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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 19December2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
The amendments and arguments filed 19December2025 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. The claims filed 19December2025 are the same as those filed 24September2025 (those discussed within the Advisory Action dated 01October2025) but-for the addition of new claims 34 and 35. In particular, claims 1-6, 18-20, 26-28, 31-32 were previously canceled. Claims 34-35 are newly presented. Claims 7-17, 21-25, 29-30, 33-35 are pending. Claims 16-17 remain withdrawn. Claims 7-15, 21-25, 29-30, 33-35 are examined on the merits herein. Claims 7, 10, 12, 14-15, 21-24, 33 were previously presented. Claims 8-9, 11, 13, 25, 29-30 are original.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) [US provisional 63587061 filed 29September2023] is acknowledged. Claims 7-15, 21-25, 29-30, 33-35 maintain an effective filing date of 29September2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7-8, 10-13, 22-25, 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANG et al. (“Removal of a 10-kb Gret1 transposon from VvMybA1 of Vitis vinifera cv. Chardonnay” 06September2022 Horticulture Research 9:uhac201 (article 12 pages, supplemental figures 4 pages; 16 total pages; of record IDS 18November2024) in view of LI et al. (“CRISPR/Cas9-mediated VvPR4b editing decreases downy mildew resistance in grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)” 2020 Horticulture Research 7(149): 11 total pages; doi:10.1038/s41438-020-00371-4 of record Restriction Requirement dated 12December2024) and in view of NAKAJIMA et al. (“Targeted deletion of grape retrotransposon associated with fruit skin color via CRISPR/Cas9 in Vitis labrascana ‘Shine Muscat’” 08June2023 PLoS ONE 18(6): e0286698 (15 total pages); of record PTO-892 25February2025).
Please note that NAKAJIMA et al. was cited throughout the record within the “Conclusion” section. It is now added to this rejection because, as said elsewhere herein, it bolsters the Office’s argument that the claimed subject matter is obvious and NAKAJIMA et al. evidences that Applicant’s arguments are not being persuasive; but NAKAJIMA et al. also further evidences that the subject matter of new claims 34 and 35 is obvious and/or would be reasonably expected by a POSA.
These claims are generally directed toward methods of deleting a large portion of the Grapevine retrotransposon 1 (Gret1) transposon from Vitis vinifera using CRISPR/Cas gene-editing and “no more than none guide RNA” (to change the cotyledon/leaf’s color from green to red).
YANG et al. teach using CRISPR/Cas9 to remove the Gret1 transposon (an at least 10-kb DNA fragment) from the promoter of the MybA1 gene in Vitis vinifera cv. Chardonnay (green grape) variety and, thereby, restore VvMybA1 function (as evidenced by leaf color assay showing a change from green to red).1 [relevant to claims 7-8, 10-13, 22-24] Please note that a “product” within the meaning of claim 25 encompasses a berry/fruit (i.e., a grape)2 [note claims 11, 13, 25]. YANG et al. also explain that “[t]his leaf color change indicated that p4aNNRR3.1 would likely produce berry with red color since leaf coloring and berry coloring are highly correlated”.3 [note claims : 11, 13, 25]
These claims now require the use of “no more than one guide RNA” and Applicant’s Remarks dated 27May20254 assert that a “large deletion [of] about 10,000 based in length” is possible by using just one guide RNA. However, YANG et al. do not teach the use of “no more than one guide RNA” for gene-editing.
As said in the Restriction Requirement dated 12December2024, LI et al. demonstrate CRISPR/Cas gene editing of Vitis vinifera using one guide RNA.5
NAKAJIMA et al. teach removal of the Gret1 transposon from VvMybA1 in Vitis labrascana using CRISPR/Cas9 via a single guide RNA (“sgRNA”) technique.6 NAKAJIMA et al. teach five sgRNAs directed toward five different target sequences within the LTR7 and, ultimately, used “Gret#2”, “Gret#4”, and “Gret#5” for further experiments.8 NAKAJIMA et al. teach, what they call, “#67” plants from which Gret1 has been removed and demonstrate that those plants have red leaves and hypocotyls.9 [relevant to claims 34-35] The five sgRNAs taught by NAKAJIMA et al. are provided below (underline) with the elected gRNA sequence SEQ ID NO: 26 shown in double underline. This sequence is from GenBank AB111101.1 (cited of record) with the LTR bracketed by arrows (in the version of GenBank AB111101.1 of record, the LTR was shown in highlight with just SEQ ID NO: 26 shown in underline—the highlighting is removed here so that nucleotides are more visible and the sgRNA sequences of NAKAJIMA et al. are shown for completeness).
