (571)270-0282. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 5:00 pm.
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.
/CHARLES LOGSDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1662