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 without traverse of Group I claims 1-13 and 17, and the species of SEQ ID NO: 2 in the reply filed on November 26, 2025 is acknowledged. Upon further consideration the restriction is withdrawn. Claims 1-20 are examined in the instant Application. The restriction is made FINAL.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20, are pending. Claims 1-20, are examined in the instant application.
Priority
This application is claiming the benefit of Provisional Application No. 63/510,280 filed June 26, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The IDS submitted on 06/28/2024 has been considered. Signed copies is attached.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)(Written Description)
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.
Claims 1-20, 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 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 written description requirement may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by disclosing relevant and identifying characteristics such as structural or other physical and/or chemical properties, by disclosing functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the invention as claimed. See Eli Lilly,119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406.
Applicant’s disclosure is as follows.
Applicant describes NARS1 (SEQ ID NO: 2) from Arabidopsis thaliana plant (see page 12 lines 30-31). Additionally, the specification describes a sequence alignment of Arabidopsis NARS1 (see figure 4).
Furthermore, the specification describes transgenically overexpressing NARS1 (SEQ ID NO: 2) in Arabidopsis and maize (see figure 5) resulting in growth (see figures 2-3 and 5).
Claims encompass any NARS1 protein or a NARS1 protein having as little as 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2 – the specification only describes a NARS1 protein having SEQ ID NO: 2 from Arabidopsis having increased growth.
The claimed invention lacks adequate written description for the following reasons. Claims 1-20, are directed to a plant that does not have root nodules and genetically engineered with NARS1 resulting in increased growth, wherein the NARS1 is obtained from any plant source having any amino acid structure.
Additionally, the claims encompass an amino acid sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2. Furthermore, the scope of the claims encompasses NARS1 amino acids obtained from sources other than Arabidopsis, or a polypeptide for NARS1 so long as they share at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2.
The only NARS1 amino acid disclosed is from Arabidopsis having SEQ ID NO: 2 having the function of increasing growth. The specification does not describe the features of SEQ ID NO: 2 which confer functional activity. Therefore, one skilled in the art cannot identify structures that confer functional activity from other plant species.
(1) Applicant’s haven’t described the polypeptide is found in other plant species and has the same function (2) Applicant’s haven’t described the genus of structures (i.e., 90% to SEQ ID NO: 2).
Applicant does not describe common structures or motifs for NARS1 functionality that is shared by Arabidopsis plants or from any other plant lacking root nodules having the same increased growth. Therefore, the lack of such identifying characteristics is not sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the invention as claimed.
The specification fails to describe that variants with at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2 will increase growth thereof across different plants rendering it unknown if the variants will retain functional activity and increase growth. This is because the specification does not describe functional domains or motifs such that one would have no idea if the variants possess the necessary structures to be functionally active and increase growth.
Furthermore, claims 1-20 encompass amino acid sequences having at least 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 2. This requires the specification to describe amino acid sequences encoding such proteins.
However, the specification does not describe a NARS1 polypeptide with at least 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 2, which leads to a functional NARS1 polypeptide.
A polypeptide with at least 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 2 would have 57 amino acid substitutions relative to SEQ ID NO: 2.
These polypeptides would encompass 1957 distinct protein variants. In the absence of describing where in the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 2 such variations can be sustained, one of skill in the art would not be led to believe that Applicant possesses this vast genus of amino acid sequences that retain functional activity, or to the make the polypeptide which would retain the activity of SEQ ID NO: 2, and lead to increase growth.
Therefore, while the example only describes that NARS1 SEQ ID NO: 2 can increase growth, the specification fails to provide adequate description on the motifs, catalytic domains, etc. in these sequences that confers the specifically claimed function of increased growth or yield.
Applicant has shown one structure/sequence which is not deemed to be a representative number of structures/sequences from the genus of sequences having 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2 that retain function and thus confer tolerance.
For example, a blast search of the top ten results shows proteins as unnamed, predicted, and hypothetical genes.
PNG
media_image1.png
386
1214
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(1) here are the alignments: one has high sequence similarity, which is the same as the Applicant and the rest is below 90% (2) these search results do not describe structures that confer functionality. Therefore, based on the state of the art the skilled artisan would not know the structures found within sequence having as little as 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2 that increases growth or yield.
