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 .
Status of Claims
The amendments submitted on August 17th, 2026, have been entered.
Claims 1-11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25-26, and 29-37 are pending.
Claims 9-11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, and 31-37 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-8, 25-26, and 29-30 are examined herein.
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code, not included in this action, can be found in a prior Office action.
Informalities
The use of the term BLAST, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application (see pg. 12). The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Objections to the Specification
The objections to the disclosure are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s arguments.
Rejection under 35 USC § 112(b)
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 USC § 112(b) as being indefinite is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-8, 25-26, and 29-30 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Cahoon, E. et al. “Novel Acyltransferases and Methods of Using,” 1 US Patent Application No. US 20190382780 A1, published 12/19/2019 (see IDS filed 12/05/2024), in view of Zhou, X. et al. “Plants with Modified Traits,”2 WIPO Publication No. WO 2018039740 A1, published 03/08/2018 (see IDS filed 12/05/2024). This is a maintained rejection.
An applied reference (Cahoon) has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date and publication date of the reference, it constitutes prior art.
Claim 1 recites a nucleic acid construct comprising at least one constitutive promoter driving expression of: a nucleic acid molecule encoding a diacylglycerol acyltransferase 1 (DGAT1) protein; a nucleic acid molecule encoding a Wrinkled1 (Wril) protein; a nucleic acid molecule encoding an oleosin (Ole) protein; a nucleic acid molecule encoding a medium-chain acyl-ACP thioesterase; and a nucleic acid molecule encoding a lysophosphatidic acid acyltransferase 2 (LPAT2) protein.
Claim 2 recites the nucleic acid construct of claim 1, wherein the DGAT1 protein is a Cuphea DGAT1 protein.
Claim 3 recites the nucleic acid construct of claim 1, wherein the wrinkled1 protein is a Sorghum wrinkled1 protein.
Claim 4 recites the nucleic acid construct of claim 1, wherein the oleosin protein is a sesame oleosin protein.
Claim 5 recites the nucleic acid construct of claim 1, wherein the medium-chain acyl-ACP thioesterase is a FatB protein.
Claim 6 recites the nucleic acid construct of claim 5, wherein the FatB protein is a Cuphea viscosissima FatB protein.
Claim 7 recites the nucleic acid construct of claim 1, wherein the medium-chain acyl-ACP thioesterase protein is a Cuphea palustris medium-chain acyl-ACP thioesterase protein.
Claim 8 recites the nucleic acid construct of claim 1, wherein the LPAT2 protein is a Cuphea viscosissima LPAT2 protein.
Claim 25 recites the nucleic acid construct of claim 1, wherein the at least on constitutive promoter is selected from the group consisting of a 35S promoter from cauliflower mosaic virus, a ubiquitin 1 promoter from maize, a ubiquitin 4 promoter from sugarcane, and a PGD1 promoter from rice.
Claim 26 recites the nucleic acid construct of claim 1, further comprising more than one constitutive promoter driving expression of the nucleic acid molecules.
Claim 29 recites the nucleic acid construct of claim 1, further comprising left border nucleic acid sequences and right border nucleic acid sequences.
Claim 30 recites the nucleic acid construct of claim 29, wherein the nucleic acid construct is a T-DNA.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Zhou teaches transformed vegetative plant parts which comprise greatly increased level of triacylglycerols [Abstract]. Zhou teaches tobacco, sorghum and maize plants transformed with a nucleic acid construct to overexpress genes encoding TAG-related genes, such as WRI1, DGAT and oleosin (i.e., a nucleic acid construct) [pg. 207, lns. 1-3]. Zhou teaches a first exogenous polynucleotide which encodes a transcription factor polypeptide that increases the expression of glycolytic and/or fatty acid biosynthetic genes in the cell, preferably a WRI1 polypeptide (i.e. a nucleic acid molecule encoding a Wrinkled1 (Wri1) protein) [pg. 26, lns. 13-15; claim 17]. Zhou teaches a second endogenous polynucleotide which encodes a polypeptide involved in the biosynthesis of one or more non-polar lipids, preferably a DGAT [claim 17]. Zhou teaches that the exogenous polynucleotide may encode, or the exogenous polypeptide may be, for example: a DGAT such as a DGATI or a DGAT2, an OBC, such as an Oleosin, and a fatty acid thioesterase, such as a FATA or FATB polypeptide (i.e. a nucleic acid molecule encoding a DGAT1; a nucleic acid molecule encoding an oleosin (Ole) protein; a nucleic acid molecule encoding a medium-chain acyl-ACP thioesterase, wherein the medium-chain acyl-ACP thioesterase is a FatB protein) [pg. 83, lns. 10-14].
