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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-15, 29 and 41 are pending and examined. Claims 16-28, 30-40 and 42-53 are cancelled.
Priority
This application is claiming the benefit of Provisional Application No.
63/586,150 filed September 28, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The IDS submitted on 02/07/2025 has been considered. Signed copy is attached.
Specification
The Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
In claims 3-4 the recitation “shown in” is grammatically incorrect. Applicant is advised to replace the limitation with --as set forth--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 15 and 41 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.
Claims 15 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: the step required for the plant cell to comprise the exogenous nucleic acid sequence.
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 1-15, 29 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The written description requirement may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by disclosing relevant and identifying characteristics such as structural or other physical and/or chemical properties, by disclosing functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the invention as claimed. See Eli Lilly,119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406.
Applicant’s disclosure is as follows.
Applicant describes overexpressing Arabidopsis thaliana 30s ribosomal protein (SEQ ID NO: 1 and 2) which regulates cation/H+ exchanger (CHX20) expression levels (fig. 1D) in Arabidopsis thaliana. Additionally, overexpression of 30s ribosomal protein (SEQ ID NO: 1 and 2) improved tolerance to drought stress in Arabidopsis thaliana plants (p.40 para. [0126]-[0127] and figs. 4A-D).
Applicant also describes overexpressing AtCHX20, but does not disclose the sequences used to do so, and also describes expressing PtCHX20 (SEQ ID NO:s 3-4) in both Arabidopsis thaliana and Populus trichocarpa, respectively, resulting in reduced water loss in both plants (figs. 2E and 3F).
In the overexpressed AtCHX20 line stomal aperture was regulated by CHX20 and remained open during drought stress compared to the wild-type and knockout lines (fig. 2C). In both overexpressed AtCHX20 and PtCHX20 lines transpiration rate (figs. 2D and 3B, respectively) and stomal conductance (figs. 2D and 3D) was higher compared to the wild-type and knockout lines.
Claims encompass any 30s ribosomal protein or CHX20 protein having as little as 90% sequence identity of SEQ ID NOs: 1 and 2 or homologs thereof.
Claims 1-15, 29 and 41 are directed to a genetically modified plant expressing a 30s ribosomal protein or expressing a CHX20 protein or homologs thereof resulting in either: water retention within cells by altering stomatal aperture; altered stomatal aperture length compared to a wild type plant; improved gaseous exchange, transpiration, and photosynthesis under severe water deficit conditions compared to a wild type plant; higher survival rate in water deficit conditions compared to a wild type plant; and delayed leaf senescence in drought conditions compared to a wild type plant.
(1) Applicant has not described structures within the nucleic acid and amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NOs: 1 and 2, respectively, or homologs thereof, that confer functionality; (2) Applicant has not described a representative number of species from the genus of structures having at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NOs: 1 and 2 or homologs thereof, respectively (e.g., see sequence search results); (3) Applicant has not described or provided a representative number of plants comprising SEQ ID NOs: 1-2 or homologs thereof having the drought tolerance phenotype; and (4) Applicant has not adequately described the structures of CHX20 that would result in functional activity.
Claim 1 is directed to a genetically modified plant expressing an exogenous 30s ribosomal protein or homologs thereof. The claims encompass 30s ribosomal protein from any source having any nucleic acid structure. Applicant does not recite any other structures besides SEQ ID NOs: 1-2 or describe a representative number of sequences from the broad genus of 30s ribosomal proteins and homologs thereof having functional activity.
Moreover, 30s ribosomal proteins are a broad genus with many roles besides what the Applicant describes above. For example, Stępiński, D. “Decoding Plant Ribosomal Proteins: Multitasking Players in Cellular Games”, Mar. 2025, Cells vol. 14,7 473. 21 (U) describes that ribosomal proteins “including uL14 (AtRPL23), eL30 (AtRPL30), and eS30 (AtRPS30), interact with uL16 (AtRPL10), and mutations in the genes encoding these proteins result in increased pathogenicity. This suggests that these RPs may also play a role in non-host defense pathways in Arabidopsis” (p.12. 2nd para.).
Stępiński describes the 30s ribosomal proteins have various roles including non-host defense pathways. Stępiński also describes that “mutations in the genes encoding these proteins result in increased pathogenicity”, suggesting that mutations or slight variations of the 30s ribosome can alter the function.