PNG
media_image1.png
377
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Based on Applicant’s Remarks of record and absent evidence to the contrary, it is believed that a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time this invention was filed (a POSA) would have viewed the use of one guide RNA (as opposed to two) to delete a large portion of Gret1 from Vitis vinifera as obvious in view of LI et al. as well as NAKAJIMA et al. who actually used a sgRNA CRISPR/Cas9 approach, albeit in Vitis labrascana, to remove Gret1 and observed the accompanying change in tissues from green to red. The Office believes that a POSA would have viewed modifying YANG et al. in view of LI et al. and NAKAJIMA et al. as no more than the “use of a known technique (one guide RNA per LI et al. and NAKAJIMA et al.) to improve similar devices (CRISPR/Cas using two guide RNAs as in YANG et al.) in the same way (to achieve a large Gret1 deletion)” MPEP § 2143 (I)(C) and/or “applying a known technique (one guide RNA per LI et al. and NAKAJIMA et al.) to a known method (CRISPR/Cas using two guide RNAs as in YANG et al.) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (to achieve a large Gret1 deletion)” MPEP § 2143(I)(D) and/or, at the very least, “obvious to try” MPEP § 2143(I)(E) with a reasonable expectation of successfully achieving a large Gret1 deletion and with the motivation of achieving a large Gret1 deletion so as to achieve a color change from green to red.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks 19December2025:
Applicant replied to all obviousness rejections together, so please see the “Response to Applicant’s Remarks” section following the last of these obviousness rejections.
Claims 14, 15, 29, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANG et al. (“Removal of a 10-kb Gret1 transposon from VvMybA1 of Vitis vinifera cv. Chardonnay” 06September2022 Horticulture Research 9:uhac201 (article 12 pages, supplemental figures 4 pages; 16 total pages; of record IDS 18November2024); in view of LI et al. (“CRISPR/Cas9-mediated VvPR4b editing decreases downy mildew resistance in grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)” 2020 Horticulture Research 7(149): 11 total pages; doi:10.1038/s41438-020-00371-4 of record Restriction Requirement dated 12December2024) and in view of NAKAJIMA et al. (“Targeted deletion of grape retrotransposon associated with fruit skin color via CRISPR/Cas9 in Vitis labrascana ‘Shine Muscat’” 08June2023 PLoS ONE 18(6): e0286698 (15 total pages); of record PTO-892 25February2025) as applied to claim 7 above AND in view of KOBAYASHI et al. (“Retrotransposon-Induced Mutations in Grape Skin Color” 2004 SCIENCE 304:982 (1 total page); of record IDS 27September2024); in view of GenBank Accession No. AB111101.1 (dated 20December2010, citing KOBAYASHI et al. 2004 SCIENCE 304:982, entitled “Vitis vinifera gypsy-type retrotransposon Gret1 DNA and VvmybA1 gene for myb-relatedtranscription factor, complete cds, cultuvar: Ruby Okuyama”; 5 total pages of record Nonfinal dated 25February2025).
Please note that NAKAJIMA et al. was cited throughout the record within the “Conclusion” section. It is now added to this rejection because, as said elsewhere herein, it bolsters the Office’s argument that the claimed subject matter is obvious and NAKAJIMA et al. evidences that Applicant’s arguments are not being persuasive.
These claims recite the use of a particular gRNA sequence (SEQ ID NO: 26, 5’-ctcttccttggacagaagaagct-3’). The target site within Gret1 or VvMybA1 to which this gRNA is directed is: 5’-agcttcttctgtccaaggaagag-3’ (the reverse complement of the gRNA sequence SEQ ID NO: 26).
