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 .
Claim Status
1. Claims 1-4, 6, and 8 are pending and under examination to the extent of the elected species.
Claims 5 and 9-22 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/23/2025. The required was deemed proper and made FINAL in the Office Action dated 11/19/2025.
Claim 7 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments – Objections to the Specification
2. Applicant’s remarks dated 03/17/2026 have overcome the objection of record.
Claim 7 is cancelled; thus, any objections and rejections to the claim have been rendered moot.
Response to Arguments – Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
3. Applicant’s remarks and amendments dated 03/17/2026 have overcome the rejections of record. However, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the reasons outlined below.
Claim 7 is cancelled; thus, any objections and rejections to the claim have been rendered moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
5. Claims 1-4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The metes and bounds of claim 1 are indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation of “PDRP” is limited to a specific protein or encompasses a genus of proteins. It is unclear if the recitation of “a PPDK regulatory protein” encompasses any and all such proteins that regulate PPDK or is limited to the recitation of “PDRP” in parentheses. It is unclear if the recitation in parentheses is a limiting recitation or exemplary embodiment. The presence of multiple reasonable interpretations renders the claim indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the recitation of “a PPDK regulatory protein” is herein interpreted to encompasses any and all such proteins that regulate PPDK. Applicant is required to clarify the intended recitation.
Dependent claims are included. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments – Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. Applicant’s remarks and amendments dated 03/17/2026 have been carefully considered but are not persuasive and do not overcome the rejections of record.
Claim 7 is cancelled; thus, any objections and rejections to the claim have been rendered moot.
In traversing the rejection, Applicant argues primarily that: A) the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed combination; B) the examiner’s motivation to combine rationale is unsupported; and C) the claims address a distinct problem not addressed by the prior art.
Regarding A), Applicant’s argument that Brutnell does not teach or exemplify increasing PDRP and/or Rubisco activity or manipulation of the regulatory networks thereof is not persuasive because obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. See MPEP 2143.01. Brutnell is directed towards compositions and methods for increasing plant growth using rice promoters (Title; Abstract) and explicitly suggests expressing the Rubisco large and small subunits, Rubisco activase, PPDK, and the regulators of said proteins under the control of said promoters[0080]. Therefore, Brutnell provides both a suggestion and motivation for one of ordinary skill in in the art to heterologously express PPDK and/or Rca in a host cell. Though Brutnell does not specifically describe PDRP, PDRP’s role in regulating the activation and inactivation of PPDK via reversible phosphorylation is well-known in the art (see teachings of Wang, Furbank, and Burnell below) and Brutnell explicitly includes “kinases and other proteins that modify photosynthetic proteins post-translationally” in the suggestion of photosynthesis-related proteins and the regulators thereof that could be expressed under the control of promoters for increasing plant growth[0080]. Furthermore, the recitation of “a PPDK regulatory protein” is indefinite for the reasons described above in the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and is herein interpreted to encompasses any and all proteins that regulate PPDK. Accordingly, Brutnell’s suggestion to heterologously express PPDK, Rca, Rubisco, and/or their regulatory proteins to promote provides sufficient motivation to do so. When combined with the teachings of Wang, Furbank, and Burnell regarding the function of PDRP in regulating the activity of PPDK, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been sufficiently motivated to alter the expression of PDRP. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to try the recited combination because Burnell demonstrated that at the relevant time, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem[0002]; Burnell suggested a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem[0080]; and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success given how well-characterized PPDK, PDRP, Rubisco, and Rca are in the art. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding B), Applicant’s argument that the cited art does not provided a reasoned motivation to combine PDRP and Rca enhancements in a single C4 plant as recited in the pending claims is not persuasive. Though Brutnell does not explicitly disclose a protein annotated/named as “PDRP”, Brutnell suggests heterologously expressing PPDK and/or regulators of PPDK and other photosynthetic proteins, wherein such regulators include “kinases and other proteins that modify photosynthetic proteins post-translationally”. Therefore, Brutnell suggests heterologously expressing a PPDK regulatory protein to promote plant growth. Regardless of whether Burnell, Furbank, or Wang alone teaches, suggests, or provides motivation to enhance the activity of PDRP and/or Rca, paragraph [0080] of Brutnell provides this suggestion and motivation to do so. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding C), the amended limitation wherein “growth conditions comprise field conditions or fluctuating light” is insufficient to render the claims nonobvious in view of the teachings of the cited art. It is obvious to grow a crop plant under field conditions. The recitation of “fluctuating light” is broad, does not appear to be an art-recognized term or class, and Applicant does not provide a definition for “fluctuating light”. Therefore, “fluctuating light” is interpreted to encompass any light that does not constitutively illuminate the plant. Accordingly, the cited art renders this amended limitation obvious. Furthermore, Furbank teaches growing plants “in soil under natural illumination” (p. 478, right column, final paragraph). One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand and interpret “natural illumination” to fluctuate throughout the day as field conditions vary.
