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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group III (claims 8-15) in the reply filed on 5/15/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 5 has been amended to require a nucleotide sequence encoding the fusion protein operably linked to a plant promoter. This is not found persuasive because Group I, drawn to a fusion protein, still shares only a fusion protein comprising a GB1 domain bound to the N-terminus of a target protein with Groups II-III, which lacks unity of invention in light of Hu (CN 100999551 A). A feature not shared by all the groups is not a common technical feature.
Group II (current claims 5-7), drawn to the DNA construct, is rejoined in light of prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/15/2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because, in the y-axis label of Figure 7B, “Activiry” should read --Activity--. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures
This application contains sequence disclosures that are encompassed by the definitions for nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences set forth in 37 CFR 1.831(b). However, this application fails to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.831-1.834.
Figure 5A depicts three unique amino acid sequences, but the figure description on page 4 only provides a sequence identifier for one of them: wild type GB1 (SEQ ID NO: 1). All distinct amino acid sequences longer than 4 amino acids require a sequence identifier. The sequences of GB1 1A and GB1 2A must be added to the sequence listing file, if not already present, and the corresponding sequence identifiers must be added to the figure description (Amendments to the Specification, page 4, paragraph 3) or to the drawing itself. See 37 CFR 1.831(c).
Full compliance with the sequence rules is required in response to this Office action. A complete response to this Office action must include both compliance with the sequence rules and a response to the issues set forth herein. Failure to fully comply with both of these requirements in the time period set forth in this Office action will be held to be non-responsive.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 9, 11, 13 & 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 (line 2): “the expression amount” should read --the expression--.
Claim 9 (line 2) and claim 13 (line 2): “Arabidopsis thaliana” should be italicized.
Claim 9 (line 3): “cabbage” has been listed twice in the Markush group.
Claim 11 (line 2) and claim 15 (line 2): --and-- should be inserted after the comma.
Claim 11 (line 3) and claim 15 (line 3): “is” should read --are--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 9 & 13 recite “red pepper” in line 2. This has been interpreted to encompass any Capsicum pepper that develops to a red fruit color.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Indefiniteness
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 5-15 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. All dependent claims are included in the rejections below.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the fusion protein" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amendment to --a fusion protein-- would solve the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 5 recites a GB1 domain in line 2. Although the instant specification describes a GB 1 domain of Streptococcus-derived protein G (SEQ ID NO: 1), the instant specification does not define “GB1” or “GB 1” as GB 1 domains of Streptococcus-derived protein G specifically. A plant “GB1” protein, glycinebetaine 1, is known in the art, and transmembrane domains have been identified in this protein (Castiglioni et al (2018) Plant Direct. 2(2): 1-7. Published 2/22/2018. Abstract, page 5, right column, paragraph 3-page 6, left column, paragraph 1). Additionally, plant heterotrimeric G proteins are known, the Beta unit of which is known as GB1. See UniProt entry P49177 (available 2/1/1996). It is indefinite whether the GB1 domain of claim 5 and dependent claims encompasses any domain from any protein known as GB1 or whether the claims are limited to a specific GB 1 domain of a protein G.
Claim 8 is drawn to a plant cell into which the DNA construct is introduced. Claim 12 is drawn to a transgenic plant into which the DNA construct is introduced. “Is introduced” reads on an active step wherein the DNA construct enters the plant cell, but claims 8 and 12 are drawn to products rather than methods. Claims 8 & 12 are indefinite because a product claim cannot recite limitations that are steps in a method. Amendment of “is introduced” to --has been introduced--, or rewording the claims into a format such as --A plant cell comprising the DNA construct…-- or --A transgenic plant comprising the DNA construct…-- would solve the indefiniteness issue.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the tissue isolated from the plant” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because there is no step to isolate a tissue from the plant.
