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 1-7, 11, 13-15 and 20, and the species of Brassica napus CBP60g and SEQ ID NO: 51 in the reply filed on December 05, 2025 is acknowledged. The restriction is made FINAL.
Claim Status
Claims 1-7, 11, 13-15, 20-21 and 36-42, are pending. Claims 8-10, 12, 16-19 and 25-35, are canceled. Claims 21 and 36-42, are withdrawn. Claims 1-7, 11, 13-15 and 20, are examined in the instant application.
Priority
This application is claiming the benefit of Provisional Application No. 63/523,390 filed June 27, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The IDS submitted on 12/05/2025 has been considered. A signed copy is attached.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7, 11, 13-15 and 20, are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1. “CPB60” should be amended to “CBP60” and should be spelled out the first time it is recited, with the acronym in parentheses.
In claim 3, “CPB60g” should be amended to “CBP60g”.
In claim 11, “element” should be inserted after “uORF” for language consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the specification page 15 paragraph [00043] states that FIG.13F yet there is no such drawing found. Additionally, page 66 paragraph [000161] states FIG.17A-C yet Figure 17 is not properly labeled. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 20, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it is directed to a product of nature. Due to gene segregation during sexual hybridization, a progeny plant of the plant of claim 1 does not necessarily contain the genomic insertion. Absent the genomic insertion, said progeny plant would be indistinguishable from a product of nature. Products of nature are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)(Indefinite)
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 1-7, 11, 13-15 and 20, 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.
In claim 1, it is unclear whether the inserted sequence must be expressed to maintain said SA-mediated immunity.
Claim 1 recites that the constitutive promoter is operably linked to a pathogen-responsive upstream open reading frame (uORF) element. Claim 5 recites that the pathogen-responsive uORF element comprises at least one uORF sequence operably linked to an immune-responsive promoter. It is unclear whether the pathogen-responsive uORF element is operably linked to two promoters, or the pathogen-responsive uORF element comprises at least two uORF sequences, one of which is operably linked to an immune-response promoter.
In claim 4, it is suggested “sequence” be inserted before “identity” to clarify that the 90% is determined by sequence comparison and not by other means, such as by evolutionary relatedness. See also claim 11.
In claim 14, the metes and bounds of “ambient temperature that is elevated over a maximum ambient temperature“ is unclear. “Ambient” is understood by those skilled in the art to be the actual temperature. Thus, it is unclear what is meant by “[actual] temperature that is elevated over a maximum [actual] temperature.” Does Applicant mean an ambient temperature that is above the tolerance limit for a plant?
In claim 14, “a maximum ambient temperature” should be amended to “the maximum ambient temperature”, as there does not appear to be multiple maximum ambient temperatures for the plant.
In claim 15, the metes and bounds of “fungal-like” are unclear. It is unclear how said organism is like and unlike a fungus.
In claim 20, “the stably transfected plant” lacks antecedence.
In claim 20, it is unclear what is being claimed: an F0 plant comprising the genomic insertion, an F1 progeny plant of said F0 plant, or an F2 plant comprising an F1 progeny of the F0 plant. For examination purpose, the Office interprets claim 20 to mean an F1 progeny plant of the plant of claim 1.
Correction is required.
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 1-7, 11, 13-15 and 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 genetically modifying a plant using upstream open reading frame (uORF) AtTBF1 (SEQ ID NO: 61) and CBP60g (SEQ ID NO:51) from Brassica napus (p. 66) in B. napus and Arabidopsis, resulting in a plant with increased resistance to Pst DC3000(avrPphB) and Pst DC3000(avrRps4) (p.66 and fig.16) without affecting growth. Additionally, Applicant determined that 35S::uORFsTBF1CBP60g plants maintained basal Pst DC3000 resistance and pathogen-induced SA production at environmental stress (i.e. warm temperatures of 28°C) (p. 46 para. [000121] and p.65 para.[000158]).
Claims encompass any uORF’s and any CBP60 proteins or uORF’s and CBP60 proteins having as little as 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NOs: 61 and 51, respectively, conferring resistance any pathogen – the specification only describes the uORF having SEQ ID NO: 61 and the sCBP60g protein having SEQ ID NO: 51 conferring resistance to Pst DC3000(avrPphB) and Pst DC3000(avrRps4).
The claimed invention lacks adequate written description for the following reasons. Claims 1-7, 11, 13-15 and 20, are directed to a plant comprising a DNA construct comprising uORF’s and a CBP60 protein or uORF’s and a CBP60 protein having as little as 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 61 and 51, respectively, conferring resistance any pathogen, wherein the uORF’s and a CBP60 protein is obtained from any plant source having any nucleic acid and amino acid structure.
Additionally, the claims encompass an amino acid sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NOs: 61 and 51. Furthermore, the scope of the claims encompasses uORF nucleic acids and CBP60 amino acids obtained from sources other than Arabidopsis or Brassica napus, or a polynucleotide for uORF or a polypeptide for CBP60 so long as they share at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NOs: 61 and 51, respectively.