For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
8. Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brutnell et al. (US-2017/0218387-A1, published 02/01/2018 (previously cited)), in view of Wang et al. (Plant Physiology. 2008; 148(1):557-567 (previously cited)), further in view of Furbank et al. (Australian Journal of Plant Physiology. 1997; 24:477–485 (previously cited)), and further in view of Burnell et al. (Biochemical Biophysical Research Communications. 2006; 345:675-680 (previously cited)).
Regarding claim 1, Brutnell teaches compositions and methods for increasing plant growth using rice promoters (Title; Abstract); overexpressing pyruvate phosphate dikinase (PPDK), Rubisco activase (Rca), and their regulatory proteins involved in C4 photosynthesis to increase growth and yield in C4 plant crops[0050], [0056], [0080], [0084]; an Rca gene sequence encoding an Rca protein having at least 88% sequence identity to Applicant’s SEQ ID NO:4 (see Sequence Listing, SEQ ID NO:33); and Rubisco small and large subunit gene sequences (see Sequence Listing, SEQ ID NOs:29 and 31).
Though Brutnell does not specifically describe PDRP, PDRP’s role in regulating the activation and inactivation of PPDK via reversible phosphorylation is well-known in the art (see teachings of Wang, Furbank, and Burnell below) and Brutnell explicitly includes “kinases and other proteins that modify photosynthetic proteins post-translationally” in the suggestion of photosynthesis-related proteins and the regulators thereof that could be expressed under the control of promoters for increasing plant growth[0080]. Furthermore, the recitation of “a PPDK regulatory protein” is indefinite for the reasons described above in the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and is herein interpreted to encompasses any and all proteins that regulate PPDK. Therefore, Brutnell’s recitation of “regulators of these and other photosynthetic proteins and of genes encoding these and other photosynthetic proteins”[0080] encompasses “a PPDK regulatory protein”. Furthermore, Brutnell suggests to heterologously and/or overexpress PDRP and/or Rca to optimize photosynthetic metabolism for increased plant growth and elevated yield in crop plants[0050] (Title; Abstract).
Accordingly, Brutnell suggests and provides motivation to produce a genetically altered plant or plant part comprising one or more first genetic alterations that increase activity of a PPDK regulatory protein (PDRP) as compared to a wild type plant or plant part grown under the same conditions and one or more second genetic alterations that increase activity of a Rubisco activase (Rca) protein plant part grown under the same conditions, wherein the genetically altered plant is a C4 plant and the genetically altered plant or plant part has increased photosynthetic efficiency and/or yield.
Wang teaches that cold-induced decreases in leaf photosynthetic activity are associated with decreases in PPDK and Rubisco activity (p. 558, left column, second full paragraph); that PPDK and Rubisco coordinate in the control of light-saturated C4 photosynthesis (p. 558, left column, second full paragraph); that PPDK is a key limiting factor for photosynthesis at low temperatures (p. 558, right column, second full paragraph; p. 564, right column, final paragraph); and suggests that the PDRP-dependent activation/dephosphorylation of PPDK promotes photosynthesis under cold conditions (p. 563, left column, first full paragraph; p. 564, right column, second full paragraph).
