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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 5, 8-50, 52, 54-55, 57-67, 69, 71, 74-76, 78, 80, 82-83, 86-91, 93-132, 134, 136-139, 141-145, 147-149, 151, 153, and 156-165 are cancelled.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 51, 53, 56, 68, 70, 72-73, 77, 79, 81, 84-85, 92, 133, 135, 140, 146, 150, 152, and 154-155 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 3/20/2026 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because no English Abstract translation was actually provided for Cite No. 11. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-4, 6-7, 51, 53, 56, 68, 70, 72-73, 77, 79, and 81, and the species of SEQ ID NO: 15, a substitution at position 23 of SEQ ID NO: 15, and Azospirillum lipoferum, in the reply filed on 3/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 84-85, 92, 133, 135, 140, 146, 150, 152, and 154-155 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 3/20/2026.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 51, 53, 56, 68, 70, 72-73, 77, 79, and 81 are examined herein.
A search of the prior art did not reveal any results for SEQ ID NO: 15 with the amino acid substitutions D or E at position 23, so SEQ ID NO: 14 with T at position 185 or R at position 186 was also searched.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 73 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7, ATCC should be spelled out as American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) in its first appearance in the claim.
In claim 73, the claim ends in a double period.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4, 6-7, 51, and 79 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "in the presence of nitrogen" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 depends from claim 1, which recites two different types of nitrogen: the exogenous nitrogen and the nitrogen that is fixed. The specification defines “exogenous nitrogen” in [0076] as referring to non-atmospheric nitrogen readily available in the soil, field, or growth medium that is present under non-nitrogen limiting conditions, including ammonia, ammonium, nitrate, nitrite, urea, uric acid, ammonium acids, and other nitrogen species that include an ammonium ion. Nitrogen fixation is the process of converting atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia. Thus, it is unclear whether “in the presence of nitrogen” means in the presence of exogenous nitrogen such as ammonium or in the presence of N2. Furthermore, the limitation “transcriptional activation of nitrogen fixation genes of a wild-type NifA polypeptide” leads to ambiguity in the claim scope since it is unclear whether the transcriptional activation is of wild-type NifA or of the nitrogen fixation genes.”
Claim 4 recites “wherein the NifA polypeptide encoded by the gene with one or more genetic modifications overcomes ammonium inhibition in the presence of nitrogen.” The term “overcomes” has multiple reasonable interpretations and is also a subjective term. For example, in one interpretation, “overcomes ammonium inhibition in the presence of nitrogen” could be reasonably interpreted as requiring that the engineered microbe is capable of fixing nitrogen in the presence of ammonium. In a second interpretation, this limitation could reasonably be interpreted as requiring that the expression level of NifA is the same in the presence of ammonium as in the absence of ammonium. Furthermore, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “in the presence of nitrogen,” which can refer to either exogenous nitrogen or atmospheric nitrogen. Under the interpretation in which the nitrogen is exogenous nitrogen, there is the combination of narrower claim scope (ammonium) and broader claim scope (exogenous nitrogen).
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "e.g." in parentheses in part (b) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the exemplary phrase and in parentheses are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 is further indefinite because it is unclear whether the NifA polypeptide comprises any part of SEQ ID NO: 14 or SEQ ID NO: 15. Parts (a)-(f) recite amino acid substitutions or deletions that “correspond” to amino acid residues in SEQ ID NO: 14 or SEQ ID NO: 15 but do not recite whether the NifA polypeptide comprises any amino acids of SEQ ID NO; 14 or SEQ ID NO: 15. It is also unclear whether the claim requires a homologous amino acid position or homologous amino acid positions because of the parentheses in part (a) of the claim. Additionally, there are multiple reasonable interpretations for “homolog.” The specification does not provide any special definition for “homolog” or “homologous.” Homologous is defined in biology as similar in position, structure, and evolutionary origin but not necessarily in function. Thus, under one interpretation, the NifA polypeptide comprises at least partial sequence homology to SEQ ID NO; 14 or 15 but may differ in function. Under a second interpretation, the NifA polypeptide comprises at least partial sequence homology to SEQ ID NO; 14 or 15 but also shares the function of SEQ ID NO: 14 or 15. It is unclear under either interpretation what the threshold is for the sequence homology.
