DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s election of TIC4006 (SEQ ID NOs:9,10, 19,20, 27 and 28) in the reply filed on 13 March 2026 is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-22 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The specification is objected to because SEQ ID NOs: and toxin names are not consistent. For example, in Table 1 and the sequence listing, TIC6547 is SEQ ID NO:10, while in Table 3 and ¶34 and ¶72 it is SEQ ID NO:8. In Table 1, TIC4006 is SEQ ID NO:12, in Table 3 it is SEQ ID NO:6, and in the sequence listing and ¶36 and ¶72 it is SEQ ID NO:10. All references to sequences and proteins have not been checked, and it is recommended that Applicant do so, and make amendments as needed.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 11, 17, 19, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, the Markush group recites “an” before the list of plant cells, but there is also an “a” before “cucurbit” in line 34. Further, some members of the list are plural, which is not in agreement with the use of “an”; see, for example, “millets” and “melons” in line 5 and “rootstocks” in line 6. It is suggested that “a” be deleted in line 4 and plants listed in the plural be made singular.
In claim 11, the Markush group recites “an” before the list of plants, but there is also an “a” before “cucurbit” in line 3. Further, some members of the list are plural, which is not in agreement with the use of “an”; see, for example, “millets” and “melons” in lines 4 and 5, respectively, and “rootstocks” in line 6. It is suggested that “an” be deleted in line 2, “a” be deleted in line 4 and plants listed in the plural be made singular.
Claim 17 is not written in proper Markush format. The claim should be in the format “selected from the group consisting of A, B, C and D.” The claim recites “and” at locations other than before the last item in the list. “AXMI-R1 and variants thereof, IP3 and variants thereof” in lines 12-13 should be replaced with -- AXMI-R1, AXMI-R1 variants, IP3, IP3 variants--. The “and” in line 11 should be replaced with a comma. See MPEP § 2173.05(h).
In claim 17, line 2. the Markush group recites “a” before the list of pesticidal proteins but many members of the list are plural (e.g., “chimeras” in line 4 and “variants” in lines 3 and 14- 16). It is suggested that “a” be deleted.
Claim 19 is not written in proper Markush format. The claim should be in the format “selected from the group consisting of A, B, C and D.” The claim recites “and” at locations other than before the last item in the list and recites “or” in several lines. See lines 3,4, 5, 6, 8, and 12. See MPEP § 2173.05(h).
In claim 22, line 1, the comma should be deleted.
Claim 21 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 9. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 706.03(k). Both claims are drawn to a plant comprising one of the same nucleic acid molecules. The plant of claim 9, part d, would also comprise one of those nucleic acid molecules.
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 18-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a natural phenomenon without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 18-19 are drawn to a commodity product comprising a recombinant nucleic acid comprising a heterologous promoter and a nucleic acid encoding a pesticidal protein or to a commodity product comprising a pesticidal protein.
The protein encompasses SEQ ID NO:10, which was isolated from a naturally occurring Bacillus thuringiensis strain (Table 3), and it is thus a naturally occurring protein.
In nature, B. thuringiensis is dispersed onto plants by means including animal defecation and rain splash (Argolo-Filho et al, 2014, Insects 5:62-91, See Figure 1). When the plants are made into commodity products, the commodity products will comprise the protein. Thus, commodity products comprising the pesticidal protein are products of nature.
The claimed commodity products include whole seed and silage. Thus, the claims encompass seed and a naturally occurring protein. Thus, these claims are not directed to significantly more than products of nature.