The only combination of TBF1 uORF (SEQ ID NO: 61) from Arabidopsis and CBP60g (SEQ ID NO: 51) from Arabidopsis having the function of conferring Pst resistance. The specification does not describe the features of SEQ ID NOs: 51 and 61 which confer functional activity. Therefore, one skilled in the art cannot identify structures that confer functional activity from other plant species.
(1) Applicant has not described the polynucleotide and the polypeptide are found in other plant species having the same function (2) described the genus of structures (i.e., 90% to SEQ ID NOs: 61 and 51).
Applicant does not describe common structures or motifs for uORF and CBP60 functionality that is shared by Arabidopsis and B. napus plants or from any other plant having the same pathogen resistance. Therefore, the lack of such identifying characteristics is not sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the invention as claimed.
In the case of claim 1, Truman et al. (“The CALMODULIN-BINDING PROTEIN60 Family Includes Both Negative and Positive Regulators of Plant Immunity”, 2013, Plant Physiology, Volume 163, Issue 4, December 2013, Pages 1741–1751, https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.113.227108 (U)), describes that CBP60 proteins are a family that regulate immunity positively (CBP60g) and negatively (CBP60a).
Furthermore, in regard to uORF’s Zhong et al. (“Tiny but mighty: Diverse functions of uORFs that regulate gene expression”, Computational and structural biotechnology journal vol. 23 3771-3779. 28 Oct. 2024, doi:10.1016/j.csbj.2024.10.042 (V)), describes that uORF’s have a variety of roles in regulating gene expression, where some uORF’s increase expression while other decrease expression. Therefore, Applicant has not adequately described which CBP60 protein and uORF’s would maintain SA levels during environmental stress or shown representative samples of CBP60 proteins and uORF’s that maintain SA levels.
Furthermore, claims 1-7, 11, 13-15 and 20 encompass a TBF1 uORF nucleic acid sequence having at least 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 61, or encoding a CBP60 polypeptide with at least 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 51. This requires the specification to describe nucleic acid sequences encoding such polypeptides.
However, the specification does not describe a nucleic acid sequence having at least 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 61, or a polynucleotide encoding a CBP60 polypeptide with at least 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 51, which leads to a functional TBF1 uORF and CBP60 polypeptide.
A nucleic acid sequence having at least 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 61 would have 47 nucleic acid substitutions relative to SEQ ID NO:61, while a polynucleotide encoding a polypeptide with at least 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 51 would have 56 amino acid substitutions relative to SEQ ID NO: 51.
These polynucleotide and polypeptides would encompass 347 and 1956 distinct gene and protein variants, respectively. In the absence of describing where in the sequence of SEQ ID NOs: 61 and 51 such variations can be sustained, one of skill in the art would not be led to believe that Applicant possesses this vast genus of nucleic and amino acid sequences that retain functional activity, or to the make the polypeptide which would retain the activity of SEQ ID NOs: 61 and 51, and lead to resistance to Pst DC3000(avrPphB) and Pst DC3000(avrRps4) let alone resistance against all pathogen species.
Therefore, while the example only describes that TBF1 uORF (SEQ ID NO: 61) from Arabidopsis and CBP60g (SEQ ID NO: 51) can confer resistance against Pst DC3000(avrPphB) and Pst DC3000(avrRps4), the specification fails to provide adequate description on the motifs, catalytic domains, etc. in these sequences that confers the specifically claimed function of pathogen resistance in all environmental stressors.
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 NOs: 61 and 51 that retain function and thus confer pathogen resistance.
The specification fails to describe that variants with at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NOs: 61 and 51 will confer pathogen resistance thereof across different plants rendering it unknown if the variants will retain functional activity and pathogen resistance. 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 resistance.
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 NOs: 61 and 51, one skilled in the art would not know the structures that confer the pathogen resistance against all pathogens in all environmental stresses.
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 1-7, 11, 13-15 and 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 genetically modifying a B. napus and Arabidopsis plant using the uORF AtTBF1 (SEQ ID NO: 61) and CBP60g (SEQ ID NO: 51) from B. napus, to confer resistance against Pst DC3000(avrRps4) without compromising growth, does not reasonably provide enablement for any uORF’s and any CBP60 proteins or uORF’s and CBP60 proteins having as little as 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 61 and 51, respectively, conferring resistance any pathogen in any environmental stress. Additionally, the 35S::uORFsTBF1CBP60g plants were shown to maintain basal Pst DC3000 resistance and pathogen-induced SA production even under environmental stress, such as elevated temperature of 28°C. 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.
An “analysis of whether a particular claim is supported by the disclosure in an application requires a determination of whether that disclosure, when filed, contained sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the claims as to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the claimed invention.” MPEP 2164.01. “A conclusion of lack of enablement means that. . . the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention [i.e. commensurate scope] without undue experimentation.” In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557,1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993); MPEP 2164.01.
In in re Wands, 858 F.2d 731,8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988), several factors implicated in determination of whether a disclosure satisfies the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue” are identified. These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(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.
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731,737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). No single factor is independently determinative of enablement; rather “[i]t is improper to conclude that a disclosure is not enabling based on an analysis of only one of the above factors while ignoring one or more of the others.” MPEP 2164.01. Likewise, all factors may not be relevant to the enablement analysis of any individual claim.