Zhou teaches that construct may further include LPAAT as the polypeptide involved in the biosynthesis of one or more non-polar lipids [pg. 18, ln. 25; claim 24], which is defined as a lysophosphatidic acid acyltransferase (i.e., nucleic acid molecule encoding a LPAT) [pg. 67, ln. 2]. Zhou teaches that the constructs are made containing genes for expression of WRil, DGAT and oleosin, with each gene under the control of a constitutive promoter such as a maize Ubiquitin gene promoter or a rice actin gene promoter, and containing an NPTII gene as selectable marker gene (i.e., a nucleic acid construct comprising at least one constitutive promoter driving expression) [pg. 272, lns. 26-30]. Zhou teaches that the plants transformed with genetic constructs to express DGAT, Oleosin and WRI expressed from a Ubi promoter (Ubi::WRil + DGAT + Oleosin) showed higher TAGs than DGAT + Oleosin or Ubi::WRI1 alone [pg. 70, lns 11-12; Fig. 19]. Zhou teaches that the constructs are used alone or in tandem with other constructs [pg. 272, lns. 35-39].
Zhou does not explicitly teach that the LPAAT protein is a LPAT2 and does not explicitly teach that a nucleic acid construct comprises DGAT1, WRI1, Ole, a medium-chain acyl-ACP thioesterase, and LPAT2.
Cahoon teaches novel acyltransferases and methods of using such novel acyltransferases in making medium-chain fatty acids (MCFA) [Abstract]. Cahoon teaches a vector or construct containing a nucleic acid and includes expression elements such as a promoter sequence (i.e., a nucleic acid construct) [¶61 & 62]. Cahoon teaches that at least one of the acyltransferase sequences can be expressed [¶74] and that a highly expressing or constitutive promoter can be used to direct expression of the at least one acyltransferase (i.e., at least one constitutive promoter driving expression) [¶80]. Cahoon teaches nucleic acid sequences encoding acyltransferases including a lysophosphatidic acid acyltransferase (LPAT2) and a diacylglycerol acyltransferase (DGAT1) [¶51]. Cahoon teaches that LPAT and DGAT catalyze sequential reactions in the production of triacylglycerols, the primary component in vegetable oil [¶48]. LPAT activity, predominantly in the LPAT2 class, in seeds of the typical oilseed crops have strong specificity for unsaturated C18 fatty acid acyl-CoA substrates such as oleoyl (18:1)-, linoleoyl (18:2)-, and linolenoyl (18:3)-CoA, but little or no activity with saturated fatty acyl-CoA substrates, representing a major bottleneck for metabolic engineering of oilseeds to produce TAG with high levels of saturated medium-chain fatty acids with C6-C14 chain-lengths for applications such as biofuels, including bio-based Jet fuel A. Cahoon teaches that the co-expression of the LPAT2 genes with the DGAT1 genes is also shown to yield synergistic increases in medium-chain fatty acid accumulation in TAG and the sn-2 position of TAG in transgenic plants (i.e., a nucleic acid molecule encoding a DGAT1 protein; a nucleic acid molecule encoding a LPAT2 protein) [¶50].