Claim 22 is drawn to a method comprising contacting a Lepidopteran pest with a protein that encompasses SEQ ID NO:10. As discussed above, the protein is SEQ ID NO:10 is a naturally occurring protein, and the process by which pests come into contact with the protein is a naturally occurring process, part of the life-cycle of B. thuringiensis. The claim recites no additional elements. Thus, this claim is not directed to significantly more than a process of nature.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 1-22 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The claims, to the extent they read on the elected species, are broadly drawn to a recombinant nucleic acid comprising a heterologous promoter operably linked to a nucleic acid that encodes a pesticidal protein with 62% identity to SEQ NO:10, 20 or 28 or a pesticidal protein-encoding-nucleic acid that hybridizes to SEQ ID NO:9, 19 or 27, host cells, plants and seeds comprising the recombinant nucleic acid, insect inhibitory compositions comprising it, commodity products comprising the nucleic acid or the protein, methods of producing seed from the plant, and methods comprising contacting a pest with the protein.
SEQ ID NO:9 encodes SEQ ID NO:10, which is TIC4006 (¶35-36), SEQ ID NO:19 encodes SEQ ID NO:20, which is TIC4006 with an alanine inserted after the starting methionine (¶45-46), and SEQ ID NO:27 encodes SEQ ID NOI:28, which is TIC4006 with a 5’ HIS tag (¶53-54)
The specification fails to teach how to use proteins of SEQ NO: 10, 20 or 28. The specification fails to teach any pest that the protein has activity against. Example 2 describes assaying SEQ NO:10 (TIC4006) against a number of pests, but it did not have activity against any of them.
The specification also fails to teach how to make nucleic acid that encodes a pesticidal protein with 62% identity to SEQ NO:10, 20 or 28 or a pesticidal protein-encoding nucleic acid that hybridizes to SEQ ID NO:9, 19 or 27.
Nucleic acids encoding proteins with 62% identity to the 1213 amino acid long SEQ ID NO:10 or the 1214 amino acid long SEQ ID NO:20 encompass those encoding proteins with 460 and 461 amino acid substitutions, respectively, relative to SEQ ID NO:10 and 20. Nucleic acids encoding proteins with 62% identity to the 1233 amino acid long SEQ ID NO:28 encompass those encoding proteins with 468 amino acid substitutions relative to SEQ ID NO:28.
Nucleic acids that hybridize to SEQ ID NO:9, 19 or 27 under the recited conditions would have about 95% identity to SEQ ID NO:9, 19 or 27. Nucleic acids with about 95% identity to the 3642 nucleotide long SEQ ID NO:10, the 3645 nucleotide long SEQ ID NO:19, or the 37102nucleotide long SEQ ID NO:27 would have 182-185 nucleotide substitutions relative to SEQ ID NO:9, 19 or 27. These nucleic acids encompass those in which every substitution is in a different codon and in which every substitution results in codon that encodes a different amino acid. Thus, nucleic acids with 95% identity to SEQ ID NO:9, 19 or 27 encompass nucleic acids encoding proteins with 182-185 amino acid substitutions relative to SEQ ID NO:10, 20 or 28. These proteins would have 85% identity to SEQ NO:10, 20 or 28.
The guidance in the specification with respect to making amino acid substitutions in the claimed proteins is as follows:
The specification suggests analyzing proteins using alignment algorithms (¶70), but does not teach what proteins to use in this comparison.
The specification suggests using nucleic acids encoding the disclosed proteins as probes to identify related sequences (¶89), but does not teach where to find or how to make these related sequences.
The specification fails to teach which amino acid substitutions would convert SEQ NO: 10, 20 and 28 to pesticidal proteins, including ones pesticidal to Hemipterans, as required by instant claims 7-8.
Thus, one of skill in the art would have to make the claimed pesticidal proteins, if it is possible to do so, by random mutagensis. However, making large numbers of amino acid substitutions in proteins is unpredictable.
While proteins are fairly tolerant to mutations resulting in single amino acid changes, increasing the number of substitutions additively increases the probability that the protein will be inactivated (Guo et al, 2004, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101: 9205-9210; pg 9209, right column, paragraph 2). As there are, for example, 20460 (2.98 x 10598) proteins with 460 amino acid substitutions relative to SEQ ID NO:10, even assaying a representative sample of these proteins in an attempt to find any that have pesticidal activity would entail undue experimentation. Thus, making and analyzing proteins with up to 460, 461 or 468 amino acid substitutions that also have pesticidal activity would require undue experimentation.