The specification has not described the conserved regions, motifs, features, or structures that are needed in order to confer 30S ribosomal function or provide the traits of claim 13. As such, and based on the state of the art, the nucleic and amino acid sequences as encompassed by the claims may function in defense or other pathways that do not yield plants with the traits as claimed.
Moreover, the specification has not provided a representative number of species from the broad genus of sequences having at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1-2 or homologs thereof retaining the functions of claim 13. Therefore, one skilled in the art would appreciate that Applicant does not possess the genus of structures as claimed and which retain functionality.
Furthermore, claims 1-15, 29 and 41 encompass a protein sequence having at least 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1, or the amino acid sequence having at least 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 2. This requires the specification to describe the nucleic acid sequences encoding such proteins.
However, the specification does not describe a coding sequence having at least 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1, or a polypeptide with at least 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 2, which leads to the functions of claim 13.
A nucleic acid sequence having at least 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 would have 93 nucleic acid substitutions relative to SEQ ID NO:1, while a polypeptide with at least 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 2 would have 31 amino acid substitutions relative to SEQ ID NO: 2.
These polynucleotide and polypeptides would encompass 393 and 1931 distinct gene and protein variants, respectively. In the absence of describing where in the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 such variations can be sustained, one of skill in the art would not be led to believe that Applicant possesses this vast genus of nucleic and amino acid sequences that retain functional activity, or to the make the polypeptide which would retain the activity of SEQ ID NO: 2, and lead to the functions of claim 13.
The specification fails to provide an adequate description of the motifs, catalytic domains, etc. in these sequences that confers the specifically claimed function of any of the claim functions above. Applicant has described one structure/sequence which is not a representative number of structures/sequences from the genus of sequences having 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1-2 that retain 30s ribosomal protein function and in turn confer any of the claimed characteristics in claim 13.
Furthermore, Applicant has not described if SEQ ID NOs:1-2 or sequence with at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NOs: 1-2 will retain functional activity in all plants.
For example, a blast search of the top ten results shows the 30s ribosomal nucleic acid sequence SEQ ID NO:1 encoding SEQ ID NO: 2, respectively, as unnamed, predicted, and hypothetical genes.
PNG
media_image1.png
361
1220
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
303
1221
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the state of the art the skilled artisan would not know the structures found within sequences having as little as 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NOs: 1-2 that confer 30s ribosomal protein activity and provide drought resistance.
The claims encompasses a broad genus of plants. However, Applicant has failed to describe a representative number of species from the broad genus of plants having SEQ ID NOs: 1 or 2 or sequences having at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NOs:1 or 2 or homologs thereof. Therefore, one skilled in the art would appreciate that Applicant does not possess the broad genus of plants as claimed.
In regard to claim 2, the increase in CHX20 protein does not have to occur from expression of the exogenously expressed 30s ribosomal protein. Applicant has not described how, other than by the 30s ribosomal protein, CHX20 expression is increased. Therefore, the specification has failed to adequately describe how else the CHX20 protein expression is upregulated.
Claims 29 and 41 are directed to a CHX20 protein and encompass a broad genus of nucleic acid sequences encoding CHX20 proteins. However, Applicant only describes a specific CHX20 protein that belongs to Populus trichocarpa as set forth SEQ ID NOs: 3 and 4. Applicant has not adequately described the structure for CHX20 or homologs thereof that would result in functional activity.
Additionally, Applicant has not described the conserved regions, motifs, or features to allow skilled in the art to adequately identify the CHX20 protein or homologs thereof that retain functional activity and confer drought tolerance. Lastly, Applicant has not described a representative number of sequences having functional activity and conferring drought tolerance.
These claims also encompass a large genus of plants comprising the CHX20 protein or homologs thereof having various functions. The specification has not provided an adequate number of plants expressing CHX20 protein or homologs thereof or described expression of the large genus of sequences having any other function than conferring drought tolerance.
For example, Chanroj et al. (“Plant-specific cation/H+ exchanger 17 and its homologs are endomembrane K+ transporters with roles in protein sorting”, 2011, The Journal of biological chemistry vol. 286,39: 33931-41(V)) describes that CHX20 homologs have different roles that are localized in the roots or pollen (pg. 33932 col.1 and image below).