Improper Dependency
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 7 is drawn to the DNA construct of claim 5, wherein the GB1 domain is fused to the N-terminus of the target protein to increase the expression amount of the target protein in plants. Claim 5 already requires a GB1 domain fused to the N-terminus of the target protein and a plant promoter. “To increase the expression amount of the target protein” (line 2) reads on an intended use of the DNA construct. Claim 7 does not require any additional structural or functional features of the DNA construct of claim 5 and so fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 5. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 7-9 & 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu CN 100999551 A (published 7/18/2007, hereafter Hu; English machine translation of the Description provided previously) in view of Merlin et al (2014) BioMed Research International. 136419. (published 3/12/2014, hereafter Merlin).
Claims 5, 7-9 & 12-13 are drawn to a DNA construct comprising a nucleotide sequence encoding a fusion protein comprising a target protein and a GB2 domain fused to the N-terminus of the target protein, a plant cell or plant comprising the DNA construct, and methods of producing a target protein.
Hu teaches a polypeptide following the formula A-B-C, where A is a GB1 label, B is a small peptide, and C is a histidine tag (paragraphs [0010-0015]). Hu also teaches that a protease cleavage site can be included between the GB1 label and the small peptide (paragraph [0018]).
Hu teaches an expression vector comprising a T7 RNA polymerase promoter, the GB1 tag, a linker, a thrombin cleavage site, a multiple cloning site, and histidine tags (figure 1, paragraphs [0083-0085]). Hu teaches a method wherein sequences encoding the small peptides are cloned into the expression vector (paragraph [0103]), the expression vector is transformed into E. coli (paragraph [0108-0110]), and fusion proteins are purified (paragraph [0111]). Hu teaches a method wherein the GB1 tag is removed from the GB1 fusion protein using bovine thrombin (paragraph [0115]). Hu teaches that purification of the fusion protein involves sonicating bacterial cells and purifying with an Ni-NTA affinity column or using ion exchange chromatography (paragraphs [0110-0111]).
Hu teaches that by adding the GB1 tag of streptococcal G protein to an expression vector and inserting a target peptide after the GB1 tag, the target peptide can be expressed and/or purified efficiently (paragraph [0062]). Hu teaches a motivation to use GB1 as a fusion chaperone because it is very small and highly soluble, enabling production of highly soluble and stable fusion proteins and increasing expression yield, stability, and solubility without affect structure of fusion target peptide (paragraph [0065]).
Hu teaches representative small peptides including CUEa, CUEb, WW1, WW2, UIM, DATc (paragraph [0071]).
Hu does not teach recombinant protein expression in plants.
Merlin teaches a motivation to produce recombinant pharmaceutical proteins in plants, because plant-based platforms provide flexible, low-cost production of high-quality, bioactive recombinant proteins and overcome limitations of E. coli, yeast, insect, and mammalian cell production platforms such as production of small quantities, rapid production scale up, post-translational modifications, and flexibility in scale, cost, safety, and regulatory issues (page 2, left column, paragraph 1-2).
Merlin teaches that fusion partners for proteins such as glutamic acid decarboxylase improve protein solubility and facilitate protein isolation (page 2, right column, paragraph 2). Expressing tagged fusion proteins and using the tag as the affinity ligand achieves higher yields in bacterial and yeast systems, although purification has not been reported in plants (page 3, left column, paragraph 4).
Merlin teaches that several strategies have been proposed to improve the yield and stability of plant-derived recombinant proteins such as monoclonal antibody 2G12 and to reduce costs of processing, such as using elastin-like fusion partners to increase solubility and stability (page 6, left column, paragraph 3).
Merlin teaches stable expression in N. benthamiana under control of the constitutive Cauliflower mosaic virus 3S promoter (page 7, left column, paragraph 5).
Merlin teaches that the variety of available plant hosts and expression systems provides a toolbox for the manufacture of recombinant proteins (page 8, left column, paragraph 7). Stably transformed tobacco plants are more productive overall for the expression of hGAD65 than transient expression in N. benthamiana because they accumulate more biomass (page 8, right column, paragraph 2). Merlin summarizes recombinant proteins produced in different organs of different host plants in table 2. In addition, Merlin teaches that cell-based bioreactor systems including plant suspension cells are ideal for lower-volume products (page 1, left column, paragraph h2-right column, paragraph 1).
Merlin teaches that plant-based systems allow for oral administration and teaches a method comprising oral administration of plant tissue expressing hGAD65 to a mouse model of Type 1 diabetes (page 10, left column, paragraph 3).
