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 Group 1 (claims 29-31 and 33-35, drawn to a recombinant polynucleotide or cells comprising it) and the species of SEQ ID NO: 560 in the reply filed on 3 Dec 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 37-39 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 without traverse in the reply filed on 3 Dec 2025.
Claim Status
The amended claim set filed 3 Dec 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 29-31, 33-35, and 37-39 are currently pending. Of those, claim 29 is currently amended, all claims have been amended relative to the original claims, and no claims are new. Claims 37-39 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 without traverse in the reply filed on 3 Dec 2025. Claims 1-28, 32, 36, and 40-45 are cancelled. Claims 29-31 and 33-35 will be examined on the merits herein.
Priority
The applicant’s priority claim to provisional applications 63/476,488 (filed 21 Dec 2022) and 63/603,414 (filed 28 Nov 2023) is acknowledged. What follows is the examiner’s claim-by-claim analysis of effective filing date for the claims currently under examination. If the applicant disagrees with this examiner’s determination of effective filing date for any claim, the applicant may identify text within the prior applications that provides support the claimed language.
Both ‘488 and ‘414 do not teach recombinant polynucleotides comprising: (i) a defensin or defensin-like peptide comprising a wild-type gamma-core consensus peptide GXCX3-9C, GXCX9-16C or GXCX3-22C, optionally wherein the defensin or defensin-like peptide comprises SEQ ID NO: 560, as in claim 29 and its dependent claims. Instead, both provisional applications teach modified defensins that do not have the final C and have been modified from SEQ ID NO: 560 (claims 1-2, both provisional applications) or alternately, recombinant polynucleotides comprising (i) a defensin peptide comprising the consensus sequence GXCX16-22C that are optionally other sequences that are not SEQ ID NO: 560 (claim 29, both provisional applications). Therefore, both provisional applications lack support for the full range of consensus peptides that are claimed and lack support for the species of SEQ ID NO: 560 as a recombinantly produced protein, rather than as a starting material for modification. Therefore, the effective filing date used to search the art is 21 Dec 2023 for claims 29-31 and 33-35.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 23 Apr 2024 and 17 July 2024 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner. Signed copies of these statements are attached with this action.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. This paragraph is only a notice to the applicant and is not a requirement that all references listed in the specification be submitted.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The header of Table 8 (pg. 54 of the instant specification) states “The complete table with data for fluconazole and voriconazole are provided in Figure 4.” However, Figure 4 is a picture of wheat leaves rather than a data table. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, the specification defines: “The phrase "defensin-like peptide" is used herein to refer to a peptide comprising a conserved gamma-core peptide but lacking at least one of the two additional cysteine residues located C-terminal to the C-terminal cysteine residue of the conserved gamma-core peptide.” [0038]. This definition will be used when examining the claim.
Also, the specification defines: “a conserved gamma-core (i.e., y-core) peptide comprising a conserved GXCX3-9C (where X is any amino acid) sequence” [0007]. The definition that X is any amino acid will also be used when examining the claim.
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.
Claims 29-30 and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Broekaert et al. (WO-9305153-A1, published 1993, filed 1992; hereafter Broekaert; PTO-892).
Regarding claim 29, Broekaert teaches an expression vector (i.e. recombinant polynucleotide) comprising the full coding region of the Rs-AFP2 DNA flanked at its 5' end by the strong constitutive promoter of the 35S RNA of the cauliflower mosaic virus (i.e. “wherein the polynucleotide encoding the peptide is operably linked to a polynucleotide comprising a promoter which is heterologous to the polynucleotide encoding the peptide”) (Example 23, pg. 55). Broekaert also teaches a second plant transformation vector comprising the Rs-AFP2 DNA expression cassette (Example 24 pg. 56). The sequence of the Rs-AFP2 gene is shown in Figure 37 (Example 22, pg. 55), and the sequence comprises SEQ ID NO: 560 and the consensus peptide (see Alignment 1 following the rejection). Broekaert also teaches the invention more broadly in other parts of the specification, such as claim 20, “A recombinant DNA sequence encoding a protein as claimed in any of claims 1-19”, and claim 24, “A DNA sequence as claimed in claim 23 which includes a promoter sequence”, which both reference back to claim 7 “A pure protein Rs-AFP2, capable of being isolated from Raphanus seed.”
Regarding claim 30, Broekaert teaches “The coding region of the RS-AFP2 DNA is flanked at its 3' end side by the polyadenylation sequence of 35S RNA of the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV35S)” (Example 23, pg. 55), (i.e. the recombinant polynucleotide further comprises a polynucleotide encoding: (iii) a polyadenylation or transcriptional termination signal, wherein the polynucleotides of (i), (ii), and/or (iii) are operably linked to the polynucleotide encoding the antimicrobial peptide).
Regarding claims 33-35, Broekaert teaches transforming the second plant transformation vector comprising the Rs-AFP2 DNA expression cassette into Nicotiana tobaccum and transgenic plants were regenerated (Example 25, pg. 57). These regenerated plants are plants comprising the polynucleotide, and the plants comprise plant parts and cells comprising the polynucleotide.