Applicant has only described how the CHX20 (SEQ ID NOs: 3-4) alter the stomal aperture activity and has not described how the CHX20 homologs affect the pollen and roots, which function is encompassed by the claims. Lastly, Chanroj et al. describe that the CHX20 roles are still unclear so how is one skilled in the art suppose identify the claimed function listed in claim 13.
PNG
media_image3.png
211
351
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Because of the lack of a description of a representative number of structures/sequences and plants with drought resistance, the absence of information in the art on conserved regions required for activity, or the impact of 10% variation of the sequence, one skilled in the art would not know the structures conferring claimed drought tolerance.
Accordingly, there is lack of adequate description to inform a skilled artisan that Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. See Written Description guidelines published in Federal Register/ Vol.66, No. 4/ Friday, January 5, 2001/ Notices; p. 1099-1111
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)(Enablement)
Claims 1-15, 29 and 41 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 overexpressing Arabidopsis thaliana 30s ribosomal protein (i.e., SEQ ID NO: 1 and 2) and PtCHX20 (i.e., SEQ ID NOs: 3-4) in Arabidopsis thaliana and Populus trichocarpa, respectively, does not reasonably provide enablement for genetically modifying all plants with any 30s ribosomal protein or CHX20 protein resulting in any phenotype. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
“The first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires, inter alia, that the specification of a patent enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains to make and use the claimed invention. Although the statute does not say so, enablement requires that the specification teach those in the art to make and use the invention without ‘undue experimentation.’ In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
That some experimentation may be required is not fatal; the issue is whether the amount of experimentation required is ‘undue.’” In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 495 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (emphasis in original); see also In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“[T]o be enabling, the specification of a patent must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation.’”) “Whether undue experimentation is needed is not a single, simple factual determination, but rather is a conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations.” Wands, supra.
Some experimentation, even a considerable amount, is not “undue” if, e.g., it is merely routine, or if the specification provides a reasonable amount of guidance as to the direction in which the experimentation should proceed. Factors to consider include “(1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breadth of the claims.” Id.
Applicant’s disclosure is as set forth above. The claimed invention is not enabled for the following reasons. To comply with 35 USC 112(a) enablement, one skilled in the art must be able to make and use the claimed invention.
(A) The breadth of the claims
The breadth of the claims encompasses any plant comprising a 30s ribosomal, CHX20 protein, or homologs thereof having any nucleic or amino acid structure resulting in ribosomal activity.
(B) The nature of the invention.
The nature of the invention is a Arabidopsis thaliana and Populus trichocarpa comprising a 30s ribosomal (SEQ ID NOs:1-2) or CHX20 protein (SEQ ID NOs: 3-4) resulting in either retains water within its cell by altering its stomatal aperture; has altered stomatal aperture length compared to a wild type plant; has improved gaseous exchange, transpiration, and photosynthesis under severe water deficit conditions compared to a wild type plant; has higher survival rate in water deficit conditions compared to a wild type plant; and has delayed leaf senescence in drought conditions compared to a wild type plant.
(C) The state of the prior art
The state of the prior art does not teach a particular 30S ribosomal protein or CHX20 protein structure that can be predictably used for the modification of stomatal aperture function and does not teach plants having a stomatal aperture phenotype by expressing nucleic or amino acid sequences having as little as 90% identity to SEQ ID NOs: 1-4.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill
The level of one of ordinary skill in the art is high.
(E) The level of predictability in the art; (F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) The existence of working examples; and (H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
Claims is directed to a genetically modified plant expressing a 30s ribosomal protein or expressing a CHX20 protein or homologs thereof resulting in either: water retention within cells by altering stomatal aperture; altered stomatal aperture length compared to a wild type plant; improved gaseous exchange, transpiration, and photosynthesis under severe water deficit conditions compared to a wild type plant; higher survival rate in water deficit conditions compared to a wild type plant; and delayed leaf senescence in drought conditions compared to a wild type plant.