(A) The breadth of the claims
The breadth of the claims encompass any uORF’s and any CBP60 proteins or uORF’s and CBP60 proteins having as little as 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 61 and 51, respectively, conferring resistance any pathogen in any environmental stress. However, the specification has only taught using SEQ ID NOs: 61 and 51 in Arabidopsis and B. napus resulting in conferring resistance to Pst DC3000(avrPphB) and Pst DC3000(avrRps4).
(B) The nature of the invention.
The nature of the invention is a plant comprising an uORF element and a sequence encoding a CBP60 protein for maintaining SA-mediated immunity to a pathogen when under an environmental stress.
(C) The state of the prior art
The state of the prior art does not teach the uORF’s and CBP60 proteins having at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 61 and 51 or the structures that confer function for said polypeptide. Additionally, the prior art does not teach conferring resistance to all pathogens in all environmental stressors.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill
The level of one of ordinary skill in the art is high.
(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 1-7, 11, 13-15 and 20, are directed are directed to a plant comprising a DNA construct comprising uORF’s and a CBP60 protein or uORF’s and a CBP60 protein having as little as 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 61 and 51, respectively, conferring resistance any pathogen, wherein the uORF’s and a CBP60 protein is obtained from any plant source having any nucleic acid and amino acid structure.
Additionally, the claims encompass an amino acid sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NOs: 61 and 51. Furthermore, the scope of the claims encompasses uORF nucleic acids and CBP60 amino acids obtained from sources other than Arabidopsis or Brassica napus, or a polynucleotide for uORF or a polypeptide for CBP60 so long as they share at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 61 and 51, respectively.
The only example is uORF nucleic acid is from AtTBF1 (SEQ ID NO: 61) and the only CBP60 amino acid is CBP60g (SEQ ID NO: 51) from B. napus having the function of conferring resistance to Pst DC3000(avrPphB) and Pst DC3000(avrRps4). The specification does not teach the adequate amount of direction or guidance on the features of SEQ ID NOs: 61 and 51 which confer functional activity against all pathogen species in all environmental stressors. From the disclosure of SEQ ID NOs: 61 and 51, one skilled in the art cannot predict the structures of other TBF1 uORF nucleic acids and CBP60 amino acids from other plant species such as in monocots and dicots.
(1) Applicant has not provided guidance on the polynucleotide and the polypeptide are found in other plant species having the same function (2) provided direction on the genus of structures (i.e., 90% to SEQ ID NOs: 61 and 51) (3) provided working examples on all pathogens and/or in all environmental stressors.
For example, Applicant has not shown a working example, where said plant maintains SA immunity against all pathogens in all environmental stresses such as nematodes in heavy metal stress.
Applicant does not teach common structures or motifs for TBF1 uORF’s and CBP60’s shared by all Arabidopsis and B. napus plants or any other plant that would allow one skilled in the art to predict their structures of TBF1 uORF’s and CBP60’s or from any other plants having the same pathogen resistance activity.
In the case of claim 1, Truman et al. (“The CALMODULIN-BINDING PROTEIN60 Family Includes Both Negative and Positive Regulators of Plant Immunity”, 2013, Plant Physiology, Volume 163, Issue 4, December 2013, Pages 1741–1751, https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.113.227108 (U)), teaches that CBP60 proteins are a family that regulate immunity positively (CBP60g) and negatively (CBP60a).
Furthermore, in regard to uORF’s Zhong et al. (“Tiny but mighty: Diverse functions of uORFs that regulate gene expression”, Computational and structural biotechnology journal vol. 23 3771-3779, 28 Oct. 2024, doi:10.1016/j.csbj.2024.10.042 (V)), teaches that uORF’s have a variety of roles in regulating gene expression, where some uORF’s increase expression while other decrease expression. Therefore, it would be unpredictable which CBP60 protein and uORF’s would maintain SA levels against all pathogens during all environmental stress.
Furthermore, claims 1-7, 11, 13-15 and 20 encompass a TBF1 uORF nucleic acid sequence having at least 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 61, or encoding a CBP60 polypeptide with at least 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 51. This requires the specification to teach amino acid sequences encoding such polypeptides.
However, the specification does not teach or provide guidance for making a nucleic acid sequence having at least 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 61, or a polynucleotide encoding a CBP60 polypeptide with at least 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 51, which leads to a functional TBF1 uORF and CBP60 polypeptide.
A nucleic acid sequence having at least 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 61 would have 47 nucleic acid substitutions relative to SEQ ID NO:61, while a polynucleotide encoding a polypeptide with at least 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 51 would have 56 amino acid substitutions relative to SEQ ID NO: 51.
These polynucleotide and polypeptides would encompass 347 and 1956 distinct gene and protein variants, respectively. In the absence of guidance indicating where in the sequences of SEQ ID NO: 61 and 51 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: 61 and 51, and lead to conferring pathogen resistance to said strains.
Therefore, while the examples teach that certain specific AtTBF1 uORF nucleic acid (SEQ ID NO: 61) and the CBP60g amino acid (SEQ ID NO: 51) can confer pathogen resistance with Arabidopsis and B. napus, the specification fails to teach motifs, catalytic domains, etc. in these sequences that confers the specifically claimed function of pathogen resistance. Applicant has not shown one structure/sequence having 90% sequence identity that retain function and thus confer pathogen resistance in all environmental stressors.