Thus, extensive teachings are required for making nucleic acids encoding pesticidal proteins with up to 462 or 470 amino acid substitutions relative to SEQ NO:10, 20 or 28, as encompassed by the claimed nucleic acids. These teachings are not provided for by the specification. The specification also fails to overcome the unpredictability in the art of making large numbers of amino acid substitutions in pesticidal proteins as it provides no working examples of proteins with up to 462 or 470 amino acid substitutions relative to SEQ NO:10, 20 or 28.
Claim 13 is drawn to an insect inhibitory composition comprising the recombinant nucleic acid molecule of claim 1. Nucleic acids encoding pesticidal proteins do not themselves have insect inhibitory activity. Thus, even if proteins with 62% identity to SEQ NO:10, 20 or 28 are pesticidal, the nucleic acids encoding them would not be.
Claim 22 encompasses a method of controlling a Lepidopteran species pest and controlling a Hemipteran species infestation of a plant, where the method comprises contacting the Lepidopteran species pest with an insecticidally effective amount of a protein with 62% identity to SEQ NO:10, 20 or 28. However, TIC4006 (SEQ NO:10) is not pesticidal to either Hemipterans or Lepidopterans (example 2). Of the other disclosed proteins disclosed in the specification, (TIC4747, TIC7181, TIC4006, and TIC6547), only TIC6547 is pesticidal to a Lepidopteran and only TIC4747 and TIC7181 are pesticidal to Hemipterans (example 2). Further, contacting a Lepidopteran pest with a pesticidal protein with not control a Hemipteran species infestation; the method does not contact a Hemipteran or a plant with the protein.
Given the claim breath, unpredictability, and lack of guidance as discussed above, undue experimentation would have been required by one skilled in the art to develop and evaluate pesticidal protein-encoding nucleic acids that hybridize to SEQ ID NO:9, 19 or 27 or that encode proteins with 62% identity to SEQ NO:10, 20 or 28. Thus, the instant invention is not enabled.
Claims 1-22 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims require a nucleic acid that encodes a pesticidal protein 62% identity to SEQ NO:10, 20 or 28 or a pesticidal protein-encoding-nucleic acid that hybridizes to SEQ ID NO:9, 19 or 27 or a protein encoded by the nucleic acid.
SEQ ID NO:9 encodes SEQ ID NO:10, which is TIC4006 (¶35-36), SEQ ID NO:19 encodes SEQ ID NO:20, which is TIC4006 with an alanine inserted after the starting methionine (¶45-46), and SEQ ID NO:27 encodes SEQ ID NOI:28, which is TIC4006 with a 5’ HIS tag (¶53-54)
Nucleic acids encoding proteins with 62% identity to the 1213 amino acid long SEQ ID NO:10 or the 1214 amino acid long SEQ ID NO:20 encompass those encoding proteins with 460 and 461 amino acid substitutions, respectively, relative to SEQ ID NO:10 and 20. Nucleic acids encoding proteins with 62% identity to the 1233 amino acid long SEQ ID NO:28 encompass those encoding proteins with 468 amino acid substitutions relative to SEQ ID NO:28.
Nucleic acids that hybridize to SEQ ID NO:9, 19 or 27 under the recited conditions would have about 95% identity to SEQ ID NO:9, 19 or 27. Nucleic acids with about 95% identity to the 3642 nucleotide long SEQ ID NO:10, the 3645 nucleotide long SEQ ID NO:19, or the 37102nucleotide long SEQ ID NO:27 would have 182-185 nucleotide substitutions relative to SEQ ID NO:9, 19 or 27. These nucleic acids encompass those in which every substitution is in a different codon and in which every substitution results in codon that encodes a different amino acid. Thus, nucleic acids with 95% identity to SEQ ID NO:9, 19 or 27 encompass nucleic acids encoding proteins with 182-185 amino acid substitutions relative to SEQ ID NOs:10, 20, and 28. These proteins would have 85% identity to SEQ NO:10, 20 or 28.
