N enablemenNotice 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 .
Priority
The earliest priority date claimed by the applicant is 11/03/2021.
Response to Previous Communications
This Office action is in response to the election of Group 1 (Claims 1-2, 4-8, 17, and 28) and species of SEQ ID NO: 3 filed on 06/01/2026. This group and species were elected without traversal.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-13, 16-18, 21, 23 and 27-28 are pending.
Claims 9, 11-13, 16,18, 21, 23 and 27 are withdrawn from consideration for being directed to non-elected invention(s).
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 17 and 28 are examined herein.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “modification to a gene” or regulatory element thereof and appears to be defined on page 15 of the specification in paragraph 3. The examiner interprets this modification “encompasses any insertion, deletion, or substitution of a nucleotide sequence of any size and nucleotide content, any epigenetic modification to any number of nucleotides, or a combination thereof” using genome modification technologies not naturally occurring. These modification can also include “introduction of one or more exogenous coding nucleic acids that do not integrate into the unmodified genome, yet are capable of autonomous replication” which is interpreted by the examiner to include transient transformation.
Specification
The specification contains references on pages 109-113 that are not listed on a proper IDS. Unless the references are in the IDS document filed 06/20/2024 or on the examiner’s PTO-892 form, the references have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 28 should be corrected so “Ca” in the scientific name is italicized. These claims also use different names/abbreviations for Ca liberibacter, which should be corrected.
Claim 7 uses CLas which is different from preceding Claim 1.
Claim 28 is objected to for referencing a non-elected method claim (i.e. Claim 18).
Claim 17 is objected to for referencing a non-elected method claim (i.e. Claim 16) and also references a previous claim by using the word “said”.
Improper Markush Group
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 17 and 28 are rejected under the judicially-created basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternative species. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-722 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. and Int. 1984). The improper Markush grouping includes species of the claimed invention that do not share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature.
The members of the improper Markush grouping do not share a substantial feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature for the following reasons: the claim encompasses different polynucleotide sequences, which are biochemically divergent, they have no conserved structure throughout the genus other than a phosphodiester backbone, are antioxidant enzymes, and may or may not be associated with conferring resistance or tolerance to Ca. Liberibacter infection.
Claim 1 is directed to a plant comprising a modification to an antioxidant enzyme or regulatory element thereof which confers resistance or tolerance to Ca. Liberibacter infection. Claim 1 then recites the gene encoding the antioxidant enzyme optionally comprises at least one of SEQ ID NOs: 3-79. Additionally, Claim 28 is directed to a plant comprising resistance to Ca. Liberibacter and draws dependence from unelected Claim 18 which also recites the gene encoding the antioxidant enzyme optionally comprises at least one of SEQ ID NOs: 3-79. The disclosure identifies SEQ ID NOs:3-79 as coding sequences for a variety of superoxide dismutases, glutathione reductases, glutathione peroxidases, catalases, ascorbate peroxidases, glutathione S-transferases, etc., on pages 67 to 102.
Thus, the species of Claims 1-2, 4-8, 17 and 28 do not share a substantial structural feature and a common use which flows therefrom (as supported by the Applicant’s disclosure). As such, the metes and bounds of the claim language is unclear.
In response to this rejection, Applicants should either amend the claim(s) to recite only individual species or grouping of species that share a substantial structural feature as well as a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature, or present a sufficient showing that the species recited in the alternative of the claims(s) in fact share a substantial structural feature as well as a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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 1-2, 4-8, 17 and 28 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.
Regarding Claim 1, and dependent Claims 2, 4-8, and 17 a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 1 recites the broad recitation of modification to an antioxidant enzyme or regulatory element thereof, and the claim also recites “wherein the gene encoding the antioxidant enzyme optionally comprises at least one of SEQ ID NOs: 3-79, wherein the plant is optionally citrus” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Furthermore, it is unclear how the invention can be practiced without the optionally recited sequences.
Claim 28 is included in this rejection because it draws dependence from Claim 18 which also recites optional sequences and where the plant is optionally citrus.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Written Description
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 17 and 28 are rejected under 35 USC § 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.
