Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the claims
Claims 1, 4-7, 10-15, 17-19 21-22, 25-28 are pending. Claims 29 and 30 are newly added.
Non-Art-Rejections
The rejection under 35 USC 112(b) of claims 1, 4-7, 10-15, 17-19 21-22 and 25 under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn.
The rejection under 35 USC 112(a) of claims 1, 4-7, 10-15, 17-19 21-22 and 25 under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn.
Rejection under 35 USC 103
The rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12-17, 19, 21 and 22 under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Dale et al. is withdrawn.
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 4, 15, 17-19, 21-22 and 25 remain provisionally rejected and claims 29-30 newly added, are rejected the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 9, 11-13 and 16-24 of copending application no. 18/470048. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of each are drawn to a transgenic or edited banana plant that exhibits increased resistance to Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. Tropical Race 4 (TR4) (claim 1(k)) compared to a banana plant lacking the claimed nucleic acid construct and Bcl-2 associated athanogene (BAG) family of molecular chaperone regulator protein (claim 1(a)). Additionally, instant 1(b) encodes a first antimicrobial peptide while in '048 recited inhibits cytochrome P450. Cytochrome P450 mediates response to biotic /abiotic stress of which stress is similarly mediated. Both applications recited the inclusion of betalain biosynthesis. Furthermore, both the instant application and the copending application comprise a series of heterologous promoters and terminator sequences that overlap in scope and because the instant claims recite an open combination of these elements, the instant application and the copending applications are obvious variants of each other in the absence of specific construct that distinguish one from the other.
Reply Must be Fully Responsive
Under 37 CFR 1.111, a reply by applicant or patent owner to a non-final Office Action must be fully responsive to each objection and rejection set forth in the previous Office action. The reply by the applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The applicant’s or patent owner’s reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.
The provisional rejection of claims 1, 4, 15, 17-19, 21-22 and 25 and newly added claims 29-30 is not an objection or requirement as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims under examination. In this regard, the rejection of claims 1, 4, 15, 17-19, 21-22 and 25 and newly added claims 29-30 cannot be held in abeyance.
No claim is allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gary Benzion whose telephone number is (571)272-0782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am to 5pm.
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, Gary Benzion can be reached at 571-272-0782. 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.
GARY BENZION, Ph.D.
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1681
/GARY BENZION/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1681
Prosecution Insights