Cahoon teaches a nucleic acid sequence encoding a medium-chain fatty acid (MCFA)-specific thioesterase FatB (i.e., a nucleic acid molecule encoding a medium chain acyl-ACP thioesterase; wherein the medium chain acyl-ACP thioesterase is a FatB protein) [¶08]. Expression of divergent forms of FatB acyl-ACP thioesterases are able to produce medium-chain fatty acids of differing chain-lengths. Cahoon teaches LPAT2 and DGAT1 genes to enhance the accumulation of medium-chain fatty acids, in particular, C8:0 and C10:0, in TAG and in the sn-2 position of TAG when expressed together with specialized FatB genes in seeds of the oilseed crop camelina (Camelina sativa) [¶50]. Thus, the invention increases the amount of TAGs comprising MCFAs in the seed oil of the plant without significantly changing the total oil content in the seed [¶13].
Given that Zhou teaches nucleic acid constructs expressing a Wri1 protein, an Ole protein, and a DGAT1 protein, in addition to teaching nucleic acid molecules encoding a LPAAT and a fatty acid thioesterase, such as FATB, under a constitutive promoter driving expression; and given that Cahoon teaches a nucleic acid construct comprising nucleic acid molecules encoding a DGAT1, a medium-chain acyl-ACP thioesterase that is a FatB protein, and an LPAT2 protein, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Zhou and Cahoon to arrive at the instant invention. One would have been motivated to combine the nucleic acid molecules encoding a DGAT1, Wri1, Ole, medium-chain acyl-ACP thioesterase, and LPAT2 protein into one construct for the predictable result of increasing medium-chain fatty acid accumulation as Cahoon teaches that co-expression of the LPAT2 and DGAT1 genes in tandem with FatB medium-chain acyl-ACP thioesterase genes is shown to yield synergistic increases in medium-chain fatty acid accumulation in transgenic plants and Zhou teaches that under a constitutive promoter, co-expression of Wri1, DGAT, and Ole increases TAGs over a construct of DGAT and Ole or Wri1 alone.
One would have reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings as the constructs of both Cahoon and Zhou include multiple nucleic acid molecules encoding the proteins of interest and all five genes (DGAT1, Wri1, Ole, medium-chain acyl-ACP thioesterase (FatB) and LPAT2) have been shown to increase TAGs in nucleic acid constructs. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing obvious to use at least one constitutive promoter as Zhou and Cahoon teaches that a highly expressing or constitutive promoter can be used to direct expression of nucleic acid molecules encoding the proteins.
Regarding claim 2, 6, and 8, Cahoon teaches that plants in the genus, Cuphea (Lythracea), accumulate high levels of medium chain fatty acids (MCFAs) in their seeds, which is useful in the chemical industry for the production of detergents, lubricants, and biofuels [¶04]. Cahoon teaches that FatBs that can generate C8 and C10 fatty acids (e.g., ChFatB2 or CvFatB1 (Cuphea viscosissimaFatB1)) can be used in combination with at least one of the novel acyltransferases to strongly enhance the production of TAGs having a saturated C8 or C10 at the sn-2 position [¶72]. Cahoon teaches that the data show higher amounts of C10:0 and C16:0 fatty acids in lines expressing the Cuphea acyltransferases CvLPAT2 and CpDGAT1 in addition to the thioesterase, CvFatB1 (i.e., wherein the DGAT protein is a Cuphea DGAT1 protein; wherein the FatB protein is a Cuphea viscosissima FatB protein; wherein the LPAT2 protein is a Cuphea viscosissima LPAT2 protein).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the Cuphea DGAT1 protein, the Cuphea viscosissima FatB protein, and the Cuphea viscosissima LPAT2 protein as Cahoon teaches that Cuphea plants already accumulate high levels of medium chain fatty acids in their seeds and would be good candidates for further increased production. One would have been motivated as Cahoon teaches that lines expressing the Cuphea acyltransferases CvLPAT2 and CpDGAT1 in addition to the thioesterase, CvFatB1, resulted in higher amounts of certain types of fatty acids beneficial to the chemical industry. One would have reasonable expectation of success in selecting nucleic acids from a finite number of genes in the construct taught by Cahoon and Zhou as Cahoon teaches successful a nucleic acid construct comprising such genes in tandem and that a construct may include additional genes. For example, Cahoon additionally teaches that the other genes in the construct may be from alternative species, such as Arabidopsis [¶103]. Zhou also teaches that the construct may be used in tandem with other constructs for enhanced TAG levels [pg. 272, lns. 35-39].