Before the filing of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Hu to express the fusion protein in a plant rather than E. coli. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to express recombinant fusion proteins in a plant because Merlin teaches that plant-based expression platforms offer rapid production scale up, post-translational modifications, and flexibility in scale, cost, safety, and regulatory issues. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasonable expectation of success, because recombinant fusion proteins had been expressed in plant systems prior to the filing of the instant application, including proteins with fusion partners to increase solubility and stability.
Hu’s teachings of an expression vector comprising a promoter, a GB1 tag, a linker, a thrombin cleavage site, and a site for cloning in a target protein, and Merlin’s teaching of a plant promoter, make obvious instant claims 5 & 7. Claim 7, line 2, “to increase the expression amount of the target protein in plants” reads on an intended use and does not add an additional structural feature to the DNA construct of claim 5.
A plant cell into which the DNA construct is introduced, including wherein the cell is derived from a tobacco plant (instant claims 8 & 9), as well as a transgenic tobacco plant into which the DNA construct is introduced (instant claims 12 & 13), are obvious over Hu and Merlin.
Thus, claims 5, 7-9 & 12-13 are obvious over Hu and Merlin.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 14 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu and Merlin as applied to claims 5, 7-9 & 12-13 above, and further in view of Avesani et al (2014) Transgenic Res. 23: 281-291. (published 10/20/2013, hereafter Avesani).
Claims 10, 11, 14 & 15 are drawn to methods for producing a target protein in a plant cell or transgenic plant.
The teachings of Hu and Merlin are presented above. Although they teach sonication of bacterial cells to recover protein, they do not teach recovering the target protein by crushing a cultured plant cell or tissue isolated from the plant.
Avesani teaches a method of producing the diabetes autoantigen hGAD65 in Nicotiana benthamiana (page 282, right column, paragraph 4-page 283, left column, paragraph 2). Avesani teaches a method of extracting total soluble proteins from plant tissues by grinding to fine powder, while bacterial cells were sonicated for protein extraction (page 283, right column, paragraph 3-page 284, left column, paragraph 1). The method comprises growing the plant (page 282, right column, paragraph 3).
Before the filing of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Hu and Merlin to extract protein by grinding plant tissues, which reads on crushing. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to crush plant tissue to extract protein, because this method was presented as an alternative to bacterial cell sonication for protein extraction by Avesani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasonable expectation of success, because grinding, which reads on crushing, had been successfully used for extracting proteins from plant tissue prior to the instant filing date.
Thus, a method of growing the transgenic plant and recovering the target protein by crushing tissue isolated from the plant (instant claim 14) is obvious. Furthermore, since Merlin teaches cell-based bioreactor systems of plant suspension cells, which are beneficial for low-volume protein production, a method for culturing a plant cell and recovering the target protein by crushing the cultured plant cell is also obvious (instant claim 10).
Because Hu teaches a method wherein the DNA construct comprises a cleavage site between the target protein and the GB1 domain and the domain is cleaved and removed from the protein, instant claims 11 & 15 are also obvious.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu and Merlin as applied to claims 5, 7-9 & 12-13 above, and further in view of Satoh et al (2004) Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering. 98(1): 1-8 (published 8/25/2004, hereafter Satoh).
Claim 6 is drawn to a DNA construct comprising a 5’ UTR sequence at the 5’-terminal site of the nucleotide sequence.
The teachings of Hu and Merlin are presented above. They do not teach a construct comprising a 5’ UTR sequence at the 5’-terminal site of the nucleotide sequence.
Satoh teaches a plasmid comprising the 5’ UTR of the NtADH gene promoter upstream of a β-glucuronidase coding region (page 2, left column, paragraph 1; figure 1). The plasmid was transformed into tobacco leaf as well as protoplasts (page 2, right column, paragraph 2-page 3, left column, paragraph 4). The NtADH 5’UTR increased expression of GUS in tobacco protoplasts 300-fold (tables 2 & 3).