Claim 51 is similarly indefinite for “at homologous amino acid positions in a homolog thereof” since the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been unable to determine the metes and bounds of “homolog.”
Claim 79 recites the limitation "the plurality of engineered microbes" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 6-7 and 51 are further rejected for depending from a rejected base claim and not rectifying the sources of indefiniteness discussed above.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 51 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 claims contain 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 inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is drawn to an engineered microbe comprising one or more genetic modifications in a gene encoding a NifA polypeptide, wherein the engineered microbe fixes nitrogen in the presence of exogenous nitrogen and oxygen.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the NifA polypeptide encoded by the gene with one or more genetic modifications exhibits increased transcriptional activation of nitrogen fixation genes in the presence of nitrogen and oxygen, relative to the transcriptional activation of nitrogen fixation genes of a wild-type NifA polypeptide in the presence of nitrogen and oxygen.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the NifA polypeptide encoded by the gene with one or more genetic modifications overcomes ammonium inhibition in the presence of nitrogen.”
Claims 6 and 51 both recite an engineered microbe comprising a NifA polypeptide encoded by a gene with one or more genetic modifications comprising substitutions or deletions at one or more homologous positions in a homolog thereof of SEQ ID NO; 14 or 15.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized that the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed genus of engineered microbes comprising a gene encoding a NifA polypeptide with these functional limitations (increased transcriptional activation of nitrogen fixation genes in the presence of exogenous nitrogen and oxygen or the ability to overcome ammonium inhibition in the presence of nitrogen). The person of ordinary skill in the art would also not have recognized that the inventors had possession of the claimed genus of engineered microbes comprising NifA homologs of SEQ ID NO; 14 or 15.
The specification identifies a small number of species of genetic mutations in the NifA gene. The specification discloses five Azospirillum NifA variants that recovered more than 20% of NifH activity in the presence of ammonium (Fig 6). Among those, the NifH promoter activities in the NifA mutants with the residues E37G/V65A/K93E/Ml64T/C209R and the residues L16P/K23E/K72E/D158N/Q171L/R183Q were more than half of the promoter activity compared to the wild-type NifA in the absence of ammonium (paragraph 2 on page 132). Table 4 presents SNPs in ammonium-insensitive NifA mutants in Azospirillum lipoferum CI1666.
Figure 7A shows the alignment of NifA across 13 Azospirillum species. The specification discloses that the highly conserved residues that are responsible for constitutively active NifA include P2, S12, L16, K23, I24, G26, S27, S28, D30, E37, V65, I87, K93, M96, N102, L108, D120, E121, Q122, A124, K132, D148, D158, V159, T163, M164, Q171, V179, R183, F185, M186, M187, F191, Q194, K195, C209, and T210 (page 134, Example 3, paragraph 2), relative to SEQ ID NO: 15.
Figure 7B shows the alignment of NifA across six Paraburkholderia species. The specification discloses that the highly conserved residues that are responsible for constitutively active NifA include V24, R34, A54, K90, D108, P116, T166, V178, M185, Q186, K194, and I196 (page 134, Example 3, paragraph 2), relative to SEQ ID NO: 14.
The specification also discloses the replacement of the amino acid at position 23 of SEQ ID NO; 15 with the amino acids, D, E, I, L, or T and the replacement of the amino acid at position 185 of SEQ ID NO: 14 with T, the replacement of the amino acid at position 186 of SEQ ID NO; 14 with R, or the replacement of the amino acid at position 196 of SEQ ID NO; 14 with V (see claim 6).
