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 .
Priority
This application draws priority from foreign application CN202210387532.X filed on 04/14/2022 and PCT/CN2023/087546 filed on 04/11/2023.
Restriction/Election Requirement
The examiner acknowledges the claim amendments filed on 03/09/2026, which are examined herein. The examiner also acknowledges the election of species filed on 03/09/2026. The Applicant argues that the species are all connected in design, operation, and effect as each species is a homologous protein of the protein shown in SDEQ ID NO:1 and the examiner has not demonstrated that the species of SEQ ID NOs: 1-7 have separate classification and a significant search burden.
The examiner reminds the applicant that applications filed under 371 are not required to show search burden, and that different nucleotide sequences are structurally distinct chemical compounds and are unrelated to one another. This means the sequences are deemed to normally constitute different inventive concepts.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are pending and are examined in this Office action.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 states a method for “using” a HPPD INHIBITOR RESISTANCE 1 (HIR1) protein for preparing a herbicide-resistant plant. The word “using” in this claim is unclear and taken by the examiner to mean expressed in a plant.
Specification
The specification is objected to for including the term RPKM in table 1 on page 29 which is undefined in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 16 and 18 are objected to for the phrase “of the plant” at the end of the claims, which appears redundant.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-5, 8-9,14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The listed claims are determined to be directed to subject matter that is naturally occurring, or to a law of nature/natural principle or natural phenomenon. The rationale for this determination is explained below.
The instantly pending claims are method claims. The judicial exception is the correlation of a recited protein (sequence) with herbicide resistance in (rice) plants.
The applicant’s claims are drawn to methods of preparing an herbicide resistant (rice) plant using a native rice protein (i.e. HIR1 SEQ ID NO: 1), which protein is used in detoxification of 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD) inhibitors. The claims are thus drawn to methods that apply the natural principle of a correlation between rice genomic region(s) and/or expressed protein(s), and particular herbicide resistance phenotype. These claims read on thought processes, i.e., visually observing the “preparation” (interpreted as naturally occurring growth) of rice plants already growing in a field, and naturally occurring phenomena (a rice plant that has naturally germinated and is growing will exhibit herbicide resistance if it natively comprises/.expresses HIR. The breadth of “preparing” encompasses non-transformative visual assessment of a rice plant for an herbicide resistance phenotype, coupled with prior knowledge of the correlation of said phenotype(s) with the presence of particular protein(s). This breadth does not impose a meaningful limit on the claim scope, such that all others are not precluded from using the natural principle. The claims recite “using” HIR1, which is interpreted as naturally occurring HIR1 expression in rice plants.
Wild rice varieties show a range of susceptibility to HPPD-inhibitors, according to the background on page 1 of Fang, Jiapeng, et al. "Mechanisms of different sensitivities to 4‐hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase inhibitor benzobicyclon in weedy rice (Oryza sativa f. spontanea)." Pest Management Science 81.10 (2025): 6760-6767. The abstract of Phan, Phuong Dang Thai, et al. "Estimation of the outcrossing rate for annual Asian wild rice under field conditions", Breeding Science 62.3 (2012): 256-262 also teach that wild rice can outcross (i.e. hybridize). Because this protein is already present in rice according to the specification (see page 4 paragraph 2), and the mechanisms for HPPD-inhibitor detoxification are largely unexplored, this protein appears to be involved in a method for detoxifying HPPD-inhibitors in nature, absent evidence to the contrary. For this reason, claims 1, 3-4, 8, 14, and 17 directed to methods practiced with plants comprising the HIR1 proteins and demonstrating enhanced resistance to HPPD-inhibitor are rejected.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected because wild rice plants, which show a range of susceptibility to HPP-inhibitors and encode the HIR1 protein on their chromosomal DNA (i.e. nucleic acid molecule), are able to use a hybridization method and produce a plant with increased herbicide resistance, absent evidence to the contrary.