Because of the lack of a description of a representative number of structures/sequences, the absence of information in the art on conserved regions required for activity, and the impact of 10% variation of SEQ ID NO: 2, one skilled in the art would not know the structures that confer the various traits.
In regard to claims 8-9, they encompass any form of overexpressing endogenous NARS1 protein, such as modulating endogenous NARS1 expression by modulating the transcription factor of NARS1. However, Applicant has only described isolating NARS1 SEQ ID NO: 2 and overexpressing in either Arabidopsis or maize. Applicant has not described how one skilled in the art can overexpress NARS1 without transgenically introducing NARS1 back into the plant. Therefore, Applicant has not sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the invention as claimed.
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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)(Enablement)
Claims 1-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for transgenically overexpressing NARS1 (SEQ ID NO: 2) in Arabidopsis and maize resulting in increased growth, does not reasonably provide enablement for any species of plant comprising a protein having as little as 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2 and increase growth. Furthermore, any form of overexpressing the endogenous NARS1 protein. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
“The first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires, inter alia, that the specification of a patent enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains to make and use the claimed invention. Although the statute does not say so, enablement requires that the specification teach those in the art to make and use the invention without ‘undue experimentation.’ In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
That some experimentation may be required is not fatal; the issue is whether the amount of experimentation required is ‘undue.’” In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 495 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (emphasis in original); see also In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“[T]o be enabling, the specification of a patent must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation.’”) “Whether undue experimentation is needed is not a single, simple factual determination, but rather is a conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations.” Wands, supra.
Some experimentation, even a considerable amount, is not “undue” if, e.g., it is merely routine, or if the specification provides a reasonable amount of guidance as to the direction in which the experimentation should proceed. 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.” Id.
Applicant’s disclosure is as set forth above. The claimed invention is not enabled for the following reasons. To comply with 35 USC 112(a) enablement, one skilled in the art must be able to make and use the claimed invention.
(A) The breadth of the claims
The breadth of the claims encompasses any plant comprising any NARS1, or NARS1 having any structure within 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2 to increase growth or yield. However, the specification has only taught overexpressing SEQ ID NO: 2 in Arabidopsis and maize increases growth.
(B) The nature of the invention.
The nature of the claimed invention is directed to any plant comprising the NARS1 having at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2, achieved by overexpressing NARS1, to increase growth.
(C) The state of the prior art
The state of the prior art does not teach the NARS1 polypeptide or the structures that confer function for said polypeptide. Additionally, the art does not teach conserved regions or alignments of said protein.
(E) The level of predictability in the art; (F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) The existence of working examples; and (H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
The claimed invention lacks adequate enabling guidance for the following reasons. Claims 1-20, are directed to a plant that does not have root nodules and genetically engineered with NARS1 resulting in increased growth, wherein the NARS1 is obtained from any plant source having any amino acid structure.
Additionally, the claims encompass an amino acid sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2. Furthermore, the scope of the claims encompasses NARS1 obtained from sources other than Arabidopsis so long as they share at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2.
The only NARS1 taught is from Arabidopsis being SEQ ID NO: 2 having the function of increasing growth. The specification does not teach the adequate amount of direction or guidance regarding the features of SEQ ID NO: 2 which confer functional activity. From the disclosure of SEQ ID NO: 2, one skilled in the art cannot predict the structures of other NARS1 from other plant species.
(1) Applicant’s haven’t taught the polypeptide is found in other plant species and has the same function (2) Applicant’s haven’t taught the structures (i.e., 90% to SEQ ID NO: 2) that confer functional activity.
Applicant does not teach common structures or motifs for NARS1 shared by Arabidopsis plant or any other plant that would allow one skilled in the art to predict their structures of NARS1 or from any other Arabidopsis plant having the same tolerance.
The specification fails to TEACH, or fails to provide GUIDANCE for making variants with at least 90% sequence identity will have the same tolerance. The lack or guidance and the lack of working examples means one skilled in the cannot make and use a polypeptide having as little as 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2.