The specification describes SEQ ID NO:2, 4, 6, and 8, which have 83%, 82.9%, 82.7% and 83% identity to SEQ ID NO:10 and similar percent identities to SEQ ID NOs:20 and 28. These proteins do not describe those representing the full scope of proteins encoded by the claimed nucleic acids or used in the claimed methods. First, of these, only TIC6547 (SEQ ID NO:8) is pesticidal to a Lepidopteran and only TIC4747 (SEQ ID NO:2) and TIC7181 (SEQ ID NO:4) are pesticidal to Hemipterans (example 2). SEQ ID NO:10 is does not have pesticidal activity toward any Lepidopteran or Hemipteran tested (example 2).
The structural features that distinguish pesticidal proteins with 62% or approximately 85% identity to SEQ ID NO:10 from other proteins with 62% or approximately 85% identity to SEQ ID NO:10 are not described in the specification. The specification does not describe the necessary and sufficient motifs or domains of a pesticidal protein with 62% or approximately 85% identity to SEQ ID NO:10, 20, or 28.
Thus, one of skill in the art would not recognize that Applicant was in possession of the necessary common attributes or features of the genus in view of the disclosed species.
Hence, Applicant has not, in fact, described nucleic acids that encode pesticidal proteins with 62% identity to SEQ ID NO:10, 20 or 28 or pesticidal protein-encoding nucleic acids that hybridize to SEQ ID NO:9, 19 or 27 over the full scope of the claims, and the specification fails to provide an adequate written description of the claimed invention.
Therefore, given the lack of written description in the specification with regard to the structural and functional characteristics of the claimed compositions, Applicant does not appear to have been in possession of the claimed genus at the time this application was filed.
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 the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 2 and 18-19 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 that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant, regards as the invention. Dependent claims are included in all rejections.
Claim 2 is indefinite in claiming both a nucleic acid and in part (b) a method of using it. When a claim mixes statutory classes, it is unclear when direct infringement occurs. See MPEP 2173.05(p) II.
Claim 2(a) is indefinite in its recitation of “comprising a sequence that functions to express the pesticidal protein a plant …”. Parent claim 1 already recites that the recombinant nucleic acid molecule comprises a heterologous promoter. It is not clear if the sequence that functions to express the pesticidal protein a plant is the heterologous promoter or if it is in addition to the heterologous promoter.
Claim 17 lacks antecedent basis for the limitation “said at least one other pesticidal protein” in lines 1-2, as parent claims 14-16 only recite “at least one other pesticidal agent”, which encompasses more than proteins.
Claim 18 lacks antecedent basis for the limitation “the host cell of claim 3”, as claim 3 is drawn to a recombinant nucleic acid molecule.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase "and the like" in line 3 renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 19, the phrase "such as" in line 8 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 19 is indefinite in its recitation of “including, where applicable, juices, concentrates, jams, jellies, marmalades, and other edible forms of such commodity products containing a detectable amount of such polynucleotides and or polypeptides of this application” in lines 4-6. First, the phrase “including” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Second, it is not clear when juices, concentrates, jams, jellies, marmalades, and other edible forms of such commodity products are applicable and when they are not. Third, it is not clear what is encompassed in “such commodity products” and what is not; it is not clear how similar must something be to be “such a commodity product”. Lastly, the recitation “polynucleotides and or polypeptides of this application” fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language; for example, it is not clear exactly which polynucleotides or polypeptides are ones of this application and which are not.