The instant method claims do not require any transformation event or any additional elements to show a practical application or integration of the natural principle sufficient to confer patent eligibility. For a claim that is directed to a judicial exception to be patent-eligible, it must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For examples of claims that recite meaningful limitations, see MPEP § 2106; see also Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 100 USPQ2d 1492 (Fed. Cir. 2011). A claim that focuses on use of a natural principle must also include additional elements or steps to show that the inventor has practically applied, or added something significant to, the natural principle itself. Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289,101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012), at 1966. To show integration, the additional elements or steps must relate to the natural principle in a significant way to impose a meaningful limit on the claim scope.
The claimed methods are not patent-eligible pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in Ass'n. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics (formerly v. USPTO), 653 F.3d 1329, 99 USPQ2d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 2011), cert. granted, judgment vacated and remanded to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 11-725, 80 U.S.L.W. 3380, 2012 BL 72224 (U.S. Mar. 26, 2012), reversed, ---- S.Ct. ----, 106 USPQ2d 1972, 1974-75 (2013). The claimed invention does not rise to a level that is markedly different in structure from what exists in nature. See “October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility”, issued October 17, 2019, available from the USPTO website at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility.
Improper Markush Grouping
Claim 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under the judicially-created basis that they contain an improper Markush grouping of alternative species. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-722 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. and Int. 1984). The improper Markush grouping includes species of the claimed invention that do not share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. All dependent claims are included in these rejections unless they contain a limitation that overcomes the deficiencies of the parent claim from which they depend.
The members of the improper Markush grouping do not share a substantial feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature for the following reasons: the claims encompass thousands of unique polypeptide sequences (and the corresponding thousands of unique nucleic acid sequences), which are biochemically divergent, they have no conserved structure throughout the genus other than a phosphodiester backbone or a polypeptide backbone (peptide linkages), respectively, and may or may not be associated with increased HPPD-inhibitor resistance in all possible plants.
The species recited in claim 1 lack a substantial structural feature for the claimed 75% amino acid homology to SEQ ID NO:1 as evidenced by the failure of the non-elected sequences (SEQ ID NO: 2-7) to claim a sequence with a sequence homology lower than ~90% similarity to SEQ ID NO:1. This was taught in the disclosure in the table that is on page 32.
Thus, the species of claim 1 and dependent claims do not share both a substantial structural feature and a common use which flows therefrom.
In response to this rejection, Applicants should either amend the claim(s) to recite only individual species or grouping of species that share a substantial structural feature as well as a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature, or present a sufficient showing that the species recited in the alternative of the claims(s) in fact share a substantial structural feature as well as a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 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.
Claim 1 states a method for “using” a HPPD INHIBITOR RESISTANCE 1 (HIR1) protein for preparing a herbicide-resistant plant. The word “using” does not clearly describe what or how the protein is involved in conveying HPPD-inhibitor resistance in the method; how is it being used? Chemically? Physically? Mechanically? Any combination thereof? Claims 2-5 and 7-20, which are dependent or reference claim 1, are included in this rejection.
Claims 3, 11 and 14 are also rejected for stating a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3, 11, and 14 recite the broad recitation of “monocot or dicot”, and the claims also recites “rice, a corn, a sorghum, a barley, a wheat, or Panicum miliaceum” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 1-5 and 7-20 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 Federal Circuit has clarified the written description requirement. The court stated that a written description of an invention "requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, [or] chemical name, of the claimed subject matter sufficient to distinguish it from other materials". University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568; 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The court also concluded that "naming a type of material generally known to exist, in the absence of knowledge as to what that material consists of, is not description of that material". Id. Further, the court held that to adequately describe a claimed genus, Patent Owner must describe a representative number of the species of the claimed genus, and that one of skill in the art should be able to "visualize or recognize the identity of the members of the genus".
Applicant broadly claims a method for preparing a herbicide resistant plant using the HIR1 protein (i.e. SEQ ID NO.1) or a nucleic acid molecule encoding the HIR1 protein. The protein can be overexpressed and is derived from a monocot or a dicot comprising a rice, corn, sorghum, barley, wheat, or Panicum miliaceum. The referenced herbicide is a HPPD-inhibiting herbicide.
Applicant Describes:
A method for boosting resistance to HPPD-inhibiting herbicides (i.e. isoxaflutole, mesotrione, tembotrione, y13287, topramezone, and pyrasulfotole) using SEQ ID NO: 1 in rice.