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Zhou teaches examples of WRI1 proteins including numerous accessions of Sorghum bicolor (i.e., wherein the wrinkled 1 protein is a Sorghum wrinkled1 protein) [pg. 105, lns. 3-15]. Zhou teaches that with increased expression of WRI1, the total fatty acid content increased in a plant cell compared to a wild-type cell [claim 16]. Zhou teaches that a preferred WRI1 is either a maize WRI1 or a sorghum WRI1 [pg. 105, ln. 32-33]. Zhou additionally teaches that a substantial number of oleosin protein sequences and nucleotide sequences encoding therefrom are known from a large number of different plant species including oleosins from sesame [pg. 119, ¶5-7]. Exogenous polynucleotides encoding an oleosin from sesame are provided (i.e., wherein the oleosin protein is a sesame oleosin protein) [pg. 119, lns. 26-27]. In particular, Zhou teaches a Sesame indicum oleosin for use in the constructs of the invention [Example 17].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the Sorghum Wri1 protein and the sesame oleosin protein as Zhou teaches that multiple sequences for each are known in the art and have been demonstrated to be successful in increasing the total fatty acid content alongside other nucleic acid molecules encoding triacylglycerol production-related proteins. The sorghum Wri1 and sesame oleosin proteins are obvious variants of a Wri1 and an oleosin protein, respectively. Given a finite number of possibilities in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use or try the sesame oleosin and/or the sorghum Wri1 protein in the instant invention. Zhou additionally provides an example of the invented construct with a sesame oleosin and states that the sorghum WRI1 would be preferable over other WRI1s.
Regarding claim 7, Cahoon teaches that a FatB that can generate C14 and C16 fatty acids (e.g., CpFatB2) can be used in combination with at least one of the novel acyltransferases described herein to strongly enhance the production of TAGs having a saturated C14 or C16 at the sn-2 position (i.e., wherein the medium-chain acyl-ACP thioesterase protein is a Cuphea palustris medium-chain acyl-ACP thioesterase protein) [¶72]. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing obvious to use a FatB from Cuphea palustris with reasonable expectation of success, as Cahoon teaches that CpFatB2 can be used in combination with at least one of the novel acyltransferases described herein to strongly enhance the production of TAGs having a saturated C14 or C16 at the sn-2 position.
Regarding claim 25 and 26, Zhou teaches use of the constitutive CaMV 35S promoter (e35S) (i.e., wherein the at least one constitutive promoter is selected from the group consisting of a 35S promoter from cauliflower mosaic virus, etc.) [pg. 184, lns. 10-11]. Zhou teaches a vector constructed to test the co-expression of genes encoding WRI1, DGAT1, and FATA on TAG levels and fatty acid composition in stably transformed leaves of Nicotiana tabacum [pg. 246, lns. 22-24]. The vector pOIL121 contained an SSU::AtWRil gene for expression of AtWRil from the SSU promoter, a 35S::AtDGATl gene for expression of AtDGAT from the 35S (constitutive) promoter, and an enTCUP2: :AtFATA2 gene for expression of AtFATA2 from the enTCUP2 promoter which is a constitutive promoter [pg. 246, lns. 24-28]. Vector pOIL121 served as a parent vector for pOIL122, which contained an additional enTCUP2::SDPl hairpin RNA cassette for RNAi-mediated silencing of the endogenous SDPl gene in the transgenic plants [pg. 246, lns. 33-34].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the 35S constitutive promoter and to use more than one constitutive promoter to drive expression of the nucleic acid molecules as Cahoon teaches that the construct may include a constitutive promoter and Zhou teaches expression of AtWRil from the SSU promoter, AtDGAT from the 35S (constitutive) promoter, and AtFATA2 (i.e. a medium-chain acyl-ACP thioesterase) from the enTCUP2 promoter which is a constitutive promoter and teaches that additional promoters may be added for expressing or silencing genes. One would have been motivated to use a constitutive promoter as they are well known in the art and both Cahoon and Zhou provide working examples of constructs including constitutive promoters.