Claim 19 is indefinite in its recitation of “seeds and plant parts processed for feed or food” in line 7. It is not clear if only part plants and not seeds were processed for feed or food if they would be encompassed by the claim. If the former, the claim is not in proper Markush format and “and” should be deleted.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph:
Subject to the [fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA )], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-6 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 2(c) and claims 3-6 are drawn to the recombinant nucleic acid molecule of claim 1, where the claim recites the location of the recombinant nucleic acid molecule. However, its location, whether in a vector or host cell, does not change or limit the structure of the recombinant nucleic acid molecule itself. Thus, the claims fail to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which they depend. It is suggested that claim 2, part (c), be made a separate claim drawn to a vector comprising the recombinant nucleic acid molecule of claim 1. It is suggested that claim 3 be amended to be drawn to a host cell comprising the recombinant nucleic acid molecule of claim 1 and claim 4 be amended to be drawn to the host cell of claim 3, It is suggested that claim 5 be amended to be drawn to the host cell of claim 3, wherein the host cell is a plant cell and claim 6 be amended to be drawn to the plant cell of claim 5.
Claims 18-19 are drawn to a commodity product produced from the plant, or part thereof, of claim 12, where the commodity product comprises a detectable amount of said recombinant nucleic acid molecule or pesticidal protein. A claim to a commodity product comprising the pesticidal protein but not the recombinant nucleic acid molecule fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 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.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sampson et al (US 2010/0005543).
The recitation “an amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:10, … SEQ ID NO:20, … or SEQ ID NO:28” in part d of claim 9 is interpreted to mean the claimed plant encompasses those that comprise a recombinant nucleic acid comprising a heterologous promoter operably linked to a nucleic acid encoding a pesticidal protein with a sequence comprises any two consecutive amino acids of SEQ ID NO:10, SEQ ID NO:20 or SEQ ID NO:28.
Sampson et al teach plants, including maize, sorghum, wheat, cabbage, sunflower, tomato, crucifer, pepper, potato, cotton, rice, soybean, sugar beet, sugarcane, tobacco, barley, and oilseed rape, transformed with a construct comprising a heterologous nucleic acid operably linked to a nucleic acid encoding their pesticidal protein SEQ ID NO:75 and seeds from the plant (claims 21 and 23; ¶74-78); the plants include alfalfa, banana, barley, bean, brassica, citrus, coffee, corn, cotton, cucurbits, cucumber, peanut, pepper, potato, rapeseed, rice, rye, safflower, sorghum, soybean, sugar beet, sugarcane, sunflower, sweet potato, tea, tobacco, tomato, and wheat (¶77-78).
Their SEQ ID NO:75 comprises the consecutive amino acids IDESKLKPYTRY starting at amino acid 819. This is the same as the consecutive amino acids IDESKLKPYTRY starting at amino acid 124 of the instant SEQ ID NO:10:
US-12-491-396-75
Sequence 75, US/12491396
Publication No. US20100005543A1
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Kimberly S. Sampson
APPLICANT: Daniel J. Tomso
APPLICANT: Shruti Agarwal
APPLICANT: Brian McNulty
APPLICANT: Chris Campbell