Sequences ZmHIR1 and SqHIR1 (SEQ ID NOs:4-5), which demonstrated ~91% sequence similarity to SEQ ID NO: 1, also conveyed isoxaflutole resistance when overexpressed in rice, and was described in example 5 of the specification.
With the exception of three HIR1 homologues from rice, corn, and sorghum, Applicant’s have failed to provide working examples for any other alleles or homologues for the HIR1 protein which, when present in all possible plants, will confer the phenotype of HPPD-inhibitor resistance. Applicants also do not describe a representative number of species of the broadly claimed genus of unspecified homologues with 75% sequence identity in method claims to conferring the phenotype of HPPD-inhibitor resistance.
BLASTing® the HIR1 protein of instant SEQ ID NO:1 in the NCBI/GenBank reveals as best hits (matches) many predicted and uncharacterized proteins having at least 75% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:1; see the results below. Many are unnamed or hypothetical and appear uncharacterized.
PNG
media_image1.png
986
1266
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Applicant disclosed this protein is in the ABC transporter family on page 16 paragraph 4 of the Specification. For example, it is known in the art that the ATP-binding cassette (ABC) protein superfamily is the largest protein family known according to Sánchez-Fernández, Rocı́o, et al. "The Arabidopsis thaliana ABC protein superfamily, a complete inventory." Journal of Biological Chemistry 276.32 (2001): 30231-30244. Arabidopsis was found to contain a total of 129 open reading frames (more than 0.5% of the total ORFs) capable of encoding ABC proteins (see abstract). The abstract and page 3 paragraph 2 of Devi, Ritu, et al. "ABCB transporters: functionality extends to more than auxin transportation." Planta 261.4 (2025): 93 also demonstrates that ABCB transporters are involved in many biological roles in plants besides detoxification of xenobiotic compounds. These proteins may or may not be involved in HPPD-inhibitor resistance in all plant species as claimed by the applicant; the homologous proteins that are required for preserving their claimed function(s) are not known; and most of which were not in Applicants' possession at the time of filing.
With the exception of the full-length polynucleotide of SEQ ID NO:1 and 4-5, Applicants have not described any other polynucleotides which have at least 75% identity to SEQ ID NO:1, and which, when expressed in all possible plants, confer increased HPPD-inhibitor resistance, in a claim drawn to a method of increasing HPPD-inhibitor resistance. Applicants fail to specifically describe every possible polynucleotide from the broadly claimed genus of polynucleotide having at least 75% identity to SEQ ID NO:1, which would confer increased HPPD-inhibitor resistance in all possible plants.
Claim 1 recites a protein with an amino acid sequence of at least 75% identity to SEQ ID NO:1. Describing and reducing to practice a genus of polypeptides with all possible single amino acid substitutions relative to the 1245-amino-acids-long polypeptide of SEQ ID NO:1 would require describing and reducing to practice 191245 polypeptide sequences. Polypeptides consisting of an amino acid sequence 75% identical to SEQ ID NO:1 would have up to 311 random amino acid substitutions relative to SEQ ID NO:1. Accordingly, 311 x 191245 amino acid sequences would need to be described and reduced to practice; most of which were not in Applicants’ possession at the time of filing. The instant Specification fails to provide guidance for which amino acids of SEQ ID NO:1 can be substituted, and to which amino acids, and also which amino acids must not be changed, to maintain the functional activity of the encoded protein. The Specification also fails to provide guidance for which amino acids can be deleted and which regions of the protein can tolerate insertions and/or additions and still produce a functional protein. It is noted that applicant acknowledges that these enzymes have required domains for catalytic activity, but the claims do not address this limitation.