Before the filing of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a 5’-UTR in a DNA construct at the 5’terminal site of a nucleotide sequence encoding a fusion protein. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Hu to include a 5’-UTR because a UTR such as that of the NtADH gene promoter can increase transgene expression. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasonable expectation of success, because an N. tabacum 5’-UTR would be expected to work in the transformation of N. tabacum cells. Upstream reads on “at the 5’-terminal site”. Thus, claim 6 is obvious over Hu, Merlin, and Satoh.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 5-9 & 12-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9, 20 & 21 of copending Application No. 19/501,725 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘725 claims 9, 20 & 21 are specific to and make obvious instant claims 5-9 & 12-15.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
‘725 claim 9 is drawn to a recombinant vector including a 5’ UTR base sequence and a GB1 domain coding sequence arranged at a 5’ end of a vector comprising a fibroblast growth factor 2 protein coding sequence and a protease recognition site.
‘725 claim 20 recites a method for producing a fibroblast growth factor 2 protein in a plant, comprising introducing a recombinant vector to produce a transformed strain, expressing a recombinant protein, and pulverizing the plant to extract the recombinant protein. ‘725 claim 21 is drawn to the method wherein the plant is selected from a list of plants found in instant claims 9 & 13.
Although ‘725 claims 20 & 21 do not require that the vector include the 5’ UTR and a GB1 domain coding sequence at the 5’ end of the vector, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the vector of ‘725 claim 9 in the method of ‘725 claims 20 & 21. It would further have been obvious that the construct comprises a plant promoter, because the method requires expression of the protein in a plant.
Therefore, instant claims 5 & 7 drawn to a DNA construct comprising a nucleotide sequence encoding a fusion protein comprising a target protein and a GB1 domain fused to the N-terminus and operably linked to a plant promoter, instant claim 6 drawn to a construct comprising a 5’ UTR sequence, and the method of instant claim 14 are not patentably distinct over ‘725 claims 9, 20 & 21. In addition, because instant claim 15 only requires cleavage of the GB1 domain and the target protein when a cleavage site is between the target protein and the GB1 domain, claim 15 is likewise not patentably distinct from the method of ‘725 claim 20.
The method of ‘725 claim 21 also makes obvious a plant cell of instant claims 8-9 and a transgenic plant of claims 12-13.
Claims 5-9 & 12-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10, 18 & 19 of copending Application No. 19/502,294 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘294 claim 10, 18 & 19 are specific to and make obvious instant claims 5-9 & 12-15.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
‘294 claim 10 is drawn to a recombinant vector comprising a coding sequence of bovine serum albumin and a protease recognition site and a 5’ UTR sequence and GB1 domain arranged at a 5’ end.
‘294 claim 18 is drawn to a method for producing a platelet-derived growth factor in a plant comprising introducing the recombinant vector into a strain, expressing the recombinant protein in a plant, and pulverizing the plant to extract a recombinant protein. ‘294 claim 19 is drawn to the method wherein the plant is selected from the group of species found in instant claims 9 & 13.
Although ‘294 claims 18 & 19 do not require that the vector include the 5’ UTR and a GB1 domain coding sequence at the 5’ end of the vector, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the vector of ‘294 claim 10 in the method of ‘294 claims 18 & 19. It would further have been obvious that the construct comprises a plant promoter, because the method requires expression of the protein in a plant.
Therefore, instant claims 5 & 7 drawn to a DNA construct comprising a nucleotide sequence encoding a fusion protein comprising a target protein and a GB1 domain fused to the N-terminus and operably linked to a plant promoter, instant claim 6 drawn to a construct comprising a 5’ UTR sequence, and the method of instant claim 14 are not patentably distinct over ‘294 claims 10, 18 & 19. In addition, because instant claim 15 only requires cleavage of the GB1 domain and the target protein when a cleavage site is between the target protein and the GB1 domain, claim 15 is likewise not patentably distinct from the method of ‘294 claim 18.
The method of ‘294 claim 19 also makes obvious a plant cell of instant claims 8-9 and a transgenic plant of claims 12-13.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Victoria L DeLeo whose telephone number is (703)756-5998. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4pm EDT.
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.
/VICTORIA L DELEO/Examiner, Art Unit 1662
/Anne Kubelik/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663
Prosecution Insights