TITLE OF INVENTION: TOXIN GENES AND METHODS FOR THEIR USE
FILE REFERENCE: 045600/373705
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/12/491,396
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2009-06-25
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: 61/158,137
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2009-03-06
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: 61/075,719
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2008-06-25
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 283
SEQ ID NO 75
LENGTH: 1354
TYPE: PRT
ORGANISM: Bacillus thuringiensis
Query Match 20.3%; Score 1289; Length 1354;
Best Local Similarity 42.8%;
Matches 287; Conservative 95; Mismatches 144; Indels 144; Gaps 11;
Qy 2 NQYVTTVQKAVNALFSN---NTLPLNITDYNIDQTAYLVERISNDRYSKDKMMLLNQVKF 58
|| | :| |||||:| ||| |::||| :|| | ||| ||:: : |:|| ||:|||
Db 690 NQNVEKARKTVNALFTNDAKNTLRLHVTDYLVDQAANLVECISDEVHPKEKMCLLDQVKV 749
Qy 59 AKRLSRARNLLKGGAFELSD---KNRWKTNNYANILSGSLLSKGQSLNILSA-SPTVSSQ 114
|||||:||||| | || | :| |||:|: :: ||: : ||: |:: | :| | |
Db 750 AKRLSQARNLLHHGDFESPDWSRENGWKTSNHVSVTSGNPIFKGRYLHMPGAENPQFSDQ 809
Qy 115 IIPTHVYQRIDESKLKPYTRYLVRGFVEKSRDLELFVLRYNKEVYKRINVPKN------- 167
: ||::||:||||||||||||:||||| |:|||:|: ||:|||:| :||| :
Db 810 VFPTYMYQKIDESKLKPYTRYMVRGFVGNSKDLEVFITRYDKEVHKSMNVPNDIPPMNPC 869
Qy 168 -EDYHITSHLNEEENPWHNKY-----IQNTP--------VQNSISMRKNSHEFTCHIDIG 213
:| : | | | : | || : :: | |: ||| |
Db 870 TGEYQL------GEGPMLTNYTIPQDMSCDPCEVGTVMKVQQTFVKCEDPHVFSFHIDTG 923
Qy 214 ELDIKKGPGITIGFQISTTDGMATLDNIEVIEAHPLTGDDLTRIQRRERKWKQKWLENQI 273
|||::: || :||:| |||||||:||:|||||:||||: |:|:::||:|||||| | :
Db 924 ELDMERNLGIWVGFKIGTTDGMATVDNLEVIEANPLTGEALSRVKKREQKWKQKWTEKRT 983
Qy 274 QIEKAAQTAKEAIKNLFTCPQQNQLTWMTTLNDIIQAEKLIQEIPYWYSRLLGEDFPILP 333
:|| | |||: ||: ||| ||:| ||||:||| |:| ||| |: | | :|
Db 984 KIETAVQTAQGAIQALFTNANQNRLKPDINLNDILQAENLVQRIPYVYNEFLQGALPPVP 1043
Qy 334 EEAYDTLQQLSTAVETAKLLYAQRNVVNNGDFQAGFSNWNTTDGAEIKQIQDSSSVLVIT 393
| || |||:|| :|: || ||||:||||| || | || ||||:::|| |:|||||:
Db 1044 GETYDIFLQLSSAVASARSLYEQRNVLNNGDFSAGLSGWNATDGADVQQI-GSASVLVIS 1102
Qy 394 DWAANISQDMRVVEKGGYLLRVTAKKEDAGEGYITISD-CSVVMEKLTFTTGDSVESLAH 452
||:|::|| : | : |||||||||| :||||:|||| | | || |: |
Db 1103 DWSASLSQHVCVKPEHSYLLRVTAKKEGSGEGYVTISDGTEENTETLKFTVGEEATSSPS 1162
Qy 453 SDIYSRIHKRYAKKQITNHLSE-------------------------------------- 474
||| | : :|| :: : | |
Db 1163 SDIRSNLRERYQERNMVNASEEAYGTNGYASNPMANYPSDNDRANTHSRNNYRTYPSESF 1222
Qy 475 -----------------RYEIESNPHLINRAE---------------------------- 489
:||: : | |
Db 1223 GITPYSDENPMTDYPTNKYEMNTYPGSTNMTNPNGGCSCGCSTNTYAGENMMMNASSNAN 1282
Qy 490 -------------------------QNASLPSSYVTKTIEVFPETNRVRVEIGETGGTFI 524
:| | | |||||:|:||||||| :||||| |||
Db 1283 GAGYGCGCRTYINNSTDSYASPMTARNGSSLSGYVTKTVEIFPETNRVCIEIGETSGTFK 1342
Qy 525 VESVELIRME 534
|||:|||||:
Db 1343 VESIELIRMD 1352
Thus, Sampson et al’s SEQ ID NO:75 comprises “an amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:10, … SEQ ID NO:20, … or SEQ ID NO:28”, and the plants and seeds comprising it anticipate the instant claims 9-12.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anne R. Kubelik, Ph.D., whose telephone number is (571) 272-0801. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm Eastern.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amjad Abraham, can be reached at (571) 270-7058. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
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.
/Anne Kubelik/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663
Prosecution Insights