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
1. The Office acknowledges the receipt of Applicant’s restriction election filed April 27, 2026. Applicant elects Group I and SEQ ID Nos. 69, 78-109, 71, 126, 127, 145 and 146 without traverse. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 12, 16, 19, 23, 32, 33, 78, 81, 82, 85, 88, 90, 93, 99 and 125-130 are pending. Claims 78, 81, 82, 85, 88, 90, 93 and 125-130 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 12, 16, 19, 23, 32, 33 and 99, to the extent of the elected SEQ ID Nos., are examined in the instant application.
Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement filed October 16, 2024 has been considered. A signed copy is attached.
The restriction is made FINAL.
The earliest disclosure of SEQ ID Nos. 145 and 146 is the instant application, filed March 27, 2024.
Specification
2. The disclosure is objected to because of the following: scientific names should be italicized. For example, see “Rosaceae” on p. 18, ln. 24.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Appropriate correction is required.
3. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 12, 16, 19, 23, 32, 33 and 99 are objected to because of the following:
In claim 1, “Rosaceae” is a scientific name and should be italicized. All subsequent recitations of “Rosaceae” are also objected to.
Claim 99 depends from withdrawn claim 78. It is suggested claim 99 be amended to include all the limitations of claim 78. It should be noted that all objections and rejections that are made for the currently examined claims that are applicable to claim 78 would apply upon the incorporation of the limitations of claim 78 into claim 99.
Dependent claims are included.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
5. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 12, 16, 19, 23, 32, 33 and 99 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1, it is unclear whether the mutated WUSHEL (WUS)-Related Homeobox (WOX) has less than 80% sequence identity to the elected sequences. Otherwise, it is unclear how a mutated WOX gene is distinguishable from an unmutated gene. Does the mutated WOX gene have the same function as the unmutated WOX gene? No function is recited for the mutated or unmutated WOX gene. See also claim 23 for “90% sequence identity”.
In claim 16, it is unclear whether the additional endogenous functional WOX genes are recited in claim 1. It is unclear whether the SEQ ID Nos. recited in claim 1 are different WOX genes or fragments of the same gene.
In claim 19, the multiple “and/or” recitations make it unclear as to what combination(s) are being claimed. See also claim 32.
In claims 19 and 32, the metes and bounds of “modified architecture” are unclear, because no two thorns or prickles are identical in shape and size.
In claims 23 and 33, it is unclear whether the recitation of “WOX transcription factor” is intended to have patentable weight. It is understood by the Office that this recitation implies that the function of the WOX transcription factor is retained. However, Table 3 states that SEQ ID NO:145 encoding SEQ ID NO:146 has an out-of-frame mutation leading to an early stop codon.
Correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 16, 19, 23, 32, 33 and 99 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a product of nature. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because allelic mutants and variants naturally occur in nature. The claims do not exclude a Rubus plant that naturally comprises allelic mutants and variants of SEQ ID NO:69. With regard to claims 3 and 4, the WOX gene is naturally expressed in tissues that give rise to trichomes, thorns and/or prickles. With regard to claim 7, by definition, allelic mutants and variants inherently contain a base substitution, a base deletion, a base insertion and/or an inversion. With regard to claim 16, allelic mutants and variants are naturally present in two or more endogenous functional WOX genes. Claims 19 and 32 are included because “modified architecture” is not clearly defined, and no two thorns or prickles are identical in shape and size. With regard to claims 23 and 33, allelic mutants and variants of SEQ ID NO:69 have at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:145. With regard to claim 99, claim 99 is drawn to a plant. The method of producing the claimed product holds little patentable weight if said method produces a product that is indistinguishable from a product of nature. Products of nature are not patentable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
8. 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.
9. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 12, 16, 19, 23, 32, 33 and 99 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant’s disclosure is as follows. Example 1 discloses a knockout of the WOX1 gene having SEQ ID NO:69 in blackberry. The blackberry variety used is tetraploid and contains two WOX1 genes which are homozygous at one locus and heterozygous at the second locus: one copy of the WOX1 gene comprises SEQ ID NO:69 and the other three copies of the WOX1 gene comprises SEQ ID NO:72. The copies having SEQ ID NO:72 contain a polymorphism that leads to a non-functional protein. Only the WOX1 gene having SEQ ID NO:69 is functional. CRISPR was used to edit SEQ ID NO:69 using spacers (SEQ ID Nos. 141-142) having complementarity to the 3’ end of exon 1 within the WOX1 gene of SEQ ID NO:69.
In Example 2, blackberry plants with edited alleles of the WOX1 gene (SEQ ID NO:69) from Example 1 were inspected for the development of prickles and glandular trichomes. All of the edits were deletions. Out-of-frame deletions rendered the functional copy of the WOX1 gene non-functional and these out-of-frame edits displayed a thornless phenotype, while in-frame deletions did not alter WOX1 activity, and thorns were present on these plants (Table 2).
In Example 3, alleles of SEQ ID NO:69 of the same variety as Example 1 were edited by CRISPR using spacers (SEQ ID Nos. 138-140) having complementarity to the homeodomain within the WOX1 gene of SEQ ID NO:69.
In Example 4, blackberry plants with edited alleles of the WOX1 gene (SEQ ID NO:69) of Example 3 were inspected for the development of prickles and glandular trichomes. All of the edits were out-of-frame deletions, and these out-of-frame edits displayed a thornless phenotype (Table 3).
The claimed invention lacks adequate written description for the following reasons. Applicant’s disclosure indicates that SEQ ID NO:69 is an endogenous WOX1 gene encoding SEQ ID NO:71. However, in claim 1, 80% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:69, to SEQ ID NO:71 and to their fragments (SEQ ID Nos. 78-109, 126 and 127) encompasses WOX1 gene allelic mutants and variants, as well as other WOX genes from undisclosed sources of Rosaceae, whereby their structures and identities are not disclosed, so long as they share at least 80% sequence identity to the recited SEQ ID Nos. The claims imply that structural variants exist in nature, yet no structural variant has been disclosed. The implication is there is a gene and a protein other than that disclosed which exists in nature, but the structure thereof is not known. The disclosure of SEQ ID NO:69 encoding SEQ ID NO:71 isolated from Rubus is not representative of other WOX1 genes from other sources and other WOX genes (WOX2, WOX3, etc.). Thus, there are insufficient relevant identifying characteristics to allow one skilled in the art to predictably determine such mutants and allelic variants of the disclosed WOX1 gene and other WOX genes from another blackberry plant or from another Rosaceae plant, absent further guidance. Moreover, while one skilled in the art can generate a population of sequences having at least 80% sequence identity to the SEQ ID Nos. recited in the claim 1, it is unpredictable which species within the population is a WOX gene encoding a WOX transcription factor. Applicant failed to disclose a representative number of species within the scope of the genus or of a recitation of structural features common to the members of the genus, which features constitute a substantial portion of the genus.
Secondly, a sequence comprising 80% to any one of SEQ ID Nos. 78-109, 126, and 127 encompasses full-length sequences of the WOX genes. However, the disclosure of sequence fragments does not allow one skilled in the art to predict the full-length sequences of WOX genes comprising said fragments. SEQ ID Nos. 78-109 have 60-338 nucleotides, while the full-length WOX1 gene disclosed in the instant application, SEQ ID NO:69, has 6207 nucleotides. The disclosure of 60-338 nucleotides, at 80% sequence identity, does not allow one skilled in the art to predict the structures of WOX1 gene or other WOX genes comprising any one of these sequence fragments.
Thirdly, with regard to claim 16, the structure of a second or subsequent WOX gene is not disclosed. Claim 16 is not limited to one of the SEQ ID Nos. recited in claim 1. The specification discloses a WOX23 gene but the claim is not limited to a WOX23 gene sequence or any particular WOX gene. No function or phenotype is disclosed for a plant comprising two mutated WOX genes. One skilled in the art cannot predict the structures of other WOX genes from the disclosure of a WOX1 gene having SEQ ID NO:69. Thus, “two or more endogenous functional WOX genes” lack adequate written description.