Additionally, Furbank teaches PPDK and Rubisco as key photosynthetic enzymes in the C4 plant Flaveria bidentis (Abstract; p. 478, left column, first paragraph); positive correlations between Rubisco and PPDK and photosynthesis in maize and other C4 plants (p. 478, Table 1); the PDRP regulates the light-dependent regulation of PPDK (p. 480, right column, first full paragraph); that Rca activity limits the rate of Rubisco activity and thus, photosynthesis (p. 483, left column, first full paragraph); and growing plants in soil under natural illumination (p. 478, right column, final paragraph). One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand and interpret “natural illumination” to fluctuate throughout the day as field conditions vary.
Furthermore, Burnell teaches PDRP as regulating the reversible inactivation of PPDK, which catalyzes a rate-limiting step in the initial carbon-fixation stage of photosynthesis (Abstract; p. 675, paragraphs 1-3) and the sequence of PDRP, which is identical to Applicant’s SEQ ID NO:1 (see STIC sequence search result # 2).
The combination of Brutnell, Wang, Furbank and Burnell teaches the genetic components and provides motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a genetically altered plant or plant part comprising one or more first genetic alterations that increase activity of a PDRP as compared to a wild type plant or plant part grown under the same conditions and one or more second genetic alterations that increase activity of a Rca protein plant part grown under the same conditions, wherein the genetically altered plant is a C4 plant; the growth conditions comprise field conditions or fluctuating light; and the genetically altered plant or plant part has increased photosynthetic efficiency and/or yield.
The level of ordinary skill in the plant biotechnology art is high as evidenced by Brutnell, Wang, Furbank, and Burnell. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a C4 plant recombinantly expressing both PDRP and Rca. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to co-express these two genes specifically given the teachings of the cited prior art. Brutnell provides a limited list of target genes/proteins, including PDRP (i.e., Brutnell teaches expressing a PPDK regulatory protein) and Rca, and suggests co-expressing those genes in C4 plants to increase photosynthesis[0084], [0111-0112]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try the recited combination. Burnell demonstrated that at the relevant time, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem[0002]; Burnell suggested a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem[0080]; and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success given how well-characterized PPDK, PDRP, Rubisco, and Rca are in the art. See MPEP 2143. Wang provides additional motivation for one of skill in the art to express PDRP in a C4 plant, in teaching that PDRP-dependent activation of PPDK promotes photosynthesis under stress (e.g., cold/freezing) conditions. Finally, the combination of Furbank and Burnell teach that PDRP and Rca regulate proteins that control rate-limiting steps in photosynthesis (i.e., PPDK and Rubisco). Given the key roles of PDRP and Rca in controlling photosynthesis, especially under stress conditions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to co-express PDRP and Rca in a C4 plant as taught by Burnell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because C4 plants include staple crops, such as Zea mays, and hold global nutritional and economic value. Thus, there is strong incentive to create C4 plants with increased growth characteristics as taught by Burnell. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce the claimed invention without any surprising or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the teachings discussed above, Brutnell teaches a genetic alteration that increases the activity of a Rubisco protein[0111].
Regarding claim 3, Brutnell is silent to SEQ ID NO:1. However, in addition to the teachings discussed above, Burnell teaches SEQ ID NO:1 (see STIC sequence search result #2).
Regarding claim 4, Brutnell teaches the sequences of small and large subunits of Rubisco (see Sequence Listing, SEQ ID NOs:30 and 32), in addition to the other teachings discussed above. Therefore, Brutnell meets each limitation of this claim.
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the teachings discussed above, Brutnell teaches overexpression of photosynthesis-related proteins including PDRP and Rca due to transgene overexpression of each protein[0050], [0080], [0088], [0111-0112], [0113].
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the teachings discussed above, Brutnell teaches Zea mays[0084].
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce the claimed invention without any surprising or unexpected results.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
9. 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.