In summary, the specification discloses some species of the claimed genus (see Fig. 6 and Table 4) as well as the structure-function correlation between constitutively active NifA in species of Paraburkholderia or Azospirillum. However, the specification does not disclose the structure-function correlation outside of these two genera. The specification states that these two genera represent both alpha- and beta-proteobacteria. The specification attempts to extrapolate the results to other alpha- and beta-proteobacteria on the grounds that some of the residues in NifA are highly conserved (e.g. one residue from the GAF domain (K93) and the residues V182, M189, K198), which “increases the likelihood that substitutions, mutations, or deletions of these conserved residues in NifA will render nitrogenase expression tolerant to ammonium repression across diverse species ranging from alpha-proteobacteria to betaproteobacteria” (paragraph 2 on page 135 of the specification). However, there is a lack of evidence to support this conclusion, since no other alpha-proteobacteria or beta-proteobacteria are tested.
Aquino et al. (Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research (2015) 48(8): 683-690) teaches eight constructs resulting in point mutations in H. seropedicae NifA (Abstract). Aquino teaches the mutations K22V, T160E, M161V, L172R, and A215D resulted in inactive proteins, mutations Q216I and S220I produced partially active proteins with activity similar to wild-type NifA, and mutation G25E, located in the GAF domain, resulted in an active protein that did not require GlnK for activity and was partially sensitive to ammonium (Abstract). Aquino teaches that a S. meliloti NifA mutant (M217I) is active under high O2 levels, but the mutation S220I in H. seropedica, which is the same mutation in the corresponding amino acid residue by sequence alignment results in lower activity but retains O2 sensitivity (page 688, left column, paragraph 1). Thus, based on Aquino’s teaching, there is unpredictability in the art and the person of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in transferring amino acid substitutions in NifA between genera and obtaining the same phenotype in bacteria from different genera.
Uozumi et al. (Agricultural and biological chemistry 50.6 (1986): 1539-1544) teaches genetically engineered Azospirillum lipoferum comprising nifA from Klebsiella oxytoca under the control of a constitutive promoter (Abstract). The engineered Azospirillum lipoferum exhibits nitrogenase activity (i.e. converts atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia, which is nitrogen fixation) under microaerobic conditions (i.e. in the presence of oxygen) and also in the presence of ammonium (Table II), which is exogenous nitrogen according to the definition provided in [0076] of the instant specification.
Temme (US 2019/0039964 A1) teaches an engineered K. sacchari PBC6.94 comprising NifA expressed under the control of nitrogen-independent promoters from the genome of K. sacchari PBC6.1 (Table 10 and [0375]). Temme teaches that the engineered microorganism PBC6.94 is capable of fixing nitrogen in the presence of nitrogen fertilizer (“exogenous nitrogen”) above-ground (i.e. in the presence of oxygen): see [0376].
Souza et al. (Journal of bacteriology 181.2 (1999): 681-684) teaches genetically engineered Azospirillum brasilense comprising N-terminally truncated NifA of\ H. seropedicae that is capable of fixing nitrogen under low oxygen conditions and in the presence of exogenous nitrogen (page 62, right column, top paragraph and Tables 4-5). Souza truncates the regulatory domain comprising N-terminal amino acids up to Val 203 (page 681, right column, paragraph 2).
To summarize, the state of the art teaches several species of engineered bacteria comprising NifA with genetic modifications, such as insertion of a promoter or deletion of the N-terminal regulatory GAF domain, that increase transcriptional activation of nitrogen fixation genes in the presence of nitrogen and oxygen. However, the number of species of engineered bacteria comprising NifA with amino acid substitutions that increase transcriptional activation of nitrogen fixation genes in the presence of exogenous nitrogen and oxygen is limited to a small number of species and the prior art teaches unpredictability in whether corresponding amino acid substitutions are transferable between genera. Therefore, the person of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized that the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed genus of NifA homologs of SEQ ID NO; 14 or 15 or the claimed genus of engineered microbes comprising a gene encoding a NifA polypeptide with increased transcriptional activation of nitrogen fixation genes in the presence of exogenous nitrogen and oxygen or the ability to overcome ammonium inhibition in the presence of nitrogen.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
It is apparent that Azospirillum lipoferum deposited in ATCC under Accession No. PTA-127320 or PTA-127323 and Paraburkholderia xenovorans deposited in ATCC under Accession No. PTA-127325 or PTA-127319.are required to practice the claimed invention. As such the biological material must be known and readily available or obtainable by a repeatable method set forth in the specification, or otherwise known and readily available to the public. If it is not so obtainable or available, the requirements of 35 USC 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, may be satisfied by a deposit of Azospirillum lipoferum ATCC Accession No. PTA-127320 and PTA-127323 and Paraburkholderia xenovorans ATCC Accession No. PTA-127325 and PTA-127319.