Alignment 1: Alignment of instant SEQ ID NO: 560 (“Qy”) with Rs-AFP2 cDNA sequence from WO9305153-A1. Alignment performed using the sequence present in the N_Geneseq database.
PNG
media_image1.png
374
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 29-31 and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liang et al. (US-5773696-A, published 1998, filed 1996; hereafter Liang; PTO-892).
Regarding claim 29, Liang teaches “ A purified nucleic acid segment encoding an antifungal protein having the sequence of SEQ ID NO:2” (claim 1) and “A recombinant, double-stranded DNA molecule, comprising the following sequences operatively linked in the 5' to 3' direction: a) a promoter that functions in plant cells to cause transcription of an adjacent coding sequence; b) a coding sequence that encodes a protein comprising an antifungal protein having the sequence of SEQ ID NO:2; and c) a 3' non-translated sequence that functions in plant cells to cause transcriptional termination and the addition of polyadenylate nucleotides to the 3' end of the transcribed RNA sequence.” (claim 5). SEQ ID NO: 2 comprises the wild-type gamma-core consensus peptides GXCX5C or GXCX9C, depending on which Cys is chosen as the final C. The consensus sequence is highlighted in the sequence below.
PNG
media_image2.png
146
516
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Liang also teaches an amino acid sequence for Rs-AFP2 (Figure 2) and a nucleic acid sequence that is SEQ ID NO: 17 and teaches the DNA is cloned into E. coli cassette vectors and plant transformation vectors to produce the plasmid pMON22635 (Rs-AFP2) (FIG. 10), and also transformed into potato plants (col. 24 ln. 24-36). The plasmid used has a the gene operably linked to a FMV promoter (col. 24 ln. 16-19). SEQ ID NO: 17/Rs-AFP2 encodes a peptide comprising instant SEQ ID NO: 560 (see Alignment 2 below).
Alignment 2: Alignment of instant SEQ ID NO: 560 (“Qy”) with SEQ ID NO: 17 (“Db”).
PNG
media_image3.png
368
526
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 30, Liang teaches “c) a 3' non-translated sequence that functions in plant cells to cause transcriptional termination and the addition of polyadenylate nucleotides to the 3' end of the transcribed RNA sequence.” (claim 5), and the plasmid used in the examples uses a nos 3’ end (col. 24 ln. 19), which is the polyadenylation signal of the nopaline synthase (nos) gene (col. 22 ln. 3-4).
Regarding claim 31, Liang teaches that the recombinant DNA molecule can be inserted into the genome of the plant (col. 3 ln. 66- col. 4 ln. 15) and teaches that the expression of the DNA “can be placed under the control of the naturally occurring homologous promoter [(i.e. “operably linked to an endogenous promoter located in the heterologous nuclear or plastid genome”)], or a variety of heterologous promoters” (col. 20 ln. 30-33).
Regarding claims 33-35, “The present invention also provides microorganisms and plants transformed with DNA nucleotide sequences encoding the antifungal polypeptides according to the present invention.” (col. 2 ln. 15-18). The transformed plants comprise plant parts and cells comprising the polynucleotide. Also, the examples transformed Rs-AFP2 into potato plants (col. 24 ln. 24-36).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection 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 Longi, 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.
Claims 29-31 and 33-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, and 8-19 of U.S. Patent No. US 5773696 A. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 29-30, ‘696 teaches “ A purified nucleic acid segment encoding an antifungal protein having the sequence of SEQ ID NO:2” (claim 1) and “A recombinant, double-stranded DNA molecule, comprising the following sequences operatively linked in the 5' to 3' direction: a) a promoter that functions in plant cells to cause transcription of an adjacent coding sequence; b) a coding sequence that encodes a protein comprising an antifungal protein having the sequence of SEQ ID NO:2; and c) a 3' non-translated sequence that functions in plant cells to cause transcriptional termination and the addition of polyadenylate nucleotides to the 3' end of the transcribed RNA sequence.” (claim 5). SEQ ID NO: 2 comprises the wild-type gamma-core consensus peptides GXCX5C or GXCX9C, depending on which Cys is chosen as the final C. The consensus sequence is highlighted in the sequence below.
PNG
media_image2.png
146
516
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 31, claims 9 and 13 teach that the DNA molecule is inserted into the genome. Claims 8 and 11 state that the promoter can be the ssRUBISCO gene, which is defined in the specification as being derived from peas (col. 6 ln. 26-27), and claim 18 states the plant can be a pea plant (i.e. the promoter is an endogenous promoter).
Regarding claims 33-35, claims 9-12 teach inserting the recombinant nucleic acid into a plant to obtain a genetically transformed plant, and claims 13-19 are drawn to the recombinant plant itself, or recombinant seeds or progeny from the plant. The transformed plants comprise plant parts and cells comprising the polynucleotide.