Furthermore, claims 1-20 encompass a NARS1 polypeptide having an amino acid sequence with at least 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 2. This requires the specification to teach amino acid sequences encoding such polypeptides.
However, the specification does not teach or provide guidance for making a polynucleotide encoding a NARS1 polypeptide with at least 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 2, which leads to a functional NARS1 polypeptide.
A polypeptide with at least 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 2 would have 57 amino acid substitutions relative to SEQ ID NO: 2. These polypeptides would encompass 1957 distinct protein variants, respectively. In the absence of guidance indicating where in the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 2 such variations can be sustained, undue trial and error experimentation would be required to make the claimed polypeptide which would retain the activity of SEQ ID NO: 2, and lead to conferring tolerance heavy metal stress, salt stress, drought or combination thereof.
Therefore, while the examples teach that certain specific NARS1 SEQ ID NO: 2 in Arabidopsis and maize resulting in increased growth, the specification fails to teach motifs, catalytic domains, etc. in these sequences that confers the specifically claimed function of increasing growth. Applicant has not shown one structure/sequence having 90% sequence identity that retain function and thus increase growth.
For example, a blast search of the top ten results shows proteins as unnamed, predicted, and hypothetical lacking adequate enabling guidance of other NARS1.
PNG
media_image2.png
359
1220
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, because the art fails to teach the structures required for NARS1 functional activity, a person skilled in the art would be unable to predictably make, and thus use, the claimed amino and nucleic acid sequences as the specification fails to teach the critical domains and motifs that are required for functional activity.
Because of the lack of representative sequences, the lack of information on conserved regions required for activity, and the impact of 10% variation of SEQ ID NO: 2, there is not enough guidance to predictably make and/or use the claimed sequences to predictably produce plants having increased growth and/or yield.
The claimed invention lacks adequate enabling guidance with regard to the genus of plants that comprise NARS1 whereby increased growth is obtained. The scope of the claims encompass any species of plant. However, Applicant’s working example is overexpressing SEQ ID NO: 2 in Arabidopsis and maize having increased growth.
In regard to claims 8-9, they encompass any form of overexpressing endogenous NARS1 protein, such as modulating endogenous NARS1 expression by modulating the transcription factor of NARS1. However, Applicant has only shown isolating NARS1 SEQ ID NO: 2 and overexpressing in either Arabidopsis and maize.
Applicant has not provided guidance on how one skilled in the art can overexpress NARS1 without transgenically introducing NARS1 back into the plant. Therefore, Applicant has not provided enabling guidance on how one would overexpress endogenous NARS1 protein without transgenically introducing NARS1.
Given the breadth of the claims, the lack of sufficient guidance, the absence of working examples regarding the structure of NARS1 having at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:2 which confer functional activity, the state of the prior art, and unpredictability in the art, one skilled in the art cannot make and use the claimed invention as commensurate in scope with the claims without excessive burden and undue experimentation.
For at least this reason, the Specification does not teach a person with skill in the art how to make and/or use the subject matter within the full scope of these 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.
Claims 1-4, 8-10, 12-14 and 17-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arifin et al. (2019. Plant biotechnology (Tokyo, Japan) vol. 36,4: 233-240. doi:10.5511/plantbiotechnology.19.1016a.(U))
In regard to claims 1 and 9, Arifin et al. disclose “transgenic soybean plants were produced from infected half-seed explants with the suspension of A. tumefaciens harboring the expression vector pB7WG2DSYNC1” (see page 236 left column last paragraph and figures 2F, G, N and O). Arifin teaches that a vector overexpresses SYNC1 (see page 237 and figure 5). Additionally, SYNC1 is synonymous with NARS1 as claimed. Furthermore, the plants in figures 2F, G, N and O clearly do not have root nodules. Therefore, Arifin teaches overexpressing SYNC1 in a plant that does not have root nodules present.
In regard to claims 2-4, Arifin et al. disclose the construct (used in the transgenic plant) which comprises a cauliflower mosaic virus (CMV) 35S promoter (i.e. heterologous constitutive promoter) (see page 234 right column top paragraph and figure 1).