The Federal Circuit has clarified the written description requirement. The court stated that a written description of an invention "requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, [or] chemical name, of the claimed subject matter sufficient to distinguish it from other materials". University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568; 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The court also concluded that "naming a type of material generally known to exist, in the absence of knowledge as to what that material consists of, is not description of that material". Id. Further, the court held that to adequately describe a claimed genus, Patent Owner must describe a representative number of the species of the claimed genus, and that one of skill in the art should be able to "visualize or recognize the identity of the members of the genus".
The claims are broadly drawn to a transgenic plant comprising modification to an antioxidant enzyme or regulatory element thereof which confers resistance or tolerance to Ca. Liberibacter. The modification can be any deletion, substitution, or insertion, operably link the gene to a promoter, cause activation of expression in response to Ca. Liberibacter, or eliminates the function of the regulatory elements thereof.
Applicant describes:
Immunoregulator gibberellin (GA) suppresses Huanglongbing development by suppressing reactive oxygen species (ROS) mediated cell death in Figure 6.
ROS-related enzyme such as antioxidant enzyme are downregulated in response to Ca. liberibacter infection and is in Table 3, Figure 12, and described in the paragraph bridging page 62 and 63,
Antioxidant enzymes are upregulated in plants treated with GA in Figure 17 page 64 paragraph 1.
How to generate transgenic plants
Applicant does not describe:
Any plant with a genetic modification to an antioxidant enzyme
Modification where activation of expression occurs in response to Ca. liberibacter where the modification alters or eliminates a function of the regulatory element thereof.
All possible claimed mutations to antioxidant enzymes that results in increased Ca. liberibacter resistance.
The instant disclosure and the instant claims do not set forth clear structural characteristics essential to identifying all possible modifications to antioxidant enzymes, regulatory element, and constitutive promoters able to improve a citrus plants resistance to Ca. liberibacter. For example Erpen, L., et al. "Isolation, characterization, and evaluation of three Citrus sinensis-derived constitutive gene promoters." Plant cell reports 37.8 (2018): 1113-1125 disclosed three other constitutive promoters for CsCYP, CsGAPC2, and CsEF1 genes, not present in the applicant’s disclosure. These promoters are described in the abstract while page 10 paragraph 6 recites “In summary, this study lead to the identification of the regulatory sequences from the CsCYP, CsGAPC2, and CsEF1 citrus constitutive genes, which were found to be suitable to drive foreign gene expression in vegetative tissues of sweet orange”. There are certainly many promoters capable of overexpressing an antioxidant enzyme.
Additionally, a representative number of plants encompassed by Claim 1 have not been described. Alscher, Ruth Grene, Neval Erturk, and Lenwood S. Heath. "Role of superoxide dismutases (SODs) in controlling oxidative stress in plants." Journal of experimental botany 53.372 (2002): 1331-1341 teaches “both successful and unsuccessful results have been obtained from attempts to create resistant plants” on page 7 paragraph 1. Such examples were not described by the applicant, indicating they did not describe all possible transgenic plants comprising modification to an antioxidant enzyme or regulatory element thereof.
Finally, a representative number of antioxidant enzymes are also not described by the applicant. Gupta, Dharmendra K., José M. Palma, and Francisco J. Corpas, eds. Antioxidants and antioxidant enzymes in higher plants. Berlin: Springer International Publishing, 2018 recites “in some respects, these enzymes could be also described as antioxidants. Such enzymes include dehydroascorbate reductase (DAR), monodehydroascorbate reductase (MDAR), peroxidases (PODs) or glutathione S-transferases (GSTs), glutathione reductase (GR), and alternative oxidases (AOXs)” on page 6 paragraph 1. At least AOX enzymes were not listed in the applicants disclosure.