Claims 29-31 and 33-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, and 8-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 6215048 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 29-30, ‘048 claim 5 teaches “A recombinant, double-stranded DNA molecule, comprising operatively linked in the 5' to 3' direction: a) a promoter that functions in plant cells to cause the production of an RNA sequence; b) a structural coding sequence that encodes a polypeptide comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:2; and c) a 3' non-translated region that functions in plant cells to cause transcriptional termination and the addition of polyadenylate nucleotides to the 3' end of said RNA sequence”. SEQ ID NO: 2 comprises the wild-type gamma-core consensus peptides GXCX5C or GXCX9C, depending on which Cys is chosen as the final C. This patent is in the same family as US 5773696 A, so SEQ ID NO: 2 comprises the consensus sequence as shown above.
Regarding claim 31, claims 9 and 14 teach that the DNA molecule is inserted into the genome. Claims 8 and 11 state that the promoter can be the ssRUBISCO gene, which is defined in the specification as being derived from peas (col. 6 ln. 26-27), and claim 18 states the plant can be a pea plant (i.e. the promoter is an endogenous promoter).
Regarding claims 33-35, claims 9-12 teach inserting the recombinant nucleic acid into a plant to obtain a genetically transformed plant, and claims 13-20 are drawn to the recombinant plant itself, or recombinant seeds or progeny from the plant. The transformed plants comprise plant parts and cells comprising the polynucleotide.
Claims 29-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-4 of U.S. Patent No. US 6653280 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 29-30, ‘280 claim 1 teaches an isolated polypeptide comprising the amino acid sequence shown in SEQ ID NO:2 and claim 3 teaches the isolated polypeptide of claim 1 is encoded by the nucleotide sequence as set forth in SEQ ID NO:12. ‘280 claim 4 teaches the peptide is produced from a recombinant double stranded DNA molecule, said DNA molecule comprising operatively linked in the 5' to 3' direction: a) a promoter that functions in plant cells to cause the production of an RNA sequence; b) a structural coding sequence that encodes said polypeptide; and c) a 3' non-translated region that functions in plant cells to cause transcriptional termination and the addition of polyadenylate nucleotides to the 3' end of said RNA sequence. SEQ ID NO: 2 comprises the wild-type gamma-core consensus peptides GXCX5C or GXCX9C, depending on which Cys is chosen as the final C. This patent is in the same family as US 5773696 A, so SEQ ID NO: 2 comprises the consensus sequence as shown above.
Claims 29-31 and 33-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-4 of U.S. Patent No. US 6653280 B2 in view of Liang et al. (US-5773696-A, published 1998, filed 1996; hereafter Liang; PTO-892).
The teachings of the claims of ‘280 were laid out above. The claims of ‘280 do not teach that the polynucleotide encoding the peptide is inserted into a heterologous nuclear or plastid genome of a cell and operably linked to an endogenous promoter located in the heterologous nuclear or plastid genome, as in claim 31, and do not teach a cell, plant, or plant part comprising the recombinant polynucleotide as in claims 33-35.
Regarding claim 29-30, Liang teaches “ A purified nucleic acid segment encoding an antifungal protein having the sequence of SEQ ID NO:2” (claim 1) and “A recombinant, double-stranded DNA molecule, comprising the following sequences operatively linked in the 5' to 3' direction: a) a promoter that functions in plant cells to cause transcription of an adjacent coding sequence; b) a coding sequence that encodes a protein comprising an antifungal protein having the sequence of SEQ ID NO:2; and c) a 3' non-translated sequence that functions in plant cells to cause transcriptional termination and the addition of polyadenylate nucleotides to the 3' end of the transcribed RNA sequence.” (claim 5). SEQ ID NO: 2 comprises the wild-type gamma-core consensus peptides GXCX5C or GXCX9C, depending on which Cys is chosen as the final Cys. SEQ ID NO: 2 is the same as ‘280 SEQ ID NO: 2 because the references are in the same patent family.
Regarding claim 31, Liang teaches that the recombinant DNA molecule can be inserted into the genome of the plant (col. 3 ln. 66- col. 4 ln. 15) and teaches that the expression of the DNA “can be placed under the control of the naturally occurring homologous promoter [(i.e. “operably linked to an endogenous promoter located in the heterologous nuclear or plastid genome”)], or a variety of heterologous promoters” (col. 20 ln. 30-33).
Regarding claims 33-35, “The present invention also provides microorganisms and plants transformed with DNA nucleotide sequences encoding the antifungal polypeptides according to the present invention.” (col. 2 ln. 15-18). The transformed plants comprise plant parts and cells comprising the polynucleotide. Also, the examples transformed Rs-AFP2 into potato plants (col. 24 ln. 24-36).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would consider it prima facie obvious to modify the recombinant polynucleotide of the claims of ‘280 by choosing a naturally occurring homologous promoter and inserting the nucleotide into a plant genome, thereby arriving at the claimed invention, because KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007), discloses that the use of known techniques to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way is obvious because enhancing a particular class of devices, methods, or products has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. In the instant case, the claims of ‘280 teach a “base” method for producing a polypeptide comprising SEQ ID NO: 2 comprising generically producing it with a recombinant DNA molecule, and Liang teaches a comparable method for producing a polypeptide comprising SEQ ID NO: 2 and teaches that the method can use insertion of the DNA into a plant genome, use of endogenous promoters, and producing plants comprising the DNA. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known technique of Liang to the base method taught by the claims of ‘280 to yield predictable results (i.e. the same advantages) because Liang teaches that this type of recombinant expression can be used to produce this protein and there is no evidence of record that the cell or promoter chosen is critical or leads to any unexpected results. Therefore, the claimed invention is prima facie obvious in view of the teachings of the prior art, absent any convincing evidence to the contrary.