In regard to claim 8, Arifin et al. disclose that the SYNC1 gene is from GenBank: AK286835.1 is isolated from soybean, (see page 234 left column bottom paragraph). This SYNC1 gene was subsequently expressed in soybean, which through transcription and protein synthesis would have to produce a protein (i.e. endogenous NARS1 protein).
In regard to claim 10, Arifin et al. disclose overexpressing Arabidopsis SYNC1 in Lotus corniculatus (i.e. heterologous NARS1 protein expression) (see page 239 right column top paragraph).
In regard to claims 12-13, Arifin et al. disclose that the SYNC1 is expressed in the roots, leaves, fruits, and seeds of the plant. GFP fluorescens confirms stable expression of SYNC1 (see figure 2).
In regard to claims 14 and 17, Arifin et al. disclose a method to overexpress SYNC1 (see pages 234-236):
a) Arifin et al. disclose introducing a construct comprising a heterologous promoter operably linked to a nucleotide encoding SYNC1 (i.e. NARS1 protein) into a plant that lacks root nodules, which the plants in figures 2F, G, N and O clearly do not have root nodules.
b) Arifin et al. disclose growing a seed cotyledon, which is made up of cells, into a plant (see figure 2).
In regard to claim 18, Arifin et al. discloses a method that “[t]he seeds that expressed GFP were segregated in T2 generation (Figure 2K, L) and the homozygous transgene was confirmed in T3 generation (Figure 2M)” (see page 237). Meaning that Arifin et al. discloses planting and growing a seed that overexpresses SYNC1 thus getting T2 and T3 generations.
In regard to claims 19-20, Arifin et al. discloses that the “transgenic L3 line showed a tendency of higher number of pods, seeds, and total seed weight per plant.” (i.e. increased yield) and “was bigger than wild type” (i.e. increased growth) (see table 1 and figure 6).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5-7 and 15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arifin et al. (2019. Plant biotechnology (Tokyo, Japan) vol. 36,4: 233-240. doi:10.5511/plantbiotechnology.19.1016a.(U))
a. In regard to claim 1, Arifin et al. teaches “transgenic soybean plants were produced from infected half-seed explants with the suspension of A. tumefaciens harboring the expression vector pB7WG2DSYNC1” (see page 236 left column last paragraph and figures 2F, G, N and O) (i.e. a plant that lacks root nodules overexpressing NARS1.
b. In regard to claims 5-7 and 15, Arifin et al. does not specifically teach expressing SYNC1 in maize.
c. Given that Arifin et al. teaches overexpressing SYNC1, along with the suggestion of overexpressing SYNC1 in maize (see page 236 left column last paragraph and figures 2F, G, N and O), it would have been obvious to try knowing that one skilled the art can readily use transformation techniques to introduce SYNC1 in maize plant as taught by Arifin et al.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Arifin et al. to express SYNC1 in a plant other than soybean.
Arifin et al. provides the specific teaching, suggestion and motivation for this modification, stating that such applications should be pursued because “[t]his approach is expected to be applied to increase the yield and improve the total free amino acid of another legume crops, grain, forage plants for animal feed and human diet” specifically those listed in claims 5-7 and 15 (p. 240 col. 1 conclusion ¶).
Furthermore, the motivation is supported by the fact that SYNC1 provides better results than the other synthase expressed in corn (p. 239 col. 2).
One would have a reasonable expectation of success because (1) expressing SYNC1 in lotus gives you same results as expressing SYNC1 in soybean; and (2) expressing a different synthase in a different plant gives you similar results in so far as amino acid content is beneficially altered (p. 239 col. 2).
Consequently, based on the teachings of Arifin et al., one would reasonably expect to produce a plant “overexpression of SYNC1 gene was effective to increase some free amino acid contents such as asparagine and lysine, which also have a possibility to increase plant biomass in soybean” (p. 240 col. 1 conclusion ¶).