Regarding Claims 7-8, the examiner did not see a description in the disclosure regarding specific modification which cause activation or expression in response to Ca. liberibacter where the modification alters or eliminates a function of the regulatory element thereof. Some genes (i.e. Nonexpressor of pathogenesis-related genes 1-4) in citrus whose regulatory elements are involved in Ca. Liberibacter resistance after infection could be used to engineer a citrus plant that causes activation of expression in response to Ca. Liberibacter infection. These genes are described in Singh, Ritu, and Marcella Teixeira. "Fight smarter, not harder: NPR1-mediated immune balance in citrus greening disease." (2025): kiaf479 on page 1 paragraph 2. These genes were not discussed in the applicant’s disclosure.
Because all possible antioxidant enzymes, constitutive promoters, or any specific modification which cause activation or expression in response to Ca. liberibacter were not referenced in the applicant’s disclosure, all possible modifications to an antioxidant enzyme or regulatory unit thereof were not specifically described. Therefore, given the lack of written description in the instant disclosure with regard to the structural and functional characteristics of the claimed compositions, Applicant does not appear to have been in possession of the claimed genus at the time this application was filed.
Examiner’s Note: Applicant is encouraged to specifically indicate specific genetic modifications which would confer resistance or tolerance to Ca. Liberibacter and have evidence in support for it.
Scope of Enablement
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 17, and 28 are rejected under 35 USC § U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph because it does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
While the specification provides descriptions of how to generate transgenic plants starting on page 44 line 26, it does not provide any examples of a plant with a modifications to an antioxidant gene or regulatory unit thereof which demonstrates Ca. Liberibacter resistance.
In re Wands lists a number of factors for determining whether or not undue experimentation would be required by one skilled in the art to make and/or use the invention. These factors are: (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary; (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented; (3) the presence or absence of working examples of the invention; (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; (8) the breadth of the claim. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 28 are broadly directed to all plants comprising a modification to an antioxidant or regulatory unit thereof which confers resistance or tolerance to Ca. liberibacter. While Claim 17 limits the plant to a citrus plant.
Applicant Teaches:
Immunoregulator gibberellin (GA) suppresses Huanglongbing development by suppressing reactive oxygen species (ROS) mediated cell death in Figure 6.
ROS-related enzyme such as antioxidant enzyme are downregulated in response to Ca. liberibacter infection and is in Table 3, Figure 12, and described in the paragraph bridging page 62 and 63,
Antioxidant enzymes are upregulated in plants treated with GA in Figure 17 page 64 paragraph 1.
How to generate transgenic plants
Applicant Does Not Teach:
Any plant with a genetic modification to an antioxidant enzyme
Modification where activation of expression occurs in response to Ca. liberibacter where the modification alters or eliminates a function of the regulatory element thereof.
All possible claimed mutations to antioxidant enzymes that results in increased Ca. liberibacter resistance.
The instant disclosure and the instant claims do not set forth structural characteristics known to be essential to genetic modifications to an antioxidant or regulatory unit thereof which confers resistance or tolerance to Ca. liberibacter in all plants as the claims are directed to.
It is known in the art that some common plants are recalcitrant to genetic modification. For example, Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 28 encompass modification to wheat (i.e. all plants). However, the abstract of Guo, Guanghui, et al. "An elegant co‐transformation strategy for recalcitrant wheat using morphogenic regulators." The Plant Journal 124.2 (2025): e70541 teaches wheat transformation efficiency largely depends on the recipient genotype and overcoming low regeneration efficiency is a barrier to successfully transforming wheat. Morphogenic regulators are shown to improve wheat transformation and regeneration, however, there are still issues regarding how to specifically utilize them in recalcitrant wheat. These challenges are described on page 2 in paragraphs 1-2 and solutions for overcoming these barriers were not provided in the disclosure.