Claims 29-31 and 33-35 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 6121436 A in view of Liang et al. (US-5773696-A, published 1998, filed 1996; hereafter Liang; PTO-892).
Regarding claim 29, ‘436 claim 1 teaches an isolated or synthetic nucleic acid segment that encodes an alfalfa antifungal polypeptide comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:2 or SEQ ID NO:14. SEQ ID NO: 2 comprises the wild-type gamma-core consensus peptide GXCX3C or GXCX7C, depending on which Cys is chosen as the final C. The consensus sequence is highlighted in the sequence below. SEQ ID NO: 14 also comprises the wild-type gamma-core consensus peptide, sequence not shown for reasons of space.
PNG
media_image4.png
116
366
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The claims of ‘436 do not teach that the recombinant polynucleotide comprise a promoter which is heterologous to the polynucleotide encoding the peptide, as in claim 29, any of the other components of claim 30, or the insertion into the genome and endogenous promoter as in claim 31. Also, the claims of ‘436 do not teach a cell, plant, or plant part comprising the polynucleotide, as in claims 33-35.
Regarding claim 29, Liang teaches “ A purified nucleic acid segment encoding an antifungal protein having the sequence of SEQ ID NO:2” (claim 1) and “A recombinant, double-stranded DNA molecule, comprising the following sequences operatively linked in the 5' to 3' direction: a) a promoter that functions in plant cells to cause transcription of an adjacent coding sequence; b) a coding sequence that encodes a protein comprising an antifungal protein having the sequence of SEQ ID NO:2; and c) a 3' non-translated sequence that functions in plant cells to cause transcriptional termination and the addition of polyadenylate nucleotides to the 3' end of the transcribed RNA sequence.” (claim 5). SEQ ID NO: 2 comprises the wild-type gamma-core consensus peptides GXCX5C or GXCX9C, depending on which Cys is chosen as the final C. The consensus sequence is highlighted in the sequence shown in the 102 rejection above.
Liang also teaches an amino acid sequence for Rs-AFP2 (Figure 2) and a nucleic acid sequence that is SEQ ID NO: 17 and teaches the DNA is cloned into E. coli cassette vectors and plant transformation vectors to produce the plasmid pMON22635 (Rs-AFP2) (FIG. 10), and also transformed into potato plants (col. 24 ln. 24-36). The plasmid used has a the gene operably linked to a FMV promoter (col. 24 ln. 16-19). SEQ ID NO: 17/Rs-AFP2 encodes a peptide comprising instant SEQ ID NO: 560 (see Alignment 2 in the 102 rejection above).
Regarding claim 30, Liang teaches “c) a 3' non-translated sequence that functions in plant cells to cause transcriptional termination and the addition of polyadenylate nucleotides to the 3' end of the transcribed RNA sequence.” (claim 5), and the plasmid used in the examples uses a nos 3’ end (col. 24 ln. 19), which is the polyadenylation signal of the nopaline synthase (nos) gene (col. 22 ln. 3-4).
Regarding claim 31, Liang teaches that the recombinant DNA molecule can be inserted into the genome of the plant (col. 3 ln. 66- col. 4 ln. 15) and teaches that the expression of the DNA “can be placed under the control of the naturally occurring homologous promoter [(i.e. “operably linked to an endogenous promoter located in the heterologous nuclear or plastid genome”)], or a variety of heterologous promoters” (col. 20 ln. 30-33).
Regarding claims 33-35, “The present invention also provides microorganisms and plants transformed with DNA nucleotide sequences encoding the antifungal polypeptides according to the present invention.” (col. 2 ln. 15-18). The transformed plants comprise plant parts and cells comprising the polynucleotide. Also, the examples transformed Rs-AFP2 into potato plants (col. 24 ln. 24-36). In plants, these proteins have the function of inhibiting fungal growth (Abstract).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would consider it prima facie obvious to modify the recombinant polynucleotide of the claims of ‘436 by choosing nucleic acid elements such as a promoter, polyadenylation signal, and transcription termination signal, and by inserting the nucleotide into a plant cell genome as taught by Liang, thereby arriving at the claimed invention, because the nucleic acids and incorporation of into a cell genome allows the encoded protein to be expressed and the incorporation into a plant specially allows the defensin protein to be useful inhibiting fungal growth. See MPEP 2144(II): “The strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art … that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination.”