Describing and reducing to practice the claimed genus of amino acid substitutions in the protein of SEQ ID NO:1 is unpredictable. While it is known that many amino acid substitutions, additions or deletions are generally possible in any given protein, the positions within the protein’s sequence where such amino acid changes can be made with a reasonable expectation of success (without altering protein function) are limited. Certain positions in the sequence are critical to the protein’s structure/function relationship, for example various sites or regions directly involved in binding, activity, and in providing the correct three-dimensional spatial orientation of binding and active sites. These regions can tolerate only relatively conservative substitutions or no substitutions at all. See Keskin et al., 2004, A new, structurally nonredundant, diverse data set of protein–protein interfaces and its implications, Protein Science 13: 1043-1055, who teach that proteins with similar structure may have different functions (Abstract; pages 1043-1044). See also Guo et al., 2004, Protein tolerance to random amino acid change, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 101: 9205-9210, who teach that there is a probability factor of 34% that a random amino acid replacement in a given protein will lead to its inactivation (Abstract; page 9206; Table 1). In the instant case, such a probability factor will be much higher as the claims encompass more than a single amino acid change in the encoded protein of SEQ ID NO:1. Furthermore, Thornton et al., 2000, From structure to function: approaches and limitations, Nature Structural Biology, structural genomic supplement, November 2000: 991-994, teach that structural data may carry information about the biochemical function of a protein, while its biological role in the cell or organism is much more complex and additional experimentation is needed to elucidate actual biological function (page 992). Thus, the Specification fails to overcome the unpredictability of reducing to practice the large numbers of amino acid deletions/substitutions/insertions/additions in the protein of SEQ ID NO:1, as it does not provide an adequate description of the proteins with the recited large amino acid substitutions relative to SEQ ID NO:1.
Given Applicants have provided very vague description of the method steps or structures
that would link a myriad of unspecified homologous OsHIR1 proteins, and is associated with the claimed phenotype of conveying HPPD-inhibitor resistance, it remains unclear what features or method steps are capable of performing the claimed function.
The Specification fails to provide an adequate written description to support the breadth of the claims. Therefore, one skilled in the art would not have recognized Applicants to be in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed. See Written Description guidelines published in 2008 online at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/web/menu/written.pdf.
Scope of Enablement
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 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 generating rice plants with resistance to HPPD-inhibiting herbicide, it does not reasonably provide enablement for conferring HPPD-inhibitor resistance in all possible plant species. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. All dependent claims are included in these rejections unless they contain a limitation that overcomes the deficiencies of the parent claim from which they depend.
The claims are broadly drawn to a method of generating an herbicide resistant plant or plant part comprising using a HIR1 protein, said protein encodes a homologous protein of SEQ ID NO: 1 or a protein comprising at least 75% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1.
A method for boosting resistance to HPPD-inhibiting herbicides (i.e. isoxaflutole, mesotrione, tembotrione, y13287, topramezone, and pyrasulfotole) using SEQ ID NO: 1 in rice.
Sequences ZmHIR1 and SqHIR1 (SEQ ID NOs:4-5), which demonstrated ~91 % sequence similarity to SEQ ID NO: 1, also conveyed isoxaflutole resistance when overexpressed in rice and was described in example 5 of the specification.
The abstract and page 3 paragraph 2 of Devi et al 2025 demonstrates that ABCB transporters are involved in many biological roles in plants besides detoxification of xenobiotic compounds and primarily known for auxin transport. There was no teachings in the specification that would aid a person of ordinary skill in the art to identify this specific ABCB proteins as conveying HPPD-inhibitor resistance. Additionally, the teachings of Conte, Sarah S., and Alan M. Lloyd. "Exploring multiple drug and herbicide resistance in plants—Spotlight on transporter proteins." Plant science 180.2 (2011): 196-203 emphasize that multiple drug resistance is not well studied in plant systems, despite the plant genome containing large numbers of multiple drug resistance transporters (such as ABCB transporters mentioned in the abstract and on page 2 paragraph 5.
These factors pertaining to which HIR1 proteins are able to convey herbicide resistance to all plants do not appear to have been adequately addressed in the instant application.