Regarding claim 29 and 30, Zhou teaches that a polynucleotide of interest is typically positioned between the left border-like sequence and the right border-like sequence of a transfer nucleic acid [pg. 152, lns. 11-13]. pOIL122 shows T-DNA left and right borders within the construct [Fig. 14; see construct below]. Zhou teaches that the region of DNA to be transferred is defined by the border sequences, and the intervening DNA (T-DNA) is usually inserted into the plant genome [pg. 159, lns. 8-11]. It is the method of choice because of the facile and defined nature of the gene transfer. The co-expression vectors were created from the original pJP3343 binary expression vector by insertion and cloning into the vector [pg. 245, lns. 12-35; pg. 246, lns. 22-36]. Figure 14 (see above) shows the T-DNA left and right border sequences. The co-expression vectors were used for Agrobacterium-mediated transformation [pg. 247, lns. 10-11]. Additionally, Cahoon teaches that Agrobacterium tumefaciens cells (strain C58C1) were transformed with the binary vectors containing LPAT cDNA by the electroporation. Camelina plants were transformed by floral dip followed by vacuum infiltration and a fluorescent protein (DsRed) was used as a visual selection marker [¶93]. Segregation analyses were performed on the T2 showed fluorescence seeds to determine the number of T-DNA insertion loci.
PNG
media_image1.png
835
1494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the construct includes left and right border sequences and is a T-DNA construct as Zhou teaches that this is the method of choice because of the facile and defined nature of the gene transfer. One would have reasonable expectation of success as Zhou provides a construct including these elements.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments:
Applicant's arguments filed August 17th, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that it is unclear where the text identifying the documents of Cahoon and Zhou came from and the Applicant is unable to locate the text (See Remarks, page 8, footer). Applicant argues that the cited references are insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness (id., page 9, paragraph 1). Applicant argues that neither Cahoon nor Zhou provide any direction about the combination of nucleic acids that should be combined (id., page 9, paragraph 2). Applicant further contends that neither Cahoon nor Zhou suggest that any particular combination of nucleic acids would result in a significant increase in TAGs in vegetative tissue, as demonstrated in the instant specification (id., page 9, paragraph 3). Applicant asserts that the combined suggestion relies on improper hindsight bias (id., page 10, paragraph 1).
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With regard to the text identifying Cahoon and Zhou, please see the header of the above 103 rejection.
With regard to Applicant’s assertation that the cited references are insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the Applicant recites that, “[o]bviousness under §103 requires consideration of the factors set forth in Graham V. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), including an analysis of the scope and content of the prior art and the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). In addition, a "patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each element was, independently, known in the prior art." KSR, 550 U.S. at 401. Applicant submits that, for the reasons set forth below, the cited reference is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” (see pg. 9, first paragraph of Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment 08/17/2026).
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Both Cahoon and Zhou teach modification of genes related to the same intended function, altering the total fatty acid content [Abstract of Zhou; ¶5 of Cahoon], thus, the elements of the instant patented invention were already associated with the intended goal, not merely known in the prior art. Further, Zhou explicitly teaches that the plants transformed with genetic constructs to express DGAT, Oleosin and WRI expressed from a Ubi promoter (Ubi::WRil + DGAT + Oleosin) showed higher TAGs than DGAT + Oleosin or Ubi::WRI1 alone [pg. 70, lns 11-12; Fig. 19]. This suggests that three of the five nucleic acids were already used in tandem with a promoter to solve a known problem of enhancing TAG production. Cahoon and Zhou suggest a finite number of nucleic acids with previously demonstrated success in enhancing TAGs production. The above rejection under 35 USC § 103 provides the rationale supported by Cahoon and Zhou to try all the nucleic acid molecules of the instant claims without inventive effort.