(1) Applicant has not taught structures within the nucleic acid and amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NOs: 1 and 2, respectively, or homologs thereof, that confer functionality; (2) Applicant has not taught the structures that confer function from the genus of species having at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NOs: 1 and 2 or homologs thereof, respectively (e.g., see sequence search results); (3) Applicant has not taught the structures that confer function to plants comprising SEQ ID NOs: 1-2 or homologs thereof having drought tolerance phenotype; and (4) Applicant has not adequately taught the structures of CHX20 that would result in functional activity.
This guidance is important because, ror example, Stępiński, D. “Decoding Plant Ribosomal Proteins: Multitasking Players in Cellular Games”, Mar. 2025, Cells vol. 14,7 473. 21 (U) teaches that ribosomal proteins “including uL14 (AtRPL23), eL30 (AtRPL30), and eS30 (AtRPS30), interact with uL16 (AtRPL10), and mutations in the genes encoding these proteins result in increased pathogenicity. This suggests that these RPs may also play a role in non-host defense pathways in Arabidopsis” (p.12. 2nd para.).
Stępiński teaches the 30s ribosomal proteins have various roles including non-host defense pathways, which the Applicant has not taught the structures that confer function of plants comprising 30s ribosomal proteins or homologs thereof having said non-host defense activity. Stępiński also teaches that “mutations in the genes encoding these proteins result in increased pathogenicity”, suggesting that mutations or slight variations of the 30s ribosome can alter the function.
The specification has not taught the conserved regions, motifs, features, or structures that need to be maintained in order to confer the traits as encompassed by claim 13. Moreover, the specification has not taught the structures that confer function for sequences having at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1-2 or homologs thereof any which predictably provide the traits of claim 13. Therefore, one skilled in the art would be unable to predictably make and use the genus of sequences as broadly encompassed by the claims.
Furthermore, claims 1-15, 29 and 41 encompass a protein sequence having at least 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1, or the amino acid sequence having at least 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 2. This requires the specification to teach the nucleic acid sequences encoding such proteins.
However, the specification does not teach or provide guidance for making a nucleic acid sequence having at least 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1, or a polypeptide with at least 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 2, which leads to the functions of claim 13.
A nucleic acid sequence having at least 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 would have 93 nucleic acid substitutions relative to SEQ ID NO: 1, while a polypeptide with at least 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 2 would have 31 amino acid substitutions relative to SEQ ID NO: 2.
These polynucleotide and polypeptides would encompass 393 and 1931 distinct gene and protein variants, respectively. In the absence of guidance indicating where in the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 such variations can be sustained, undue trial and error experimentation would be required to make the claimed coding of SEQ ID NO: 1, or to the make the polypeptide which would retain the activity of SEQ ID NO: 2, and lead to the functions of claim 13.
The specification fails to teach the motifs, catalytic domains, etc. in these sequences that confers function and which predictably yields plants with the traits as claimed. Applicant has taught one structure/sequence which is not deemed enough working examples from the genus of sequences having 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1-2 that retain 30s ribosomal protein function and in turn confer any of the claimed characteristics in claim 13.
Furthermore, Applicant has not taught if SEQ ID NOs: 1-2 or sequences with at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NOs: 1-2 will retain functional activity in all plants.
For example, a blast search of the top ten results shows the 30s ribosomal nucleic acid sequence SEQ ID NO:1 encoding SEQ ID NO: 2, respectively, as unnamed, predicted, and hypothetical genes.
PNG
media_image1.png
361
1220
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
303
1221
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, because the art fails to teach the structures required for 30s ribosomal or CHX20 gene functional activity to make plants as broadly claimed or for use in the methods as claimed, a person skilled in the art would be unable to predictably make, and thus use, the claimed amino and nucleic acid sequences as broadly claimed.
The claims also encompass a broad genus of plants. However, Applicant’s working example is only in Arabidopsis thaliana and Populus trichocarpa and fails to provide enough working examples of genus of plants having any of the claimed functions in claim 13.
Applicant has not taught the structures that confer function in the broad genus of plants having SEQ ID NOs: 1 or 2 or sequences having at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NOs: 1 or 2 or homologs thereof. Therefore, one skilled in the art would find it unpredictable to know what structures and what plants would result in said phenotype.
It is also noted that claim 2 encompasses CHX20 proteins with increased expression that does not occur from expression of the exogenous nucleic acid of claim 1. Applicant has not taught how, other than by the expression of 30s ribosomal protein, CHX20 expression is increased. Therefore, it is unpredictably how else the CHX20 protein expression is upregulated.