Therefore, because the art fails to teach the structures required for uORF and CBP60 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, information on conserved regions required for activity, and the impact of 10% variation of SEQ ID NOs: 61 and 51, shows there is not enough guidance to predictably make and/or use the claimed sequences to predictably produce plants having resistance to all pathogens in all environmental stressors.
The specification fails to TEACH, or fails to provide GUIDANCE for making variants with at least 90% sequence identity will have the same pathogen resistance. The lack or guidance and the lack of working examples means one skilled in the cannot make and use a polynucleotide and a polypeptide having as little as 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NOs: 61 and 51, respectively, in all plants.
Given the breadth of the claims, the lack of sufficient guidance, the absence of working examples regarding the structure of AtTBF1 uORF nucleic acid and the CBP60g amino acid having at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NOs: 61 and 51, respectively, which confer functional activity (resistance to all pathogens in all environmental stressors) in all plants, 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 § 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 1-2, 5-7, 13-15 and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan et al. (Plant cell reports vol. 31,7 (2012): 1269-81. doi:10.1007/s00299-012-1247-7 (Applicants IDS)) and Xu et al. (Nature 545, 491–494 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22372. (Applicants IDS)).
a. In regard to claims 1, 5-7 and 13-15, Wan et al. teach on Calmodulin-binding proteins (CBPs), specifically CBP60g (p. 1269). Wan et al. teach that CBP60g belongs “to a new family of transcription factors that regulate salicylic acid (SA) biosynthesis triggered by microbe-associated molecular patterns” (p. 1269 Abstract). Wan et al. overexpress CBP60g in Arabidopsis thaliana (p. 1270 col.2 and figs. 1-3). Additionally, Wan et al. teach that “overexpression of CBP60g enhances SA accumulation” resulting in “enhanced disease resistance” (i.e. SA mediated immunity to a pathogen) (p. 1273 col. 2). Wan et al. teach that “[u]nder this dehydration condition, most wild-type and mutant plants were wilted, whereas the CBP60g overexpression lines appeared relatively healthy” (i.e. environmental stress) (p. 1276). Lastly, Wan et al. teach on a constitutive promoter being Cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter (p. 1271 col.1). Overall, Wan et al. teach how one skilled in the art can readily use CBP60g to enhance disease resistance in a plant.
b. In regard to claims 1, 5-7 and 13-15, Wan et al. do not specifically teach using a pathogen responsive upstream open reading (uORF) element.
c. In regard to claims 1, 5-7 and 13-15, Xu et al. teaches that “Studies of plant immune mechanisms have led to strategies of engineering resistant crops through ectopic transcription of plants’ own defence genes, such as the master immune regulatory gene NPR1 (ref. 1). However, enhanced resistance obtained through such strategies is often associated with substantial penalties to fitness, making the resulting products undesirable for agricultural applications” showing how transgenic plants suffer when immune genes are altered (p.491 Abstract). Xu et al. teach on Arabidopsis “TBF1-cassette’ consisting of not only the immune inducible promoter but also two pathogen-responsive upstream open reading frames (uORFsTBF1) of the TBF1 gene” (i.e. uORF element)(p. 491 Abstract and p.497). Xu et al. teach “the 35S:uorfsTBF1-AtNPR1 plants displayed the highest level of resistance to [Xanthomonas oryzae pv. Oryzae] (Xoo), owing to the constitutive transcription and translation of AtNPR1” (i.e. constitutive promoter) (p. 493 col. 1). Furthermore, Xu et al. teach that the plants were grown “under field conditions” for “3 weeks (12/12-h light/dark cycles, 28°C and 90% relative humidity)” (i.e. under an environment stress) (p. 495 col.2). Applicant has not properly defined what environmental stress but does show examples that elevated temperature of 28°C is an example of environment stress (specification p. (p. 46 para. [000121] and p.65 para.[000158]). Therefore, Xu et al. teach on elevated temperature of 28°C. Lastly, Xu et al. teach that “inclusion of uORFsTBF1-mediated translational control over the production of snc1-1 (an autoactivated immune receptor) in Arabidopsis thaliana and AtNPR1 in rice enables us to engineer broad-spectrum disease resistance without compromising plant fitness in the laboratory or in the field. This broadly applicable strategy may lead to decreased pesticide use and reduce the selective pressure for resistant pathogens.” (p. 491 Abstract). Overall, Xu et al. teaches how one skilled in the art would readily employ such tool to introduce a gene of interest with the benefit of control and without sacrificing plant fitness.
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 Wan et al. teaching that CBP60g is known to enhance pathogen resistance (p. 1273 col. 2), in light of Xu et al., teaching that while altering immune genes typically compromise plant fitness (p.491 Abstract) however, the uORF TBF1 cassette effectively mitigates these costs, preventing the negative drawbacks of transgenic immunity. A person of ordinary skilled in the art would have readily combine CBP60g to enhance both abiotic and biotic resistance, maintaining SA-mediated immunity against pathogens even under environmental stress, along with a pathogen responsive uORF TBF1 cassette, known for increasing pathogen resistance without comprising plant fitness yielding a predictable result.
One skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in this approach because Wan et al. teach on overexpressing CBP60g enhances plant resistance against biotic and abiotic stress. Xu et al. teaches on overexpressing AtNPR1 in Arabidopsis which regulates the SA-mediated pathogen immunity in plants and suggest the use of TBF1 cassette for engineering broad-spectrum disease resistance, which would be a simple routine in the art to substitute NPR1 with CBP60g. Consequently, based on the teachings of Xu et al., one would reasonably expect producing a plant overexpressing CBP60g.
Given that Wan et al. teach on the known role of CBP60g, along with using the uORFs TBF1 cassette as taught by Xu et al., it would have been obvious to combine knowing that one skilled the art can readily use transformation techniques to introduce CBP60g into a plant as taught by Wan et al. without affecting plant fitness.
In regard to claim 2, Wan et al. teach that CBP60g was transgenically overexpressed (i.e. CBP60g protein is an exogenous polynucleotide sequence) (p. 1271 and fig.4).
In regard to claim 20, Wan et al. teach on “[y]oung roots of 2-week-old T2 generation of the 35S::GFP CBP60g transgenic seedlings” (i.e. a plant comprising a progeny of the stably transfected plant) (p. 1272 col.1). Xu et al. teach on the total seed weight of the transgenic plants expressing the uORF TBF1 cassette (p. 492 col.2). Both teachings show producing seeds with said genetic modification.
Claims 1 and 3-4, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan et al. (Plant cell reports vol. 31,7 (2012): 1269-81, doi:10.1007/s00299-012-1247-7 (Applicants IDS)) and Xu et al. (Nature 545, 491–494 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22372, (Applicants IDS)) as applied to claim 1 above, in light of Wan et al. (NCBI, At5g26920, Accession No. F4K2R6, 2012 (W)) and in view of Chalhoub et al. (UniProt Database, Accession No: A0A078JQN2, “Early allopolyploid evolution in the post-Neolithic, Brassica napus oilseed genome", Science 345:950-953 (2014) (X)).
In regard to claim 1, and the teaching of Wan et al. and Xu et al. above as applied to claim 1. Specifically, Wan et al. teach on the identifier At5g26920 of CBP60g (p.1270 col.2).
In regard to claims 3-4, Wan et al. and Xu et al. do not teach on B. napus and SEQ ID NO: 51.
In regard to claims 3-4, Wan et al. teach on At5g26920 (NCBI Accession No. F4K2R6) and discloses the amino acid sequence (see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
186
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claims 3-4, Chalhoub et al. teaches Applicant’s SEQ ID NO: 51 (see below), one skilled in the art would be motivated to utilize this sequence of to transgenically express CPB60g, thereby enhancing both abiotic a stress in Brassica napus. Furthermore, A0A078JQN2 happens to have 100% sequence identity to Applicants SEQ ID NO: 51 and states that it is in fact a CBP60 protein (see bolded text below). As a skilled artisan would use the At5g26920 (Accession No. F4K2R6) amino acid sequence into UniProt BLAST data base and filter out the desired plant to identify other CBP60g proteins such as in commercially important B. napus (see images below).
PNG
media_image2.png
1050
1173
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
880
928
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The results list the top proteins with the highest sequence similarity, which A0A078JQN2 having to be second on the list. It is routine in the art to use similar sequence knowing sequence information and testing other calmodulin binding proteins such as the B. napus A0A078JQN2 sequence of Chalhoub.
RESULT 1
A0A078JQN2_BRANA
ID A0A078JQN2_BRANA Unreviewed; 563 AA.
AC A0A078JQN2;
DT 29-OCT-2014, integrated into UniProtKB/TrEMBL.
DT 29-OCT-2014, sequence version 1.
DT 08-OCT-2025, entry version 29.
DE SubName: Full=(rape) hypothetical protein {ECO:0000313|EMBL:CAF2089259.1};
DE SubName: Full=BnaAnng28220D protein {ECO:0000313|EMBL:CDY68750.1};
GN Name=BnaAnng28220D {ECO:0000313|EMBL:CDY68750.1};
GN ORFNames=DARMORV10_A06P37090.1 {ECO:0000313|EMBL:CAF2089259.1},
GN GSBRNA2T00077583001 {ECO:0000313|EMBL:CDY68750.1};
OS Brassica napus (Rape).
OC Eukaryota; Viridiplantae; Streptophyta; Embryophyta; Tracheophyta;
OC Spermatophyta; Magnoliopsida; eudicotyledons; Gunneridae; Pentapetalae;
OC rosids; malvids; Brassicales; Brassicaceae; Brassiceae; Brassica.
OX NCBI_TaxID=3708 {ECO:0000313|EMBL:CDY68750.1, ECO:0000313|Proteomes:UP000028999};
RN [1] {ECO:0000313|EMBL:CDY68750.1, ECO:0000313|Proteomes:UP000028999}
RP NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE [LARGE SCALE GENOMIC DNA].