Given the absence of guidance in the specification, and given the relatively high level of unpredictability in the art, one of skill in the art cannot predict the effect of introducing the myriad of claimed HIR1 homologues, and their causal relationship to conferring HPPD-inhibitor resistance in all plant species. Accordingly, given the lack of guidance in the instant Specification, undue trial and error experimentation would have been required for one skilled in the art to use the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, 14, 17, and 19-20 encompassing a method for preparing a herbicide-resistant plant or conferring a plant resistance to a HPPD-inhibiting herbicide using a HIR1 protein derived from a monocot or dicot comprising a rice, corn, sorghum, barley, wheat, or panicum miliaceum are rejected as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) over Maeda, Hideo, et al. "A rice gene that confers broad-spectrum resistance to β-triketone herbicides." Science 365.6451 (2019): 393-396. Maeda et al 2019 teaches a method for engineering rice with increased HPPD-inhibitor resistance (i.e. claims 1, 4, 8, 17, and 19) on page 3 of the supplementary information and demonstrated the resistant plants in Fig. 3A. Because this method was performed in rice (i.e. Yamandawara), it could be assumed that they would also contain the applicant’s claimed HIR1 rice protein as was drawn to in claims 1, 3 and 14. The plant cells of the transformed plant would also contain nucleic acid molecules encoding the HIR1 protein as was drawn to in claim 5. The abstract and paragraph 6 on page 1 of Maeda et al 2019 also suggest breeding for crop plants with increase herbicide resistance using the HIS1 protein in the passage “These results thus suggested the possible application of HIS1 to the breeding of crops resistant to multiple b-Triketone herbicides”. This breeding process (i.e. hybridization) in rice, which is plant this publication was directed to, would infringe on Claim 9. Maeda et al 2019 also discloses how their findings on HIS1 could be used together with HPPD-inhibitors for a weed control method in crop fields in the last sentence of page 4. Reduction of this to practice would infringe upon claims 10 and 20.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure.
Publication, WO 2020221312 A1, is directed to a mutant HPPD polypeptide conveying strong tolerance to herbicides (see English translation attached to this office action). WO 2020221312 A1 teaches the hybridization (i.e. crossing) of a HPPD-inhibitor resistant plant with another susceptible plant starting on page 20 paragraph 8. This publication also teaches a method for controlling an unwanted plant at a plant cultivation site using an effective amount of herbicide, on page 45 paragraphs 2-3.
Subject Matter Free of Art
Claims 2, 7, 11-13, 15-16, and 18 are directed to a method of preparing a herbicide resistant plant using the HPPD INHIBITOR RESISTANCE 1 (HIR1) protein (i.e. SEQ ID NO.1) or a nucleic acid molecule encoding the (HIR1) protein (i.e. SEQ ID NO.1). The protein is overexpressed and is derived from rice, corn, sorghum, barley, wheat, or Panicum miliaceum. The referenced herbicide is a 4- hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD)-inhibiting herbicide. The claims are also directed to a method for preparing a hybrid plant by crossing the plant generated from claim 5 with another plant. As well as a method for controlling an unwanted plant at a plant cultivation site, comprising steps of: (1) providing a herbicide-resistant plant prepared by the method according to claim 5; and (2) cultivating the herbicide-resistant plant of the step (1) and applying an HPPD-inhibiting herbicide to the plant cultivation site.
Maeda et al 2019 teaches a method for the overexpression of a protein (HIS1) in Figure 3a and is described in the supplementary data on page 3 paragraph 5 and supplementary Figure 5C. The protein originated from rice (i.e. claims 11 ) and was overexpressed (i.e. claims 2, 7, 13, 16, and 18) to convey increased HPPD-inhibitor resistance (i.e. claims 12 and 15).
Maeda et al 2019 and WO 2020221312 A1 do not teach the overexpression of a protein with SEQ ID NO:1 or a nucleic acid sequence encoding the protein of SEQ ID NO:1.
NOTE: This sequence has been identified in the following published applications US 20110252509 A1 and US 20140259212 A1, but do not discuss HPPD-inhibitor resistance in the claims. Due to the large number of sequences in these applications, it would likely not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the applicant’s SEQ ID NO:1 would convey HPPD-inhibitor resistance.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE W MEYER whose telephone number is (571)272-3733. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am- 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bratislav Stankovic can be reached at (571) 270-0305. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GEORGE W MEYER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1662
/BRATISLAV STANKOVIC/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Units 1661 & 1662
Prosecution Insights