Additionally, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007), discloses that the use of known techniques to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way is obvious because enhancing a particular class of devices, methods, or products has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. In the instant case, the claims of ‘436 teach a “base” nucleic acid molecule product encoding the defensin proteins SEQ ID NOs: 2 or 14, and Liang teaches a comparable nucleic acid molecule product encoding defensin proteins and methods of using the nucleic acid molecules to make useful cells, plants, and plant parts. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known technique of Liang to the base product taught by the claims of ‘436 to yield predictable results (i.e. the same advantages) because Liang teaches that this type of recombinant expression can be used to produce the protein and there is no evidence of record that the cell, promoter, or termination sequence chosen is critical or leads to any unexpected results. Therefore, the claimed invention is prima facie obvious in view of the teachings of the prior art, absent any convincing evidence to the contrary.
Claims 29-31 and 33-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. US 6329504 B1 in view of Liang et al. (US-5773696-A, published 1998, filed 1996; hereafter Liang; PTO-892).
Regarding claim 29, ‘504 claim 1 teaches isolated antifungal polypeptides that are encoded by a DNA molecule (claim 1), where the protein sequence of the polypeptide is SEQ ID NOs: 2 or 14 (claim 2). This patent is in the same family as US 6121436 A, so SEQ ID NOs: 2 and 14 comprise the consensus sequence as shown above.
As in ‘436 above, the claims of ‘504 do not teach that the recombinant polynucleotide comprise a promoter which is heterologous to the polynucleotide encoding the peptide, as in claim 29, any of the other components of claim 30, or the insertion into the genome and endogenous promoter as in claim 31. Also, the claims of ‘504 do not teach a cell, plant, or plant part comprising the polynucleotide, as in claims 33-35. One of ordinary skill in the art would consider it obvious to make these modifications for the same reasons as in ‘436 above, to add the additional nucleic acid components and incorporate the DNA into a cell so that the polypeptide of the ’504 claims can be produced, and because using known techniques to improve similar products is obvious.
Claims 29 and 33-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, and 9-11 of U.S. Patent No. US 6916970 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 29 and 33, ‘970 claim 1 teaches “A recombinant host cell comprising a DNA segment encoding one or more antifungal polypeptides, wherein said polypeptide is selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO:2 and SEQ ID NO:14.” ‘970 claim 4 teaches that the DNA segment is positioned under the control of a promoter that functions in a host cell.
Regarding claims 34-35, ‘970 claims 2-3 teach that the cell can be a plant cell. ‘970 claims 5-6 and 9-11 teach a transgenic plant comprising the DNA, and ‘970 claim 7 teaches seeds from the plant that comprise the DNA.
Claims 29-31 and 33-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. US 6916970 B2 in view of Liang et al. (US-5773696-A, published 1998, filed 1996; hereafter Liang; PTO-892).
The teachings of the claims of ‘970 were laid out above. Also, ‘970 claims 4 and 8 both teach expressing the antifungal polypeptide from the DNA. As in ‘436 above, the claims of ‘970 do not teach that the recombinant polynucleotide comprises a promoter which is heterologous to the polynucleotide encoding the peptide, as in claim 29, any of the other components of claim 30, or the insertion into the genome and endogenous promoter as in claim 31. One of ordinary skill in the art would consider it obvious to make these modifications for the same reasons as in ‘436 above, to add the additional nucleic acid components so that the encoded polypeptide of the ’970 claims can be produced, and because using known techniques to improve similar products is obvious.
Claims 29-30 and 33-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 19, and 24 of U.S. Patent No. US 7825297 B2 as evidenced by Broekaert et al. (WO-9305153-A1, published 1993, filed 1992; hereafter Broekaert; PTO-892). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 29-30, 33-35, ‘297 claim 1 teaches “A transgenic plant comprising a DNA construct that comprises a heterologous promoter, a sequence that encodes a MtDef4 polypeptide with at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 112, and a polyadenylation sequence, wherein said promoter, said sequence encoding a MtDef4 polypeptide and said polyadenylation sequence are operably linked and wherein said promoter and said polyadenylation sequence of said DNA construct provide for expression of operably linked sequences when introduced into a transgenic plant, and wherein said plant expresses a plant pathogenic fungus inhibitory amount of said MtDef4 polypeptide of at least 1.0 PPM.” ‘297 claim 19 also teaches the same plant and DNA. The transgenic plants comprise plant parts and cells comprising the polynucleotide. Also, ‘297 claim 7 teaches a signal peptide and a ER targeting peptide. SEQ ID NO: 112 comprises a GXCX5C motif and a second motif that is either GXCX6, 8, or 12C depending on which C is chosen as the final C (highlighted below).
PNG
media_image5.png
78
708
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Also, ‘297 claim 24 teaches the transgenic plant can co-express Rs-AFP2. Broekaert provides evidence that Rs-AFP2 comprises the sequence of instant SEQ ID NO: 560 and comprises a wild-type gamma-core consensus peptide (see Alignment 1 in 102 rejection above).
Claims 29-31 and 33-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 19, and 24 of U.S. Patent No. US 7825297 B2 as evidenced by Broekaert et al. (WO-9305153-A1, published 1993, filed 1992; hereafter Broekaert; PTO-892) in view of Liang et al. (US-5773696-A, published 1998, filed 1996; hereafter Liang; PTO-892).