Fourthly, with regard to claims 19 and 32, it is unpredictable what mutation(s) to SEQ ID NO:69 or a sequence encoding SEQ ID NO:71 would produce the claimed phenotypes. The working examples show that only out-of-frame deletion mutations produce the thornless phenotype. In-frame deletion mutations did not produce the claimed phenotypes. The out-of-frame deletion mutations do not allow one skilled in the art to predict other mutations (additions, deletions, substitutions, and any combination thereof) anywhere in SEQ ID NO:69 or in a sequence encoding SEQ ID NO:71 for producing the claimed phenotypes. The working examples only show out-of-frame deletions at the 3’ end of exon 1 or in exon 2 in the homeodomain region of the WOX1 protein. It is not known if deletions in other regions of SEQ ID NO:69 or a sequence encoding SEQ ID NO:71 would produce the claimed phenotypes. With regard to the sequence fragments, in addition to the lack of predictability with regard to mutations to SEQ ID NO:69 or a sequence encoding SEQ ID NO:71, it is further unpredictable whether the mutation is in an undisclosed region outside of SEQ ID Nos. 78-109 and SEQ ID Nos. 126-127, within the 60-338 nucleic acids of SEQ ID Nos. 78-109, or within the 35-41 amino acids of SEQ ID Nos. 126-127. Accordingly, mutations in these SEQ ID Nos. for producing the claimed phenotypes are not adequately described.
With regard to claim 23, the “comprising” language and the 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:145 or SEQ ID NO:146 encompasses SEQ ID NO: 69 encoding SEQ ID NO:71 within the claimed 80% sequence identity scope and thus lack adequate written description for the reasons set forth above for claim 1. No function or phenotype is recited for the sequences having 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:145 or to a sequence encoding SEQ ID NO:146.
With regard to claim 33, mutated sequences having 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:145 or SEQ ID NO:146 and the claimed phenotypes lack adequate written description for the following reasons. The 90% sequence identity encompasses the 80% sequence identity to SEQ ID Nos. 69 and 71, which would produce the thorny phenotype, as well as sequences which would produce the thornless phenotypes (SEQ ID Nos. 145 and 146). Outside of these sequences, it is highly unpredictable which other sequences within the 90% sequence identity population would produce the claimed phenotypes. Applicant does not address in-frame mutations or out-of-frame mutations in other regions of these sequences, including additions, deletions, substitutions and any combination thereof for producing the claimed phenotypes. Applicant does not address conservative amino acid substitutions or codon degeneracy for producing the claimed phenotypes. Accordingly, sequences comprising at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:145 or SEQ ID NO:146 and having the claimed phenotypes are not adequately described.
Claim 99 lacks adequate written description for the reasons set forth above with regard to the 80% sequence identity to SEQ ID Nos. 69, 71, 78-109, 126 and 127.
Accordingly, there is lack of adequate description to inform a skilled artisan that Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. See Written Description guidelines published in Federal Register/ Vol.66, No. 4/ Friday, January 5, 2001/ Notices; p. 1099-1111.
10. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 12, 16, 19, 23, 32, 33 and 99 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 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.
Enablement factors to consider include (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breadth of the claims. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
With regard to claim 1, no function and no phenotype are recited for the mutated WOX gene encoding a mutated WOX transcription factor. While one skilled in the art can make mutations to endogenous sequences having at least 80% sequence identity to SEQ ID Nos. 69, 71, 78-109, 126 and 127, absent a recitation of function or objective for the mutated sequences, one skilled in the art would not be able to use the mutated sequences without undue experimentation. Claims 3, 4, 7, 9, 12 do not address this enablement issue.