Claims 1, 11 and 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arifin et al. (Asparaginyl-tRNA synthetase gene (SYNC1) characterized by Lotus corniculatus FOX-superroot lines has effects on plant morphology and amino acid contents of seed in soybean. 2019. Plant biotechnology (Tokyo, Japan) vol. 36,4: 233-240. doi:10.5511/plantbiotechnology.19.1016a.(U)) and in view of Himuro et al. (J Plant Physiol. 2011 Jan 15;168(2):181-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2010.10.003. Epub 2010 Nov 23. PMID: 21106274. (V))
In regard to claim 1, Arifin et al. teaches on how Himuro et al. et al. identifies “SYNC1 gene (asparaginyl-tRNA synthetase) was found in FOX-SR lines (FSL#) 121” (see page 233-234). Additionally, Arifin et al. teaches “transgenic soybean plants were produced from infected half-seed explants with the suspension of A. tumefaciens harboring the expression vector pB7WG2DSYNC1” (see page 236 left column last paragraph and figures 2F, G, N and O) (i.e. a plant that lacks root nodules overexpressing asparaginyl-tRNA synthetase gene (NARS1 also known as SYNC1)).
In regard to claims 11 and 16, Arifin et al. do not teach SEQ ID NO: 2.
In regard to claims 11 and 16, Himuro et al. teaches SYNC1 having the AGI code of At5g56680 (see page 186 table 2), which is the same as the Applicants NARS1 (see specification page 12). At5g56680 as taught by Himuro et al. has 100% sequence identity to Applicants SEQ ID NO: 2.
LOCUS ABO38771 572 aa linear PLN 20-MAR-2007
DEFINITION At5g56680 [Arabidopsis thaliana].
ACCESSION ABO38771
VERSION ABO38771.1
DBSOURCE accession BT030358.1
KEYWORDS .
SOURCE Arabidopsis thaliana (thale cress)
ORGANISM Arabidopsis thaliana
Eukaryota; Viridiplantae; Streptophyta; Embryophyta; Tracheophyta;
Spermatophyta; Magnoliopsida; eudicotyledons; Gunneridae;
Pentapetalae; rosids; malvids; Brassicales; Brassicaceae;
Camelineae; Arabidopsis.
REFERENCE 1 (residues 1 to 572)
AUTHORS Bautista,V.R., Kim,C.J., Chen,H., Wu,S.Y., De Los Reyes,C. and
Ecker,J.R.
TITLE Arabidopsis ORF clones
JOURNAL Unpublished
REFERENCE 2 (residues 1 to 572)
AUTHORS Bautista,V.R., Kim,C.J., Chen,H., Wu,S.Y., De Los Reyes,C. and
Ecker,J.R.
TITLE Direct Submission
JOURNAL Submitted (20-MAR-2007) Salk Institute Genomic Analysis Laboratory
(SIGnAL), Plant Biology Laboratory, The Salk Institute for
Biological Studies, 10010 N. Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, CA 92037,
USA
COMMENT Method: conceptual translation.
FEATURES Location/Qualifiers
source 1..572
/organism="Arabidopsis thaliana"
/db_xref="taxon:3702"
/chromosome="5"
/clone="U88250"
/ecotype="Columbia"
/note="This clone is in pUNI 51"
Protein 1..572
/product="At5g56680"
Region 1..572
/region_name="PLN02221"
/note="asparaginyl-tRNA synthetase"
/db_xref="CDD:177867"
CDS 1..572
/coded_by="BT030358.1:1..1719"
/note="unknown protein"
RESULT 1
AASEQ2_01272026_170447
Query Match 100.0%; Score 2958; DB 1; Length 572;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 572; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 MADEIVPPATQLAAVSLENDGSTVQRAQFSNRVLIRTILDRPDGGAGLAGQTVRIGGWVK 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 MADEIVPPATQLAAVSLENDGSTVQRAQFSNRVLIRTILDRPDGGAGLAGQTVRIGGWVK 60
Qy 61 SGRDQGKRTFSFLAVNDGSCPANLQVMVDPSLYDVSNLVATGTCVTVDGVLKVPPKGKGT 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 SGRDQGKRTFSFLAVNDGSCPANLQVMVDPSLYDVSNLVATGTCVTVDGVLKVPPKGKGT 120
Qy 121 QQQIELNVVKVIDVGTVDASKYPLPKTKLTLETLRDVLHLRSRTNSISAVARIRNALAFA 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 QQQIELNVVKVIDVGTVDASKYPLPKTKLTLETLRDVLHLRSRTNSISAVARIRNALAFA 180
Qy 181 THSFFQEHSFLYIHTPIITTSDCEGAGEMFQATTLINYTERLEQDLIDNPPPTEADVEAA 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 THSFFQEHSFLYIHTPIITTSDCEGAGEMFQATTLINYTERLEQDLIDNPPPTEADVEAA 240