RC STRAIN=cv. Darmor-bzh {ECO:0000313|Proteomes:UP000028999};
RX PubMed=25146293; DOI=10.1126/science.1253435;
RA Chalhoub B., Denoeud F., Liu S., Parkin I.A., Tang H., Wang X., Chiquet J.,
RA Belcram H., Tong C., Samans B., Correa M., Da Silva C., Just J.,
RA Falentin C., Koh C.S., Le Clainche I., Bernard M., Bento P., Noel B.,
RA Labadie K., Alberti A., Charles M., Arnaud D., Guo H., Daviaud C.,
RA Alamery S., Jabbari K., Zhao M., Edger P.P., Chelaifa H., Tack D.,
RA Lassalle G., Mestiri I., Schnel N., Le Paslier M.C., Fan G., Renault V.,
RA Bayer P.E., Golicz A.A., Manoli S., Lee T.H., Thi V.H., Chalabi S., Hu Q.,
RA Fan C., Tollenaere R., Lu Y., Battail C., Shen J., Sidebottom C.H.,
RA Wang X., Canaguier A., Chauveau A., Berard A., Deniot G., Guan M., Liu Z.,
RA Sun F., Lim Y.P., Lyons E., Town C.D., Bancroft I., Wang X., Meng J.,
RA Ma J., Pires J.C., King G.J., Brunel D., Delourme R., Renard M., Aury J.M.,
RA Adams K.L., Batley J., Snowdon R.J., Tost J., Edwards D., Zhou Y., Hua W.,
RA Sharpe A.G., Paterson A.H., Guan C., Wincker P.;
RT "Plant genetics. Early allopolyploid evolution in the post-Neolithic
RT Brassica napus oilseed genome.";
RL Science 345:950-953(2014).
RN [2] {ECO:0000313|EMBL:CDY68750.1}
RP NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE.
RA Genoscope - CEA;
RL Submitted (JUN-2014) to the EMBL/GenBank/DDBJ databases.
RN [3] {ECO:0000313|EMBL:CAF2089259.1}
RP NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE.
RG Genoscope - CEA;
RA William W.;
RL Submitted (JAN-2021) to the EMBL/GenBank/DDBJ databases.
CC -!- SUBCELLULAR LOCATION: Nucleus {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00004123}.
CC -!- SIMILARITY: Belongs to the plant ACBP60 protein family.
CC {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00007214}.
CC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC Copyrighted by the UniProt Consortium, see https://www.uniprot.org/terms
CC Distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) License
CC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR EMBL; HG994360; CAF2089259.1; -; Genomic_DNA.
DR EMBL; LK037893; CDY68750.1; -; Genomic_DNA.
DR AlphaFoldDB; A0A078JQN2; -.
DR STRING; 3708.A0A078JQN2; -.
DR PaxDb; 3708-A0A078JQN2; -.
DR Gramene; CDY68750; CDY68750; GSBRNA2T00077583001.
DR OMA; VWEQQEY; -.
DR OrthoDB; 748178at2759; -.
DR Proteomes; UP000028999; Unassembled WGS sequence.
DR Proteomes; UP001295469; Chromosome A06.
DR GO; GO:0005634; C:nucleus; IBA:GO_Central.
DR GO; GO:0005516; F:calmodulin binding; IEA:InterPro.
DR GO; GO:0003700; F:DNA-binding transcription factor activity; IBA:GO_Central.
DR GO; GO:0043565; F:sequence-specific DNA binding; IBA:GO_Central.
DR GO; GO:0080142; P:regulation of salicylic acid biosynthetic process; IBA:GO_Central.
DR InterPro; IPR046829; Calmod_bind_C.
DR InterPro; IPR046830; Calmod_bind_M.
DR InterPro; IPR046831; Calmodulin_bind_N.
DR InterPro; IPR012416; CBP60.
DR PANTHER; PTHR31713:SF78; (RAPE) HYPOTHETICAL PROTEIN; 1.
DR PANTHER; PTHR31713; OS02G0177800 PROTEIN; 1.
DR Pfam; PF20452; Calmod_bind_C; 1.
DR Pfam; PF20451; Calmod_bind_M; 1.
DR Pfam; PF07887; Calmodulin_bind; 1.
PE 3: Inferred from homology;
KW Activator {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00023159};
KW DNA-binding {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00023125};
KW Nucleus {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00023242};
KW Reference proteome {ECO:0000313|Proteomes:UP000028999};
KW Transcription {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00023163};
KW Transcription regulation {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00023015}.