Additionally, with regard to claim 16, one skilled in the art cannot mutate an undisclosed WOX gene without undue experimentation. The specification discloses a WOX23 gene, however, the claim is not limited to a WOX23 gene or any of the WOX genes recited in claim 1. No function is recited for the undisclosed WOX gene. No phenotype is disclosed for the combination of two mutated WOX genes. Absent a target gene structure and an objective for mutating two or more endogenous WOX genes, one skilled in the art cannot make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
With regard to claims 19 and 32, the claims encompass mutations including additions, deletions, substitution and any combination thereof anywhere within the recited SEQ ID Nos., so long as they produce the claimed phenotypes. Applicant has only shown out-of-frame deletions at the 3’ end of exon 1 or in exon 2 in the homeodomain region of the WOX1 protein to produce the thornless phenotype. In-frame deletions produce the thorny phenotype. There is no working example of any other mutations. Applicant does not address mutations of a WOX gene in regions outside of a fragment having any one of SEQ ID Nos. 78-109 or outside of a WOX transcription factor comprising a fragment having SEQ ID NO:126 or 127 Applicant provides no guidance as to what region(s) of the recited SEQ ID Nos. should be targeted to produce the claimed phenotypes. Accordingly, sequences having at least 80% sequence identity to the recited sequences for producing the claimed phenotypes are not enabled as commensurate in scope with the claims without undue experimentation.
With regard to claim 23, no function and no phenotype are recited for sequences having 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:145 or 146. While one skilled in the art can produce a population of sequences having at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:145 or 146, absent a recitation of function for the mutated sequences, one skilled in the art would not be able to use the mutated sequences as commensurate in scope with the claim without undue experimentation.
With regard to claim 33, the 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:145 or 146 and having the claimed phenotypes are not enabled because they encompass the 80% sequence identity to SEQ ID Nos. 69 and 71 of claim 1, which would produce the thorny phenotype. The claims also encompass mutations including additions, deletions, substitution and any combination thereof anywhere within SEQ ID NO:145 or 146., so long as they produce the claimed phenotypes. Other than SEQ ID NO:145 encoding SEQ ID NO:145, no other sequence within the 90% sequence identity to these SEQ ID Nos. has been shown to produce the claimed phenotypes. Applicant has only shown out-of-frame deletions at the 3’ end of exon 1 or in exon 2 in the homeodomain region of the WOX1 protein to produce the thornless phenotype. While one skilled in the art can generate a population of sequences having 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:145 or 146, one skilled in the art cannot readily identify operable embodiments or readily eliminate inoperable embodiments within said population without resorting to random trial and error requiring undue experimentation. To require one skilled in the art to generate a population of sequences having at least 90% sequence identity to these sequences, introduce each sequence into a cell, generate a population of plants, and grow the plants to a stage where the claimed phenotypes could be identified would not be routine experimentation. Thus, 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:145 or 146 and having the claimed phenotypes are not fully enabled as commensurate in scope with the claims without undue experimentation.
Claim 99 is not enabled for the reasons set forth above for sequences having at least 80% sequence identity to SEQ ID Nos. 69, 71, 78-109, 126 and 127.
Accordingly, given the nature of the claimed invention (mutated WOX transcription factors for producing a thornless Rosaceae plant), the claimed scope (80-90% sequence identities to endogenous WOX sequences, their fragments and mutated sequences), lack of guidance and working examples as commensurate in scope with the claims, unpredictability (types of mutations), and weighing all the Wands factors based on the totality of the record as discussed above, the Office determines that it would require undue experimentation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 and 103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 16, 19, 23, 32, 33 and 99 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Crawford, B. (WO 2021/158798 (Applicant’s IDS)).
