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
Claims 1-5 are under examination on the merits.
Priority
Claims 1-5 receive the U.S. effective filing date 13 March 2023
via foreign priority to CN202310232365.6.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code [p.11, ¶.87]. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical/translation error. The specification refers to use of “Columbian wild type Arabidopsis thaliana” [p.10, ¶.78]. It appears Applicant may have intended to refer to the Arabidopsis ‘Columbia’ variety (which is of European origin). If that is not the case, and Applicant is using a non-standard seed stock of Arabidopsis from South America, this should be clarified.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 4; grammar error. Line 2 reads, “…short peptide are dissolved…”. This should more correctly read, “…short peptide is dissolved …”.
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.
Claims 2-5 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 language of claims 2 & 5 is unclear as to what molecules are involved in the screening method being described. Claim 2 recites ‘a yeast bait plasmid of a detoxifying enzyme glucosinolate sulfatase (GSS1) based on a yeast two-hybrid system’ [lines 4-5]. Plasmids are DNA and GSS1 is an enzyme, but Applicant is referencing a DNA molecule ‘of an’ enzyme. It is indefinite as to Applicant’s meaning for a plasmid to be of an enzyme.
Further, Applicant limits the claim to ‘a shortest’ peptide fragment, but does not specify what constitutes relevant length(s) or how one would determine if they had arrived at the shortest version of potentially numerous structural variants.
As written, it is not clear what sequence(s), gene(s), or enzyme(s) comprise the structure of the bait plasmid. It is also not clear from what organism(s) the relevant sequence of the particular gene or enzyme used to detect the sequence is derived from.
Claim 5 is independent, but substantially repeats the language of claim 2, including ‘yeast bait plasmid of a detoxifying enzyme…(GSS1) based on a yeast two-hybrid system’ [lines 3-4] as well as ‘selecting a shortest…peptide’, and is therefore also unclear for reasons listed above.
Because the scope of the claims varies depending on interpretation of the unclear language currently presented, claims 2 & 5 are indefinite and rejected.
Claim 3 recites ‘administering a product comprising the insect-derived short peptide of claim 1’.
It is not clear what the product is being administered to, as this is not specified by Applicant. Mention is made of the effect the short peptide has on cruciferous plants, but Applicant does not indicate it is being applied to plants. Such product could be interpreted to be administered to soil, administered to field equipment, or in any conceivable way to any conceivable object.
Because the scope of the claim varies based on this interpretation, and Applicant does not state what the method of administering is relative to, the claim is indefinite as are its dependent claims 4 & 5. Claims 3-5 are therefore rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a natural phenomenon without significantly more. The claims recite ‘an insect-derived short peptide…[comprising] an amino acid [polypeptide] set forth in SEQ ID NO.1. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because SEQ ID NO.1 has 100% sequence match to a described protein produced naturally by the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella. The limitation of claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it does not recite any novel structural features other than the naturally occurring polypeptide sequence and natural plant defense response(s).
Applicant states their claimed polypeptide is a smaller portion of sequence which comprises the GSS1 protein [Specification, ¶.14]. The GSS1 protein, as well as structurally similar variants GSS2 & GSS3, are known to be associated with plant pest response in crucifers and elicit an increase in defensive glucosidase by infested host plants during diamondback moth feeding [see p.13528, col.2, ¶.2—p.13529, col.1, ¶.1 in Li J. Agric. Food Chem. 2022, 70, 13528−13537 Published 17 Oct 2022, also, p.6, ¶.2 in Liu et al. Plants 2021, 10, 1097 Published 30 May 2021].
Sequence database search reveals SEQ ID NO.1 identifies the native GSS protein reported by Ratzka in describing plant defense response to diamondback moth feeding [see sequence Q8MPI1_PLUXY, Plutella genomic DNA, in Ratzka et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99 (17) 11223-11228; Published 20 Aug 2002]. Applicant’s claimed short peptide is merely a particular fragment or portion of the native GSS1 peptide, which elicits the same plant defensive response(s) as those being described by Ratzka. Because dependent claims 2-4, and independent claim 5, also are drawn to this short sequence comprising the known GSS1, they are also directed to a natural phenomenon.
Because the claimed invention is directed to a natural phenomenon, merely being a portion of the known GSS polypeptide which is detected or introduced (i.e. administered), without significantly more, claims 1-3 & 5 are rejected.
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.
Claim 1 & 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ratzka [Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99 (17) 11223-11228; Published 20 Aug 2002].
Claims 1 & 3 are drawn to the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO.1, which comprises the protein GSS1, and applying (i.e. administering) it.
Sequence database search reveals SEQ ID NO.1 identifies the native GSS protein reported by Ratzka in their study of plant defense signaling in describing plant defense response to diamondback moth feeding [sequence Q8MPI1_PLUXY, Plutella genomic DNA]. Applicant’s claimed short peptide is merely a particular fragment or portion of the native GSS1 peptide, which elicits the same plant defensive response(s) attributed to GSS1 by Ratzka [p.11225, col.2, ¶.2—p.11226, col.1, ¶.1; p.1126, col.2, ¶.2; p.11227, col.1, ¶. 4—col.2, ¶.1-2 & 4]. Claims 1 & 3 do not introduce any further limitations from the SEQ ID NO.1 fragment which comprises GSS1 (claim 1), and introducing such polypeptide (claim 3).
As such, claims 1 & 3 are anticipated by the previous disclosure of Ratzka.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH R WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3911. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 9:30 - 5:30 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, 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.
/KEITH R. WILLIAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 1663
/Anne Kubelik/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663
Prosecution Insights