FT DOMAIN 86..224
FT /note="Calmodulin binding protein-like N-terminal"
FT /evidence="ECO:0000259|Pfam:PF07887"
FT DOMAIN 238..305
FT /note="Calmodulin binding protein central"
FT /evidence="ECO:0000259|Pfam:PF20451"
FT DOMAIN 311..365
FT /note="Calmodulin binding protein C-terminal"
FT /evidence="ECO:0000259|Pfam:PF20452"
SQ SEQUENCE 563 AA; 64104 MW; 90512A08E1E78717 CRC64;
Query Match 100.0%; Score 3009; Length 563;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 563; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 MKMRDRPFHGASGYSGLKAHKLTFKTAVKKVMKHMSNNQIMVHMENMFRKIVREELERLI 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 MKMRDRPFHGASGYSGLKAHKLTFKTAVKKVMKHMSNNQIMVHMENMFRKIVREELERLI 60
Qy 61 QQHHLSSSWSQIERPRSETPSSRSRFKLRFINSPPPSIFTGAKIEPKNGFPLAIELVEAA 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 QQHHLSSSWSQIERPRSETPSSRSRFKLRFINSPPPSIFTGAKIEPKNGFPLAIELVEAA 120
Qy 121 TNARVVSGPLSSSRVDFVPLNADFTEESWTVDLFKRYILKPREGKRPLLAGDVTLTLKNG 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 TNARVVSGPLSSSRVDFVPLNADFTEESWTVDLFKRYILKPREGKRPLLAGDVTLTLKNG 180
Qy 181 VGVVSIAFTDNSIWSRCRKFRLGARLTGDGAVEARSEAFKCKDQRGESYKKHHPPYPGDE 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 VGVVSIAFTDNSIWSRCRKFRLGARLTGDGAVEARSEAFKCKDQRGESYKKHHPPYPGDE 240
Qy 241 VWRLEKIGKDGASALRLAEREIYTVKDFRRCYAKDPNELYNILAGVGGGISKKIWESIVS 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 VWRLEKIGKDGASALRLAEREIYTVKDFRRCYAKDPNELYNILAGVGGGISKKIWESIVS 300
Qy 301 HAMCCVLDETEYYIYDATGHDVSLVFNSVYEVTKVFIGGVLRNVDQLPSYQLDQLKREAY 360
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 301 HAMCCVLDETEYYIYDATGHDVSLVFNSVYEVTKVFIGGVLRNVDQLPSYQLDQLKREAY 360
Qy 361 QNISRFRDSRTFADHPQRSLQCQQNPGFGPGFQQHMDFQGPSDTSMHAFFTGACSTSQPE 420
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 361 QNISRFRDSRTFADHPQRSLQCQQNPGFGPGFQQHMDFQGPSDTSMHAFFTGACSTSQPE 420
Qy 421 MLMGFENSPSQTFHIDPTFIPTFRNSFRVNQHDMVHDELQSVVSRGYNKNNEDENGFAYH 480
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 421 MLMGFENSPSQTFHIDPTFIPTFRNSFRVNQHDMVHDELQSVVSRGYNKNNEDENGFAYH 480
Qy 481 HHHEMPSNWSPGAAVWEQQEYNNLCVSVSGTEEAGYDVRIANIGGSPRARWCKVKAAFKL 540
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 481 HHHEMPSNWSPGAAVWEQQEYNNLCVSVSGTEEAGYDVRIANIGGSPRARWCKVKAAFKL 540
Qy 541 RQVWRHTSARKRGKACKKPCLLY 563
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 541 RQVWRHTSARKRGKACKKPCLLY 563
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 Wan et al. teaching that CBP60g is known to enhance pathogen resistance (p. 1273 col. 2), in view of Xu et al., teaching that while altering immune genes typically compromise plant fitness (p.491 Abstract), the uORF TBF1 cassette effectively mitigates these costs. In light of Wan et al. (NCBI Accession No. F4K2R6) and in view of Chalhoub et al., one skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine and substitute the desired BnCBP60g proteins to prevent the negative drawbacks of transgenic immunity. Additionally, it is routine in the art knowing the sequence information of At5g26920 to identify homologs on data bases such as UniProt Database where one can BLAST said sequence to get to the B. napus A0A078JQN2 sequence yielding a predictable result.
One skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in this approach because Wan et al. and Xu et al. teach on CBP60g and uORFs TBF1 cassette, respectively, while Wan et al. (NCBI Accession No. F4K2R6) and Chalhoub et al. teach on the sequence information which would be a simple routine in the art to substitute AtCBP60g with BnCBP60g (SEQ ID NO: 51). Consequently, based on the teachings of Wan et al. and Xu et al. one would reasonably expect producing a plant overexpressing BnCBP60g (SEQ ID NO: 51) without affecting plant fitness.
Given that Wan et al. and Xu et al. teach on CBP60g and uORFs TBF1 cassette, respectively, along the sequence information as taught by Wan et al. (NCBI Accession No. F4K2R6) and Chalhoub et al., it would have been obvious to combine knowing that one skilled the art can readily use transformation techniques to introduce BnCBP60g (SEQ ID NO: 51) into a plant as taught by Wan et al..
Claims 1, 5 and 11, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan et al. (Plant cell reports vol. 31,7 (2012): 1269-81, doi:10.1007/s00299-012-1247-7 (Applicants IDS)) and Xu et al. (Nature 545, 491–494 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22372, (Applicants IDS)) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and in view of Dong et al. (US 20190352664 A1 (A)).
In regard to claims 1 and 5, and the teaching of Wan et al. and Xu et al. above as applied to claims 1 and 5. Specifically, Xu et al. only teach on the identifier uORF2 of TBF1 (p.497). The region corresponding to nucleotides 32-122, which encompasses uORF2, shows 100% sequence identity to Applicants SEQ ID NO: 61. Suggesting that the conserved functional regions are the same.