Sadravi, Shekoofeh, June Lee, and Jianfeng Xu. "Advances in promoter engineering strategies for enhanced recombinant protein expression in plants." Frontiers in Plant Science 16 (2025): 1747353 teaches “native promoters often contain cis-regulatory elements whose functions are not fully understood. This complexity can complicate efforts to fine-tune expression levels or engineer predictable promoter performance across different systems”. Additionally, Shi, Lu, et al. "Promoter editing for the genetic improvement of crops." Journal of Experimental Botany 74.15 (2023): 4349-4366 teaches “Promoter editing enables the fine-tuning of the expression of agronomically important genes to advance crop improvement. However, its broad application is restricted by our limited knowledge of the genetic basis of key agronomic traits and the challenge of generating diverse forms of precise edits at high efficiencies.” Because native cis-regulatory elements are not well understood, have complex roles in regulating genes expression, and the limited knowledge of genetic basis of key agronomic traits (i.e. pathogen resistance) it would require trial and error for a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine if any modification to a regulatory element of an antioxidant enzyme would confers resistance or tolerance to Ca. liberibacter in all plants as the Claims 1-2, 6-8 are directed to.
Because the applicant has not actually demonstrated a plant with a modification to an antioxidant or regulatory element thereof with SEQ ID NO:3 that results in increased Ca. liberibacter tolerance or resistance and unpredictability in the art, it is unclear if this gene can increase Ca. liberibacter tolerance or resistance. Alscher, Ruth Grene, Neval Erturk, and Lenwood S. Heath. "Role of superoxide dismutases (SODs) in controlling oxidative stress in plants." Journal of experimental botany 53.372 (2002): 1331-1341 teaches “Overexpression of SODs [i.e. an antioxidant] can lead to protection against specific stresses. Mn SOD can protect when targeted to the chloroplast. Plants overexpressing SODs and other scavenging enzymes have been engineered with the goal of increasing stress tolerance. However, the scavenging pathway is quite complex. Therefore, both successful and unsuccessful results have been obtained from attempts to create resistant plants” on page 6 paragraph 7. It is also known that all genetic modifications generated in a laboratory setting do not always convey resistance in the field. Wang, Peilin, et al. "Plant Genetic Engineering: Technological Pathways, Application Scenarios, and Future Directions." Advanced Science (2026): e21040 recites “ Under laboratory or greenhouse conditions, plants harboring single resistance genes often exhibit nearly complete protection. However, when exposed to natural field environments, resistance frequently diminishes or collapses due to ecological and evolutionary complexities.” These two references indicate that it takes substantial trial and error testing to identify if a modification to an antioxidant gene or regulatory element thereof would convey increased Ca. liberibacter tolerance or resistance or cause activation of expression through modification to regulatory elements in response to Ca. liberibacter as was drawn to in Claims 7-8.
The Applicant has not provided any example of a plant, or citrus, with any of the vastly claimed modifications encompassed by the claims. Thus, the examples provided by the Applicant do not provide adequate working examples to enable the scope of the invention without undue experimentation. Given the breadth of the claims, the lack of guidance and working examples, the unpredictability in the art, and the state of the art, undue experimentation would be required to make and use the claimed invention, and therefore, the invention is not enabled throughout the broad scope of the claims.
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.
(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.
Examiners Note: Because Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are directed to a structure (plant with a modification to an antioxidant enzyme or regulatory element thereof) which has the inherent recited function (conferring resistance or tolerance to Ca. Liberibacter), any plant with a modification to an antioxidant enzyme would have the inherent function of resistance or tolerance to Ca. Liberibacter.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 28 are rejected as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) over Faize, Mohamed, et al. "Hydrogen peroxide generated by over-expression of cytosolic superoxide dismutase in transgenic plums enhances bacterial canker resistance and modulates plant defense responses." Molecular Biology Reports 47.8 (2020): 5889-5901 which is directed to overexpressing (i.e., modification) SOD (i.e. an antioxidant enzyme in Claims 1 and 2) for pathogen resistance1. This is clearly stated in the abstract which recites “In this study we examined the role of H2O2 on bacterial canker resistance in transgenic plums over-expressing cytosolic superoxide dismutase. Three transgenic lines (C64, C66 and F12) with elevated levels of H2O2 accumulation showed enhanced resistance against bacterial canker disease caused by Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae, when compared to the non-transformed control.” Faize et al 2020 references Faize et al 2013 for how the plants were made. Page 2 paragraph 3 of Faize et al 2013 teaches the constructs harbored in their T-DNA, neomycin phosphotransferase (nptII) for aminoglycoside selection and cytosolic Cu/Zn SOD from Spinacia oleracea are under the control of the duplicated CaMV35S promoter plus TEV enhancer and Nos terminator (i.e. Claim 4 and 5). The transgenes were identified in the plant’s genomic DNA indicated it was inserted (i.e., modification of an antioxidant enzyme), which is also a limitation of instant Claim 6. Because any plant with a modification to an antioxidant enzyme would have the inherent function of resistance or tolerance to Ca. Liberibacter according to the Claim language, these plants would inherently be resistant to Ca. Liberibacter (i.e. Claim 28).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Faize et al 2020 in view of Hu, Yan, et al. "Comparative transcriptome analysis unveils the tolerance mechanisms of Citrus hystrix in response to ‘Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus’ infection." PLoS One 12.12 (2017): e0189229.