The teachings of the claims of ‘297 were laid out above. Like in ‘280 above, the claims of ‘297 do not teach that the polynucleotide is operably linked to an endogenous promoter located in the heterologous nuclear or plastid genome, as in claim 31. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would consider it prima facie obvious to modify the recombinant polynucleotide of the claims of ‘297 by choosing a naturally occurring homologous promoter and inserting the nucleotide into a plant genome for the same reasons as in ‘280 above.
Claims 29-30 and 33-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-6, 9, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. US 8163979 B2 as evidenced by Broekaert et al. (WO-9305153-A1, published 1993, filed 1992; hereafter Broekaert; PTO-892). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 29-30, ‘979 claim 1 teaches “A DNA construct comprising a heterologous promoter, a sequence that encodes a MtDef4 polypeptide with at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 112, and a polyadenylation sequence, wherein said promoter, said sequence encoding a MtDef4 polypeptide and said polyadenylation sequence are operably linked.” SEQ ID NO: 112 comprises a GXCX5C motif and a second motif that is either GXCX6, 8, or 12C depending on which C is chosen as the final C (shown for ‘297 above, which is part of the same patent family). Also, ‘979 claim 5 teaches a signal peptide and an ER localization peptide can also be present. Also, ‘979 claim 9 teaches also teaches the plant can co-express Rs-AFP2. Broekaert provides evidence that Rs-AFP has the sequence of instant SEQ ID NO: 560 and comprise a wild-type gamma-core consensus peptide (see Alignment 1 in 102 rejection above).
Regarding claims 33-35, ‘979 claims 6 teaches a transgenic plant expressing the DNA construct, and transgenic plants comprise plant parts and cells comprising the polynucleotide. Also, ‘979 claim 19 teaches transgenic seeds comprising the DNA.
Claims 29-31 and 33-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-6, 9, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. US 8163979 B2 as evidenced by Broekaert et al. (WO-9305153-A1, published 1993, filed 1992; hereafter Broekaert; PTO-892) in view of Liang et al. (US-5773696-A, published 1998, filed 1996; hereafter Liang; PTO-892).
The teachings of the claims of ‘979 were laid out above. Like in ‘280 above, the claims of ‘979 do not teach that the polynucleotide is operably linked to an endogenous promoter located in the heterologous nuclear or plastid genome, as in claim 31. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would consider it prima facie obvious to modify the recombinant polynucleotide of the claims of ‘979 by choosing a naturally occurring homologous promoter and inserting the nucleotide into a plant genome for the same reasons as in ‘280 above.
Claims 29-30 and 33-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, and 10-11 of U.S. Patent No. US 8558057 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 29-30, ‘057 claim 1 teaches “an isolated DNA construct comprising a heterologous promoter, a sequence that encodes a MtDef4 polypeptide comprising the amino acid sequence shown in SEQ ID NO:80, and a polyadenylation sequence, wherein said promoter, said sequence encoding a MtDef4 polypeptide and said polyadenylation sequence are operably linked.” ‘057 claim 5 teaches “said promoter and said polyadenylation sequence provide for expression of operably linked sequences when introduced into a transgenic plant.” SEQ ID NO: 80 comprises a wild-type gamma-core consensus peptides in the form GXCX9C.
PNG
media_image6.png
114
784
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 33-35, ‘057 claims 10-11 teaches transgenic plants, plant cells, and plant tissues comprising the DNA construct. The transgenic plants comprise plant parts and cells comprising the polynucleotide.
Claims 29-31 and 33-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, and 10-11 of U.S. Patent No. US 8558057 B2 in view of Liang et al. (US-5773696-A, published 1998, filed 1996; hereafter Liang; PTO-892).
The teachings of the claims of ‘057 were laid out above. Like in ‘280 above, the claims of ‘057 do not teach that the polynucleotide is operably linked to an endogenous promoter located in the heterologous nuclear or plastid genome, as in claim 31. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would consider it prima facie obvious to modify the recombinant polynucleotide of the claims of ‘057 by choosing a naturally occurring homologous promoter and inserting the nucleotide into a plant genome for the same reasons as in ‘280 above.
Claims 29-30 and 33-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4, and 8-11 of U.S. Patent No. US 10253328 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 29, ‘328 claim 1 teaches “a polynucleotide comprising a nucleic acid fragment that encodes an antifungal protein comprising an amino acid sequence … wherein the amino acid residues corresponding to the defensin gamma core amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:51 and to the defensin gamma-core amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:52 within residues 30 through 136 of SEQ ID NO:4 are unmodified,… wherein the nucleic acid fragment is inserted into a heterologous genome, is operably linked to a heterologous nucleic acid fragment, or is both inserted into the heterologous genome and operably linked to the heterologous nucleic acid fragment.” ‘328 claim 4 teaches that the nucleic acid fragment can further comprise an operably linked heterologous promoter. SEQ 51-52 are both wild-type gamma-core consensus peptides in the form GXCX8C.
PNG
media_image7.png
72
210
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
74
208
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 30, ‘328 claim 3 teaches the “nucleic acid fragment further comprises a heterologous and operably linked polynucleotide encoding a vacuolar or endoplasmic reticulum targeting amino acid sequence at its C-terminus.”