Qy 241 RLIVIERGNVVAELKAAKASKEAITAAVAELKIAKETFAHIDERSRLRPGLPKKDGNIDY 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 RLIVIERGNVVAELKAAKASKEAITAAVAELKIAKETFAHIDERSRLRPGLPKKDGNIDY 300
Qy 301 SKDFFGRQAFLTVSGQLQVETYACALSNVYTFGPTFRAENSHTSRHLAEFWMVEPEIAFA 360
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 301 SKDFFGRQAFLTVSGQLQVETYACALSNVYTFGPTFRAENSHTSRHLAEFWMVEPEIAFA 360
Qy 361 DLEDDMNCAEAYVKYMCNWLLEKCYADMELMAKNFDSGCIDRLKLVASTPFGRITYTKAI 420
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 361 DLEDDMNCAEAYVKYMCNWLLEKCYADMELMAKNFDSGCIDRLKLVASTPFGRITYTKAI 420
Qy 421 ELLEEAVAKGKEFDNNVEWGIDLASEHERYLTEVLFQKPLIVYNYPKGIKAFYMRLNDDE 480
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 421 ELLEEAVAKGKEFDNNVEWGIDLASEHERYLTEVLFQKPLIVYNYPKGIKAFYMRLNDDE 480
Qy 481 KTVAAMDVLVPKVGELIGGSQREERYDVIKKRIEEMGLPIEPYEWYLDLRRYGTVKHCGF 540
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 481 KTVAAMDVLVPKVGELIGGSQREERYDVIKKRIEEMGLPIEPYEWYLDLRRYGTVKHCGF 540
Qy 541 GLGFERMILFATGLDNIRDVIPFPRYPGKADL 572
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 541 GLGFERMILFATGLDNIRDVIPFPRYPGKADL 572
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Arifin et al. to express SYNC1 in a plant other than soybean, in view of Himuro et al. because one skilled in the art would readily try the suggestion of Arifin et al. provides the specific teaching, suggestion and motivation for this modification, stating that such applications should be pursued because “[t]his approach is expected to be applied to increase the yield and improve the total free amino acid of another legume crops, grain, forage plants for animal feed and human diet” specifically those listed in claims 5-7 and 15 (p. 240 col. 1 conclusion ¶).
Furthermore, Arifin teaches (p. 234 col.1) that by overexpressing the SYNC1, FSL#121, as taught in Himuro et al., demonstrates enhanced yield components and amino acid content, suggesting that this mechanism can be applied to improve both biomass and nutritional value in crops, grain, forage, plants for animal feed and human diet (p. 240 col.1).
Therefore, Arifin et al. suggest overexpressing SYNC1 (At5g56680) in other plants, as taught by Himuro et al. having 100% sequence identity to Applicants SEQ ID NO: 2, which is exactly the same as the Applicants NARS1, (see specification page 12). Consequently, the Applicant has essentially preformed the exact modification suggested by Arifin et al..
One would have a reasonable expectation of success in this approach because Arifin et al. teaches overexpressing Arabidopsis asparaginyl-tRNA synthetase (SYNC1) in Lotus corniculatus and suggests to overexpress SYNC1 in maize, which would be a simple routine in the art to substitute asparaginyl-tRNA synthetase with SYNC1 (SEQ ID NO: 2). Consequently, based on the teachings of Arifin et al., one would reasonably expect producing a plant overexpressing SYNC1 (SEQ ID NO: 2).
Given that Arifin et al. teaches overexpressing SYNC1, along the sequence information as taught by Himuro et al., it would have been obvious to combine knowing that one skilled the art can readily use transformation techniques to introduce SYNC1 into a plant as taught by Arifin et al.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN JOSE ORDAZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1967. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 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, Amjad A Abraham can be reached on (571) 270-7058. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.J.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1663 /JASON DEVEAU ROSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1662