In regard to claim 11, Wan et al. and Xu et al. do not teach on at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 61.
In regard to claim 11, Dong et al. teach on uORF’s TBF1 SEQ ID NO: 474 having 100% sequence identity to Applicants SEQ ID NO: 61 (see table 2 and alignment below). Furthermore, Dong et al. teach on how SEQ ID NO: 474 is the 5’ regulatory sequence and ““TBF1 uORF sequence” refers to an upstream open reading frame residing in the 5′ UTR region of the TBF1 gene. The TBF1 gene is a plant transcription factor important in plant immune responses.” (para. [0050] and claims 9 and 12). Therefore, one skilled in the art would be motivated to utilize this sequence of Dong to transgenically express a pathogen responsive uORF TBF1 cassette.
Publication No. US20190352664A1
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: DUKE UNIVERSITY
APPLICANT: DONG, Xinnian
APPLICANT: GREENE, George
APPLICANT: XU, Guoyong
TITLE OF INVENTION: COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR CONTROLLING GENE EXPRESSION
FILE REFERENCE: 5667-00424
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/16/482,941
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2019-08-01
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US 62/453,807
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2017-02-02
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 499
SEQ ID NO 474
LENGTH: 483
TYPE: DNA
ORGANISM: Arabidopsis thaliana
Query Match 100.0%; Score 477; Length 483;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 477; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 AACAGCATCCGTTTTTATAATTTAATTTTCTTACAAAGGTAGGACCAACATTTGTGATCT 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 7 AACAGCATCCGTTTTTATAATTTAATTTTCTTACAAAGGTAGGACCAACATTTGTGATCT 66
Qy 61 ATAAATCTTCCTACTACGTTATATAGAGACCCTTCGACATAACACTTAACTCGTTTATAT 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 67 ATAAATCTTCCTACTACGTTATATAGAGACCCTTCGACATAACACTTAACTCGTTTATAT 126
Qy 121 ATTTGTTTTACTTGTTTTGCACATACACACAAAAATAAAAAAGACTTTATATTTATTTAC 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 127 ATTTGTTTTACTTGTTTTGCACATACACACAAAAATAAAAAAGACTTTATATTTATTTAC 186
Qy 181 TTTTTAATCACACGGATTAGCTCCGGCGAAGTATGGTCGTCGTCTTCATCTTCTTCCTCC 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 187 TTTTTAATCACACGGATTAGCTCCGGCGAAGTATGGTCGTCGTCTTCATCTTCTTCCTCC 246
Qy 241 ATCATCAGATTTTTCCTTAAATGGAAGAAACCAAACGAAACTCCGATCTTCTCCGTTCTC 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 247 ATCATCAGATTTTTCCTTAAATGGAAGAAACCAAACGAAACTCCGATCTTCTCCGTTCTC 306
Qy 301 GTGTTTTCCTCTCTGGCTTTTATTGCTGGGATTGGGAATTTCTCACCGCTCTCTTGCTTT 360
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 307 GTGTTTTCCTCTCTGGCTTTTATTGCTGGGATTGGGAATTTCTCACCGCTCTCTTGCTTT 366
Qy 361 TTAGTTGCTGATTCTTTTTCCTTCGACTTTCTATTTCCAATCTTTCTTCTTCTCTTTGTG 420
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 367 TTAGTTGCTGATTCTTTTTCCTTCGACTTTCTATTTCCAATCTTTCTTCTTCTCTTTGTG 426
Qy 421 TATTAGATTATTTTTAGTTTTATTTTTCTGTGGTAAAATAAAAAAAGTTCGCCGGAG 477
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 427 TATTAGATTATTTTTAGTTTTATTTTTCTGTGGTAAAATAAAAAAAGTTCGCCGGAG 483
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 Wan et al. teaching that CBP60g is known to enhance pathogen resistance (p. 1273 col. 2), in light of Xu et al., teaching that while altering immune genes typically compromise plant fitness (p.491 Abstract), the uORF TBF1 cassette effectively mitigates these costs. In view of Dong et al. one skilled in the art would readily combine and use the known uORF TBF1 cassette disclose by both Xu et al. and Dong et al., especially since the uORF TBF1 cassette is a plug and play tool known in the art.
One would have a reasonable expectation of success in this approach because Wan et al. and Xu et al. teach on CBP60g and uORFs TBF1 cassette, respectively, while Dong et al. teach on the sequence information which would be a simple routine in the art to use the 5’ regulatory sequence uORF TBF1 (SEQ ID NO: 61). Consequently, based on the teachings of Wan et al. and Xu et al. one would reasonably expect producing a plant using the same uORF TBF1 cassette (SEQ ID NO: 61) without affecting plant fitness.
Given that Wan et al. and Xu et al. teach on CBP60g and uORFs TBF1 cassette, respectively, along the sequence information as taught by Dong et al., it would have been obvious to combine knowing that one skilled the art can readily use transformation techniques to introduce CBP60g (SEQ ID NO: 51) into a plant as taught by Wan et al, when the translational control tool was already taught by Dong 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 /PHUONG T BUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663