Claims 29 and 41 are directed to a CHX20 protein encompass a broad genus of nucleic acid sequences encoding CHX20 proteins. However, Applicant only teaches a specific CHX20 protein that belongs to Populus trichocarpa as set forth SEQ ID NOs: 3 and 4. Applicant has not adequately taught the structure for CHX20 or homologs thereof that would result in functional activity.
Additionally, Applicant has not taught the conserved regions, motifs, or features to allow skilled in the art to predictably make and use CHX20 protein or homologs thereof that retain functional activity and confer drought tolerance. Lastly, Applicant has not taught the structures having functional activity and conferring drought tolerance.
These claims also encompass a large genus of plants comprising the CHX20 protein or homologs thereof having various functions. The specification has not taught or provided examples of an adequate number of plants expressing CHX20 protein or homologs thereof or expressing the large genus of sequences having any other function besides drought tolerance.
For example, Chanroj et al. “Plant-specific cation/H+ exchanger 17 and its homologs are endomembrane K+ transporters with roles in protein sorting”, 2011, The Journal of biological chemistry vol. 286,39: 33931-41(V) teaches that CHX20 homologs have different roles that are localized in the roots or pollen (pg. 33932 col.1 and image below).
Applicant has only taught expression of CHX20 (SEQ ID NOs: 3-4) alters stomal aperture activity and has not provided guidance on how to make and use CHX20 variants or homologs that may also affect pollen and roots. Lastly, Chanroj et al. teaches that the CHX20 roles are still unclear such that the skilled artisan would be unable to predictably make and use the genus of nucleic and amino acid sequences as broadly encompassed by the claims.
Given the breadth of the claims, the lack of sufficient guidance, the absence of working examples regarding structures that confer functional activity for 30s ribosomal proteins and CHX20 proteins having at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NOs:1-2, the state of the prior art which teaches 30S ribosomal protein activity is unpredictable, one skilled in the art cannot make and use the claimed invention as commensurate in scope with the claims without excessive burden and undue experimentation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Finkelshtein et al. (“Overexpression of the ribosomal S30 subunit leads to indole-3-carbinol tolerance in Arabidopsis thaliana”, 2021, Plant J, 105: 668-677 (W)).
In regard to claims 1 and 9-11 Finkelshtein et al. discloses overexpressing 30s ribosomal protein in Arabidopsis causes tolerance to Indole-3-carbinol (I3C) (p. 668).
In regard to claim 2, since Finkelshtein et al. discloses overexpressing 30s ribosomal protein it necessarily follows that CHX20 protein expression will increase.
In regard to claim 5, Finkelshtein et al. discloses “we isolated one overexpression mutant with stable tolerance to I3C, which we termed ICT1” (p.673). Meaning that the stable tolerance to the I3C is driven by the stable integration of the 30s ribosomal protein.
In regard to claims 6-8, Finkelshtein et al. discloses “cDNA under the control of the 35S promoter” (p. 674).
In regard to claims 13-14, since Finkelshtein et al. discloses overexpressing 30s ribosomal protein it necessarily follows the traits of claims 13 and 14.
In regard to claim 15, Finkelshtein et al. discloses a method of expressing a 30s ribosomal protein in a plant (p. 668). As such, it necessarily follows that said plant will have improved drought tolerance because the plant as disclosed by Finkelshtein et al. is indistinguishable from the plant as claimed.
Therefore, the claims are anticipated by the art.
Claims 29 and 41, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sze et al. (US 2008/0028489 A1 (A)).
In regard to claims 29 and 41, Sze et al. discloses transiently expressing CHX20 in a plant (p.3 para. [0031]-[0034] and fig. 5-6). Because the method as disclosed by Sze et al. is indistinguishable from the method as claimed, it is necessarily follows that the plants as disclosed by Sze et al. will have improved drought tolerance.
Therefore, the claims are anticipated by the art.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
The closest prior art is cited above but fails to disclose or reasonably teach, suggest or provide motivation for using SEQ ID NO: 1, 2, 3 or 4.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN JOSE ORDAZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1967. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am-5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amjad A Abraham can be reached on (571) 270-7058. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.J.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1663 /JASON DEVEAU ROSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1662