Regarding claim 33-35, ‘328 claims 8-10 teaches transgenic plants comprising the polynucleotide of claim 1. The transgenic plants comprise plant parts and cells comprising the polynucleotide. Also, ‘328 claim 11 teaches a plant seed comprising the polynucleotide.
Claims 29-31 and 33-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4, and 8-11 of U.S. Patent No. US 10253328 B2 in view of Liang et al. (US-5773696-A, published 1998, filed 1996; hereafter Liang; PTO-892).
The teachings of the claims of ‘328 were laid out above. Regarding claim 31, ‘328 claim 1 teaches the nucleic acid is inserted into the heterologous genome. Like in ‘280 above, the claims of ‘328 do not teach that the polynucleotide is operably linked to an endogenous promoter, as in claim 31. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would consider it prima facie obvious to modify the recombinant polynucleotide of the claims of ‘328 by choosing a naturally occurring homologous promoter for the same reasons as in ‘280 above.
Claims 29 and 33-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7-8 of U.S. Patent No. US 12404519 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 29, ‘519 claim 1 teaches “A polynucleotide comprising a nucleic acid fragment that encodes an antifungal protein comprising an amino acid sequence … [wherein] the amino acid sequences of SEQ ID NO:51 or SEQ ID NO:52 and are unmodified… and wherein the nucleic acid fragment is operably linked to a heterologous promoter and to a translational initiation codon that is in frame with the nucleic acid fragment that encodes the antifungal protein.” SEQ 51-52 are both wild-type gamma-core consensus peptides in the form GXCX8C (shown above for ‘328, which is in the same patent family).
Regarding claim 33-35, ‘519 claims 7-8 teach plants comprising the polynucleotide of claim 1. The transgenic plants comprise plant parts and cells comprising the polynucleotide.
Claims 29-31 and 33-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7-8 of U.S. Patent No. US 12404519 B2 in view of Liang et al. (US-5773696-A, published 1998, filed 1996; hereafter Liang; PTO-892).
The teachings of the claims of ‘519 were laid out above. Like in ‘436 above, the claims of ‘519 do not teach any of the other components of claim 30, or the insertion into the genome and endogenous promoter as in claim 31. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would consider it prima facie obvious to modify the recombinant polynucleotide of the claims of ‘519 by choosing nucleic acid elements such as a promoter, polyadenylation signal, and transcription termination signal, and by inserting the nucleotide into a plant cell genome for the same reasons as in ‘436 above.
Claims 29-32 and 33-35 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-25 of copending Application No. 19/287,263 (reference application) in view of Liang et al. (US-5773696-A, published 1998, filed 1996; hereafter Liang; PTO-892). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 29 and 33-35, claim 11 (and its dependent claims) and claim 14 (and its dependent claims) each teach an “antifungal protein comprising an amino acid sequence … [wherein] the amino acid sequences of SEQ ID NO:51 or SEQ ID NO:52 and are unmodified…” and claim 15 teaches the protein is provided to said susceptible plant locus by expressing DNA encoding said antifungal protein within cells of said susceptible plant. SEQ 51-52 are both wild-type gamma-core consensus peptides in the form GXCX8C (shown above for ‘328, which is in the same patent family). The transgenic plants comprise plant parts and cells comprising the polynucleotide.
Like in ‘436 above, the claims of ‘263 do not teach that the recombinant polynucleotide comprise a promoter which is heterologous to the polynucleotide encoding the peptide, as in claim 29, any of the other components of claim 30, or the insertion into the genome and endogenous promoter as in claim 31. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would consider it prima facie obvious to modify the recombinant polynucleotide of the claims of ‘263 by choosing nucleic acid elements such as a promoter, polyadenylation signal, and transcription termination signal, and by inserting the nucleotide into a plant cell genome for the same reasons as in ‘436 above.
Claims 29-31, 33, and 35 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 14-16, and 36-40 of copending Application No. 19/297,518 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 29, ‘518 claim 1 (and dependent claims) teach “a recombinant polynucleotide comprising a polynucleotide encoding a first antimicrobial peptide comprising an amino acid sequence having at least 95% sequence identity across the entire length of SEQ ID NO: 1… and wherein the polynucleotide encoding the first antimicrobial peptide is operably linked to a polynucleotide comprising a promoter which is heterologous to the polynucleotide encoding the first antimicrobial peptide”. SEQ ID NO: 1 comprises a wild-type gamma-core consensus peptides in the form GXCX6C.
PNG
media_image9.png
66
718
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 30, ‘518 claim 6 teaches the recombinant polynucleotide further comprises a polynucleotide encoding:(i) a transit peptide, a vacuolar targeting peptide, and/or an endoplasmic reticulum targeting peptide;(ii) a plastid targeting peptide; and/or (iii) a polyadenylation or transcriptional termination signal, wherein the polynucleotides of (i), (ii), and/or (iii) are operably linked to the polynucleotide encoding the first antimicrobial peptide.
Regarding claim 31, ‘518 claim 8 teaches the polynucleotide encoding the first antimicrobial peptide is inserted into a heterologous nuclear or plastid genome of a cell and operably linked to an endogenous promoter located in the heterologous nuclear or plastid genome.