As stated in the MPEP § 2143 E, “[t]he rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.”
In addition, Zhou teaches that the overexpression construct had demonstrated success in enhancing TAGs over another nucleic acid (DGAT + Ole or WRI1 alone). This shows that the elements were not merely in the art and had a specific modification (promoter driving expression) to produce the desired effect. The addition of the Cahoon reference provided more specificity for the selection of the nucleic acids for the construct, such as demonstrating that the co-expression of the LPAT2 genes with the DGAT1 genes is shown to yield synergistic increases in medium-chain fatty acid accumulation in TAG and the sn-2 position of TAG in transgenic plants [¶50] (see pg. 7, first two paragraphs of Office Action filed 04/21/2026). This suggests that, contrary to the Applicant’s assertation that neither Cahoon nor Zhou provide any direction about which particular combination of nucleic acids should be used and whether expression should be increased or decreased (see pg. 9, paragraph 3 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment 08/17/2026), Cahoon and Zhou suggest an increase in expression given the demonstrated constructs, teach particular combinations that were functional towards the goal, and other nucleic acids to use in the constructs.
Although the Applicant contends that Examiner suggests any combination would be obvious and that the almost 30 different ways in which the genes could be combined would not render the combination of the inventions obvious, Examiner is basing the combination off the provided working examples of overexpression and the finite number of available nucleic acids suggested to use in such a construct.
Further, the Applicant argues that, “neither Cahoon nor Zhou suggest that any particular combination of nucleic acids and their respective level of expression would result in a significant increase in triacylglycerides (TAGs) in vegetative tissues (i.e., a 50- to 100-fold increase in TAGs; see page 6, lines 13-16, in the present application).” In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the significant increase in TAGs in vegetative tissue) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The elected claims as drafted currently recite a composition (a nucleic acid construct) comprising known nucleic acid molecules driven by a constitutive promoter. The claims themselves do not recite any required increase in TAGs in vegetative tissue. This appears to be a limitation imported from the instant specification or from an unelected method claim. As the claim is a composition and does not recite any elements that are out of the ordinary, it would not require inventive effort beyond that which already exists in Cahoon and Zhou. Cahoon and Zhou provide additional motivation and teachings for making such an invention.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Examiner points out that the teaching, motivation, and suggestion, as well as all elements from the instant claims, were previously known in the art at the time of filing, as detailed above. The obviousness rationale did not rely on the teachings of the Applicant’s disclosure.
Summary
Claims 1-8, 25-26, and 29-30 are rejected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY K. JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5761. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 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, 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.
/EMILY K JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1662
/BRATISLAV STANKOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Units 1661 & 1662
1 Examiner notes that the title provided for this reference in the previous Office Action (04/21/2026) was “Producing Triacylglycerols Comprising Medium-chain Fatty Acids In Organism Used In Biofuel, Involves Introducing First Transgene Into Organism, Where Transgene Comprises Nucleic Acid Sequence Encoding Lysophosphatidic Acid Acyltransferase.” The USPTO search engines produce duplicates of patent documents with alternative titles. The application number provided remains correct.
2 Examiner notes that the title provided for this reference in the previous Office Action (04/21/2026) was “Producing A Feedstuff For An Animal, And Identifying, Selecting And/or Obtaining Plant, Oil, Industrial Product And Synthetic Diesel Fuel, Involves Harvesting Vegetative Plant Unit From A Sorghum Species Or Zea Mays Plant.” The USPTO search engines produce duplicates of patent documents with alternative titles. The WIPO document ID and provided document remain correct.
Prosecution Insights