Claim 17 is directed to a commodity plant product that comprises at least one cell of a citrus plant which comprises a modification to a gene that encodes an antioxidant enzyme or regulatory element thereof as was recited in Claim 1.
Faize et al 2020 is directed to overexpressing SOD (i.e. an antioxidant enzyme in Claims 1 and 2) for pathogen resistance as was described previously.
Faize et al 2020 does not expicitly teach the modification (i.e. overexpressing SODs) in citrus or commodity products from them.
Hu et al 2017 is directed to identifying genes possibly involved in Citrus Huanglongbing resistance. The abstract recites “gene expression profiling experiments were performed on HLB-tolerant C. hystrix and HLB-susceptible C. sinensis three months after inoculation with CLas using RNA-seq data…. the activation of peroxidases, Cu/Zn-SOD and POD4, may also enhance the tolerance of C. hystrix to CLas”. Page 10 paragraph 4 also provides more information on overexpressing antioxidants and linking it to Citrus Huanglongbing resistance. Page 1 paragraph 1 in the Introduction also teaches the importance Citrus plants in the economy and how much fruit (i.e. a commodity plant product directed to in Claim 17) is produced each year.
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Faize et al 2020 and Hu et al 2017 to generate a commodity plant product that comprises at least one cell of a citrus plant which comprises a modification to a gene that encodes an antioxidant enzyme or regulatory element thereof which confers resistance or tolerance to Ca. Liberibacter because both references teach overexpressing SODs for stress resistance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonably high expectation of success for overexpressing SOD for engineering resistance to Citrus Huanglongbing (i.e. Ca. liberibacter) as it has been demonstrated to convey resistance to other bacterial pathogens in fruit trees and been linked to Ca. liberibacter resistance in citrus cultivars. One would have been motivated to genetically engineer (i.e. modify a gene) a citrus plant because “[d]ue to some of the biological characteristics of citrus, conventional breeding methods have demonstrated limitations to producing new citrus cultivars with an improved resistance to diseases. Therefore, genetic engineering, including transgenic or genome-editing technologies, can be a method of choice to overcome the limitations posed by traditional breeding and have made it possible to protect susceptible commercial cultivars against pathogens”2. Additionally, Page 1 paragraph 1 in the Introduction of Hu et al 2017 implies that an invention that grants resistance to Ca. liberibacter would have significant benefit (presumably monetary benefit) to citrus producers.
Subject Matter Free of Art
Claim 7 directed to a modification which causes activation of expression in response to CLas infection, and Claim 8 directed to altering or eliminates a function of the regulatory element, appear free of art.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE W MEYER whose telephone number is (571)272-3733. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am- 5:00 pm.
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, Bratislav Stankovic can be reached at (571) 270-0305. 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.
/GEORGE W MEYER/Examiner, Art Unit 1662
/BRATISLAV STANKOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Units 1661 & 1662 e
1 As evidenced by Faize, Mohamed, et al. "Cu/Zn superoxide dismutase and ascorbate peroxidase enhance in vitro shoot multiplication in transgenic plum." Journal of Plant Physiology 170.7 (2013): 625-632
2 Sun, Lifang, et al. "Citrus genetic engineering for disease resistance: Past, present and future." International journal of molecular sciences 20.21 (2019): 5256 page 10 paragraph 1
Prosecution Insights