Regarding claim 33, ‘518 claim 36 (and dependent claims, including method claims 38-40) teach a cell comprising the recombinant polynucleotide of claim 1.
Regarding claim 35, ‘518 claim 37 teaches the cell can be a plant cell (i.e. a plant part).
Claims 29-31 and 33-35 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 14-16, and 36-40 of copending Application No. 19/297,518 (reference application) in view of Liang et al. (US-5773696-A, published 1998, filed 1996; hereafter Liang; PTO-892).
The teachings of the claims of ‘518 were laid out above. Like in ‘280 above, the claims of ‘518 do not teach a plant comprising the recombinant polynucleotide, as in claim 34. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would consider it prima facie obvious to generate a plant comprising the recombinant polynucleotide of the claims of ‘518 for the same reasons as in ‘280 above.
Claims 29-31 and 33-35 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-127 of copending Application No. 19/464,397 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 29, ‘397 claim 1 (and its dependent claims) teaches “A recombinant polynucleotide comprising a first polynucleotide encoding a first antimicrobial peptide, wherein the first antimicrobial peptide comprises: (i) the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 or a variant thereof…” ‘397 claim 10 teaches “wherein the first polynucleotide is operably linked to a second polynucleotide comprising a promoter which is heterologous to the first polynucleotide.” SEQ ID NO: 1 comprises a wild-type gamma-core consensus peptides in the form GXCX9C. ‘397 claims 4 (and dependent claims), 29 (and dependent claims), 34 (and dependent claims), 35 (and dependent claims), 65 (and dependent claims), and 86 (and dependent claims) also teaches a polynucleotide comprising a wild-type gamma-core consensus peptide such as SEQ ID NO: 1.
PNG
media_image10.png
66
542
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 30, ‘397 claim 19 teaches “the recombinant polynucleotide further comprises a polynucleotide encoding (i) a transit peptide, a vacuolar targeting peptide, and/or an endoplasmic reticulum targeting peptide; (ii) a plastid targeting peptide; and/or (iii) a polyadenylation or transcriptional termination signal, wherein the polynucleotides of (i), (ii), and/or (iii) are operably linked to the first polynucleotide encoding the first or first and second antimicrobial peptide(s).”
Regarding claim 31, ‘397 claim 21 teaches “the first polynucleotide encoding the first or first and second antimicrobial peptide(s) is inserted into a heterologous nuclear or plastid genome of a cell and operably linked to an endogenous promoter located in the heterologous nuclear or plastid genome.” Also, ‘429 claim 30 (and dependent claims) teaches a genome comprising the polynucleotide.
Regarding claim 33, ‘397 claim 52 (and dependent claims) teach a cell comprising the recombinant polynucleotide.
Regarding claim 32, ‘397 claim 55 (and dependent claims) teach a plant comprising the recombinant polynucleotide.
Regarding claim 33, ‘397 claim 64 (and dependent claims) teach a plant part comprising the recombinant polynucleotide.
Claims 29 and 33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 46-89 of copending Application No. 19/477,212 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 29 and 33, ‘212 claim 46 (and dependent claims) teaches a Defensin peptide folding variant 1 (DEFPFV1),wherein said Defensin is a cationic Defensin peptide comprising a Defensin gamma core peptide sequence GXC5X3-9C6 (SEQ ID NO: 455) or variant gamma core peptide sequence GXC5X3-10C6 (SEQ ID NO: 456) … and at least two or three additional cysteine residues selected from the group consisting of cysteine residues corresponding to C1, C2, C3, C4, C7, and Cs of a reference Defensin peptide. So it teaches the wild-type gamma-core consensus peptide GXCX3-10C. ‘212 claims 64-65 teach microorganisms (i.e. a cell) expressing a recombinant polynucleotide comprising a transcriptional promoter operably linked to a polynucleotide encoding a signal peptide that is in frame with and upstream of a polynucleotide encoding DEFPFV1.
Claims 29-31 and 33-35 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 46-89 of copending Application No. 19/477,212 (reference application) in view of Liang et al. (US-5773696-A, published 1998, filed 1996; hereafter Liang; PTO-892).
The teachings of the claims of ‘212 were laid out above. Like ‘426 above, the claims of ‘212 do not teach that the recombinant polynucleotide comprise any of the other components of claim 30, or the insertion into the genome and endogenous promoter as in claim 31. Also, the claims of ‘212 do not teach a plant, or plant part comprising the polynucleotide, as in claims 34-35. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would consider it prima facie obvious to modify the recombinant polynucleotide of the claims of ‘519 by choosing nucleic acid elements such as a promoter, polyadenylation signal, and transcription termination signal, and by inserting the nucleotide into a plant cell genome for the same reasons as in ‘436 above.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMELIA NICOLE DICKENS whose telephone number is (571)272-0381. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 8:30-4:30, and every other F 8:30-4:30 (EDT/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, Dan Kolker can be reached at (571) 272-3181. 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.
/AMELIA NICOLE DICKENS/Examiner, Art Unit 1645
/DANIEL E KOLKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1645