It is not apparent if the biological materials considered necessary to make and use the invention are both known and readily available to the public. It is noted that Applicants have deposited the biological materials (see specification [00358], Table 1) but there is no indication as to public availability. There is no repeatable method set forth in the specification by which the public could obtain the strains.
This rejection will be withdrawn if a statement, affidavit or declaration by Applicants, or by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number, is made that clearly indicates that all restrictions imposed by the depositor on the availability to the public of the deposited material (Azospirillum lipoferum ATCC Accession No. PTA-127320 and PTA-127323 and Paraburkholderia xenovorans ATCC Accession No. PTA-127325 and PTA-127319 at the American Type Culture Collection, a Budapest Treaty depository) will be irrevocably removed upon the granting of the patent. See 37 C.F.R. 1.808; MPEP 2404.01. In the alternative, Applicant may convincingly show that there indeed exists a repeatable method to obtain the strain.
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 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 1-4, 6, 56, and 72-73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uozumi et al. (Agricultural and biological chemistry 50.6 (1986): 1539-1544).
Regarding claim 1, “exogenous nitrogen” is interpreted according to the definition provided in the specification in [0076] as referring to non-atmospheric nitrogen readily available in the soil, field, or growth medium that is present under non-nitrogen limiting conditions, including ammonia, ammonium, nitrate, nitrite, urea, uric acid, ammonium acids, and other nitrogen species that include an ammonium ion.
Uozumi teaches genetically engineered Azospirillum lipoferum comprising nifA from Klebsiella oxytoca under the control of a constitutive promoter (Abstract). The engineered Azospirillum lipoferum exhibits nitrogenase activity (i.e. converts atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia, which is nitrogen fixation) under microaerobic conditions (i.e. in the presence of oxygen) and also in the presence of ammonium (Table II), which is exogenous nitrogen according to the definition provided in [0076] of the instant specification. Expressing the nifA gene under the control of a constitutive promoter rather than its native promoter is a genetic modification in the gene.
Regarding claim 2¸ insertion of the constitutive promoter in the gene encoding the NifA polypeptide increases transcriptional activation of the nitrogenase gene in the presence of exogenous nitrogen and oxygen relative to a wild-type NifA polypeptide (see Table II). Uozumi teaches that the heterologous nifA product stimulates expression of the nitrogenase system (comprises multiple genes) of Azospirillum lipoferum (page 1544, left column, top paragraph and bottom paragraph).
Regarding claim 3, Uozumi’s engineered Azospirillum lipoferum fixes nitrogen in the presence of NH4+ or ammonium (Table II).
Regarding claim 4, Uozumi’s constitutively expressed heterologous NifA overcomes ammonium inhibition in the presence of nitrogen because the nitrogenase has measurable activity in the presence of ammonium (Table II). Claim 4 is interpreted as requiring that the engineered microbe is capable of fixing atmospheric nitrogen in the presence of ammonium, nitrate, urea, or glutamine.
Regarding claim 6, Uozumi’s genetically engineered Azospirillum lipoferum comprises nifA under the control of a constitutive promoter which is a regulatory element operably linked to the gene encoding the NifA polypeptide (part (i) of instant claim 6).
Regarding claim 56, Uozumi teaches expressing the NifA gene under the control of a constitutive promoter (Abstract), so Uozumi teaches the insertion of a promoter.