Written Description
10. Claims 1-4, 6, and 8 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.
Claim 1 is drawn to a plant comprising genetical alterations that increase the activity of PPDK Regulatory Protein (PDRP) and Rubisco activase (Rca). The claim is broad and encompasses all PDRP polypeptides, all Rca polypeptides, and all C4 plant species. The state of the art teaches the recognition of at least 8100 C4 plant species (Abstract; Sage, J Exp Bot. 2016; 67(14):4039-56. (U)). Both Rca and PDRP are essential to and ubiquitous among photosynthetic plants. Therefore, the claims encompass at least 8100 PDRP polypeptides, 8100 Rca polypeptides, and 8100 plants for a total of 531,441,000,000 combinations of polypeptides and plants. Applicant has not disclosed a representative number of plant species transformed to express a representative number of PDRP polypeptides in combination with a representative number of Rca polypeptides to convey possession of the claimed invention commensurate in scope with the encompassed PDRP polypeptides, Rca polypeptides, and plant species.
Issue No. 1: The limitation regarding all PDRP polypeptides lacks adequate written description.
Issue No. 2: The limitation regarding all Rca polypeptides lacks adequate written description.
Issue No. 3: The limitation regarding all C4 plant species lacks adequate written description.
Applicant describes a systems model of C4 photosynthesis comprising PPDK, PDRP, and Rca (Example 1, pp. 39-47) and gas exchange measurements of maize B73, sugarcane CP88-1762, and sorghum Tx430 plants (Example 2, pp. 47-51). Applicant describes prophetic examples of sorghum (Example 4, pp. 62-63), maize (Example 5, pp. 63-65), and sugarcane (Example 6, pp. 65-66) expressing undisclosed PDRP, Rca, and/or Rubisco. Applicant does not describe working examples of any plant genetically altered to increase the activity of PDRP or Rca. Thus, the specification does not describe species over the full scope of the encompassed proteins or plants.
The state of the art is well-developed with regard to the role of PDRP in regulating the activity of PPDK and the conservation of this regulation among C4 plants (Abstract; p. 535, left column, first full paragraph; Chen et al. Plant Physiology, Volume 165, Issue 2, June 2014, Pages 534–549 (V)). However, the art suggests that PDRPs may have unexpected functions in various plant species and that further investigation is required to determine if PDRP function is conserved among distinct species; and teaches that an increase in maize PDRP activity increases pathogen susceptibility (p. 1813, right column, second and third full paragraphs; p. 1824, right column, second full paragraph; Xie et al., Plant Biotechnology Journal (2024) 22, pp. 1812–1832 (W)); thus, the art suggests that increasing the activity of undisclosed PDRP proteins in undisclosed plants can have negative impacts on plant yield via increased susceptibility to biotic stressors. Similarly, the art teaches that Rca proteins are not predictably functional when expressed heterologously. Carmo-Silva et al., (Plant Physiology, Volume 161, Issue 4, April 2013, Pages 1645–1655 (X)) demonstrate that the regulatory properties of Rca proteins differ among distinct plant species and affect photosynthetic induction during light transitions (Abstract). Therefore, the art teaches that the function of PDRP and Rca proteins may not be conserved among distinct plant species and are not predictable when expressed heterologously. Though the art is well-developed with regard to how to modify PPDK to increase the activity of PPDK (p. 534, first and second paragraphs; Chen et al., 2014), the state of the art does not teach how to modify or alter the PDRP polypeptide or the nucleic acid sequence encoding it to increase the activity of PDRP. The art also does not teach how to modify or alter the Rca polypeptide or the nucleic acid sequence encoding it to increase the activity of the protein. The art does not describe any features, structures, sequences, domains, or motifs that are necessary and/or sufficient elements by which one of ordinary skill in the art could identify PDRP and Rca polypeptides sufficient to increase photosynthetic efficiency, yield, and/or water use efficiency in undisclosed C4 plant species.
The specification does not describe any features, structures, sequences, domains, or motifs that are necessary and/or sufficient elements by which one of ordinary skill in the art could identify PDRP and Rca polypeptides sufficient to increase photosynthetic efficiency, yield, and/or water use efficiency in undisclosed C4 plant species. Thus, the specification fails to make up for the lack of knowledge on the art.
MPEP § 2163 states that the written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. A “representative number of species” means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. See, e.g., AbbVie Deutschland GMBH v. Janssen Biotech, 759 F.3d 1285, 111 USPQ2d 1780 (Fed. Cir. 2014). When there is substantial variation within a genus, as here in which the genus comprises 531,441,000,000 combinations of plants and polypeptides, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. Applicant describes no such species, and thus, does not provide adequate written description for all such PDRP polypeptides, Rca polypeptides, or C4 plant species.