Claim 1 encompasses a plant comprising naturally-occurring mutants and allelic variants of SEQ ID NO:69 encoding SEQ ID NO:71, and does not exclude other mutations in the genome of the claimed plant. With regard to claim 1, Crawford teaches a thornless Rubus (Rosaceae) plant comprising a modified MIXTA gene encoding a modified MIXTA transcription factor (Abstract). The plant of Crawford inherently comprises naturally-occurring mutants and allelic variants of the WOX gene having SEQ ID NO:69 encoding SEQ ID NO:71. With regard to claim 3, the endogenous WOX gene is naturally expressed in tissues that give rise to trichomes, thorns and/or prickles. With regard to claim 4, the endogenous WOX gene is naturally expressed in a tissue specific manner in the vascular tissue, the epidermal tissue and/or cells or tissues that give rise to thorns and//or prickles in the plant. With regard to claim 7, the naturally-occurring mutants and allelic variants contain at least one base substitution, base deletion, base insertion and/or inversion. With regard to claim 16, the plant of Crawford inherently comprises naturally-occurring mutants and allelic variants in at least two endogenous WOX genes. With regard to claims 19 and 32, the plant of Crawford is thornless (Abstract). With regard to claims 23 and 33, the 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:145 encompasses naturally-occurring mutants and variants of SEQ ID NO:69. With regard to claim 99, the plant of claim 99 is indistinguishable from the plant of claim 1. The method of producing the plant of claim 99 holds little patentable weight if said method produces a plant that is identical to the prior art. Accordingly, the claimed invention is anticipated by the prior art.
15. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 12, 16, 19, 23, 32, 33 and 99 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Finn et al. (HortScience 40(7):2175-2178, 2005 (Applicant’s IDS)).
Finn teaches a thornless blackberry (Rosaceae) plant (Title). Even though Finn is silent with regard to the exact gene modification(s), because the plant of Finn has the same phenotype as Applicant’s claimed invention, the plant of Finn anticipates or renders obvious the claimed invention, absent evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 1, the plant of Finn inherently comprises naturally-occurring mutants and allelic variants of the WOX gene having SEQ ID NO:69 encoding SEQ ID NO:71, or has a modified WOX gene for producing the thornless phenotype. With regard to claim 3, the endogenous WOX gene is naturally expressed in tissues that give rise to trichomes, thorns and/or prickles. With regard to claim 4, the endogenous WOX gene is naturally expressed in a tissue specific manner in the vascular tissue, the epidermal tissue and/or cells or tissues that give rise to thorns and//or prickles in the plant. With regard to claim 7, the naturally-occurring mutants and allelic variants or modified WOX gene for producing the thornless phenotype contain at least one base substitution, base deletion, base insertion and/or inversion. With regard to claims 9 and 12, because Applicant discloses that an in-frame deletion does not produce the thornless phenotype, but an out-of-frame deletion produces the claimed phenotype, the thornless blackberry plant of Finn inherently has an out-of-frame deletion in the WOX gene. With regard to claim 16, the plant of Finn inherently comprises naturally-occurring mutants and allelic variants in at least two endogenous WOX genes, or comprises one modified WOX gene for producing the thornless phenotype and an allelic variant or mutant of a second WOX gene. With regard to claims 19 and 32, the plant of Finn is thornless (Title). With regard to claims 23 and 33, the 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:145 encompasses naturally-occurring mutants and variants of SEQ ID NO:69, or a modified WOX gene for producing the thornless phenotype having at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 145 or 146. With regard to claim 99, the plant of claim 99 is indistinguishable from the plant of claim 1. The method of producing the plant of claim 99 holds little patentable weight if said method produces a plant that is identical to the prior art.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is anticipated by, or in the alternative, is obvious in view of the prior art. See In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), which teaches that a product-by-process claim may be properly rejected over prior art teaching the same product produced by a different process, if the process of making the product fails to distinguish the two products. Since the Patent Office does not have the facilities to examine and compare the plant of Applicant’s with that of the prior art, the burden of proof is upon the Applicant to show an unobvious distinction between the claimed plant and the plant of the prior art. See In re Best, 562F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Remarks
16. No claim is allowed. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hymus et al. (Published Applications Database, US Pub. No. 20160272988 (U), see Result 14) teaches SEQ ID NO:489 which has 81% sequence identity to Applicant’s SEQ ID NO:127. However, SEQ ID NO:489 was obtained from Glycine max (not a Rosaceae plant) and is not identified as a WOX transcription factor.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG T BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-0793.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHUONG T BUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663
Prosecution Insights