Regarding claims 72-73, Azospirillum lipoferum is a bacterium (page 1539, right column, top paragraph).
Claim 70 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uozumi et al. (Agricultural and biological chemistry 50.6 (1986): 1539-1544) as evidenced by Cohen et al. (Journal of Bacteriology 132.2 (1977): 734-737).
See discussion of Uozumi above, which is incorporated into this rejection as well.
Regarding claim 70, Uozumi expresses the nifA gene under the control of the Tcr promoter (Abstract). The Tcr sequence, which includes the promoter, originates from a plasmid in E. coli as evidenced by Cohen (page 734, left column, paragraphs 1-2). E. coli is both a different species and a different genus than Azospirillum lipoferum.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 53, 56, 68, and 72-73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Temme et al. (US 2019/0039964 A1).
This rejection applies to the embodiment (i) of claim 6.
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, 6, 53, 56, and 68, Temme teaches an engineered K. sacchari PBC6.94 comprising NifA expressed under the control of a nitrogen-independent promoters from the genome of K. sacchari PBC6.1 (Table 10 and [0375]). Temme teaches that the engineered microorganism PBC6.94 is capable of fixing nitrogen in the presence of nitrogen fertilizer (“exogenous nitrogen”) above-ground (i.e. in the presence of oxygen): see [0376]. The strain PBC6.94 also contains truncated glnE without the AR-domain (see Table 10). The GlnE protein has altered activity ([0375]). The fertilizer is ammonium, nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, or glutamine ([0113]).
Regarding claims 72-73, K. sacchari is a Proteobacterium (see [0239] and [0257]).
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 51, and 72-73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Souza et al. (Journal of bacteriology 181.2 (1999): 681-684) as evidenced by Aquino et al. (Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research (2015) 48(8): 683-690).
This rejection applies to the embodiment in which the genetic modification is insertion of a regulatory element operably linked to the gene encoding the NifA polypeptide (part (i) of claim 6) and the NifA polypeptide comprises a deletion of the GAF domain of the NifA polypeptide (part (b) of claim 51).
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 51, Souza teaches a genetically engineered Azospirillum brasilense comprising N-terminally truncated NifA of\ H. seropedicae that is capable of fixing nitrogen under low oxygen conditions and in the presence of ammonium (page 62, right column, top paragraph and Tables 4-5). Souza truncates the regulatory domain comprising N-terminal amino acids up to Val 203 (page 681, right column, paragraph 2). The regulatory domain of the NifA polypeptide from H. seropedicae is the GAF domain as evidenced by Aquino (Abstract). The heterologous nifA gene is under the control of a lac promoter (page 682, right column, paragraph 1).
Regarding claims 72-73, Souza’s engineered Azospirillum brasilense is an Azospirillum spp. and a bacteria.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 77, 79, and 81 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uozumi et al. (Agricultural and biological chemistry 50.6 (1986): 1539-1544) in view of Temme et al. (US 2019/0039964 A1).
See discussion of Uozumi in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) above, which is incorporated into this rejection as well.
Regarding claims 77, 79, and 81, Uozumi does not teach a composition comprising the engineered Azospirillum lipoferum and a seed (claim 77), wherein the composition is coated on a seed (claim 79), or the seed is rice (claim 81).
Temme teaches compositions comprising bacterial populations may be coated on a surface of a seed ([0265]). Temme teaches that the composition may include a seed coating for rice ([0270]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat the engineered Azospirillum lipoferum bacteria of Uozumi on rice (a seed) as suggested by Temme. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to fix atmospheric nitrogen in order to enhance the growth of rice.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CANDICE LEE SWIFT whose telephone number is (571)272-0177. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-4:30 PM (Eastern).
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, Louise Humphrey can be reached at (571)272-5543. 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.
/LOUISE W HUMPHREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1657
/CANDICE LEE SWIFT/Examiner, Art Unit 1657
Prosecution Insights