The Examiner also notes Applicant’s arguments on p. 11 of the remarks dated March 17, 2026 (see except included below). Applicant makes the position that a failure to disclose transgenic plants and/or the coordinated manipulation of the regulatory systems governing PPDK activation and Rubisco activation is a defect in the prior art cited to render the claimed invention obvious. Such a position indicates that a failure to disclose plants in which the activity of a PDRP, Rca, and/or Rubisco are altered implies a lack of possession of the instant invention. While the Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that the cited art fails to render the claims obvious, the Examiner agrees with the position that a failure to disclose plants in which the activity of a PDRP, Rca, and/or Rubisco are altered indicates a lack of possession of said plants. Accordingly, Applicant’s failure to disclose any transgenic plants indicates a lack of possession of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
194
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For the reasons discussed above, claim 1 lacks adequate written description 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.
Claim 2 does not limit or address the recitations encompassing all PDRP polypeptides, Rca polypeptides, or C4 plant species. Therefore, claim 2 also lacks adequate written description. Furthermore, the limitation encompassing all Rubisco polypeptides lacks adequate written description. The state of the art teaches significant hurdles in the heterologous expression of Rubisco in among plants including the requirement for ancillary and chaperone proteins (Abstract; p. 3564, second and third paragraphs; Whitney et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2015; 112(11):3564-3569 (Y)). Therefore, Rubisco is not predictably functional when expressed heterologously. Furthermore, the combination of all PDRP, Rca, and Rubisco polypeptides in all C4 plants encompasses at least 4.3e15 distinct combinations. Accordingly, the limitation regarding all Rubisco polypeptides lacks adequate written description.
Claim 3 limits the structures of the encompassed polypeptides to those having at least 70% sequence identity to SEQ ID NOs:1/14 (PDRP) and SEQ ID NO:4 (Rca). Applicant does not describe polypeptides having only 70% sequence identity to the recited SEQ ID NOs nor does Applicant describe plants expressing such polypeptides. Polypeptides having only 70% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:1 encompass those comprising deletions, insertions, and/or substitutions of up to 128 amino acids anywhere within the polypeptide. The claim places no limitations on the structure or location any deletions, insertions, and/or substitutions within a polypeptide having only 70% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:1. Accordingly, polypeptides having at least 70% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:1 encompasses at least 20128 polypeptides, polypeptides having at least 70% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:14 encompasses at least 20126 polypeptides, and polypeptides having at least 70% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:4 encompasses at least 20129 polypeptides. Applicant has not disclosed a sufficient representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus.
Claim 4 limits the structures of the encompassed Rubisco polypeptides to those having at least 70% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:9. Applicant does not describe polypeptides having only 70% sequence identity to the recited SEQ ID NO nor does Applicant describe plants expressing such polypeptides. Polypeptides having only 70% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:9 encompass those comprising deletions, insertions, and/or substitutions of up to 142 amino acids anywhere within the polypeptide. The claim places no limitations on the structure or location any deletions, insertions, and/or substitutions within a polypeptide having only 70% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:9. Accordingly, polypeptides having at least 70% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:9 encompasses at least 20142 polypeptides. Applicant has not disclosed a sufficient representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus.
Claim 6 does not limit or address the recitations encompassing all PDRP polypeptides, Rca polypeptides, or C4 plant species. Therefore, claim 6 also lacks adequate written description.
Claim 8 does not limit or address the recitations encompassing all PDRP polypeptides or all Rca polypeptides. Therefore, claim 8 also lacks adequate written description.
Conclusion
11. No claim is allowed.
Examiner’s Contact Information
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEQUANTARIUS J SPEED whose telephone number is (703)756-4779. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9AM-5PM ET.
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, Amjad Abraham can be reached on (571)-270-7058. 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.
/DEQUANTARIUS JAVON SPEED/Junior Examiner, Art Unit 1663
/Amjad Abraham/SPE, Art Unit 1663
Prosecution Insights