The teachings by YANG et al. and LI et al. are as stated above: YANG et al. teach using CRISPR/Cas9 to remove the Gret1 transposon (an at least 10-kb DNA fragment) from the promoter of the MybA1 gene in Vitis vinifera cv. Chardonnay (green grape) variety and, thereby, restore VvMybA1 function (as evidenced by leaf color assay showing a change from green to red).10 YANG et al. also explain that “[t]his leaf color change indicated that p4aNNRR3.1 would likely produce berry with red color since leaf coloring and berry coloring are highly correlated”.11 LI et al. demonstrate CRISPR/Cas gene editing of Vitis vinifera using one guide RNA.12
NAKAJIMA et al. teach removal of the Gret1 transposon from VvMybA1 in Vitis labrascana using CRISPR/Cas9 via a single guide RNA (“sgRNA”) technique.13 NAKAJIMA et al. teach five sgRNAs directed toward five different target sequences within the LTR14 and, ultimately, used “Gret#2”, “Gret#4”, and “Gret#5” for further experiments.15 NAKAJIMA et al. teach, what they call, “#67” plants from which Gret1 has been removed and demonstrate that those plants have red leaves and hypocotyls.16 [relevant to claims 34-35] The five sgRNAs taught by NAKAJIMA et al. are provided below (underline) with the elected gRNA sequence SEQ ID NO: 26 shown in double underline. This sequence is from GenBank AB111101.1 (cited of record) with the LTR bracketed by arrows (in the version of GenBank AB111101.1 of record, the LTR was shown in highlight with just SEQ ID NO: 26 shown in underline—the highlighting is removed here so that nucleotides are more visible and the sgRNA sequences of NAKAJIMA et al. are shown for completeness).
PNG
media_image1.png
377
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
None of YANG et al., LI et al., or NAKAJIMA et al. appear to teach use of a gRNA sequence SEQ ID NO: 26.
Nonetheless, use of a gRNA sequence SEQ ID NO: 26 would have been an obvious design choice to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed (a “POSA”) because it targets a known LTR sequence (as evidenced by KOBAYASHI et al. and GenBank Accession No. AB111101.1—please note that the target sequence 5’-agcttcttctgtccaaggaagag-3’ is located within what is described as the Gret1 LTR and is shown above via double underline) and YANG et al. as well as NAKAJIMA et al. already taught targeting the Gret1 LTR for CRISPR/Cas excision.17 Please see the five sgRNA sequences taught by NAKAJIMA et al. (all 23 nucleotides long, shown in underline above). Absent evidence to the contrary from Applicant, the Office believes that a POSA would have viewed use of the gRNA sequence SEQ ID NO: 26 (25 nucleotides long) as an obvious alternative choice from the gRNA sequences used by YANG et al. and NAKAJIMA et al. As said of record, the gRNA sequence SEQ ID NO: 26 is within a small, known sequence (the Gret1 LTR) which had already been targeted by the prior art for Gret1 removal using CRISPR (YANG et al. and NAKAJIMA et al.). Furthermore, Applicant still has not provided any evidence to suggest that SEQ ID NO: 26 has unique features (SEQ ID NO: 26 appears to be within the guidelines for g/c content and length of gRNAs, for example). Because the Office believes that the gRNA sequence SEQ ID NO: 26 would have been an obvious choice by a POSA, it follows that using that gRNA in the context of the claimed subject matter also would have been obvious to a POSA because it would have been no more than: the “simple substitution of one known element [gRNAs used by YANG et al. or NAKAJIMA et al.] for another [the sequence SEQ ID NO: 26] to obtain predictable results” MPEP § 2143(I)(B), “applying a known technique [that by YANG et al. or NAKAJIMA et al.] to a known product [the sequence SEQ ID NO: 26] ready for improvement to yield predictable results” MPEP § 2143(I)(D), or at the very least “obvious to try” and with the reasonable expectation of mimicking YANG et al.’s success in turning V. vinifera grape/fruit red or mimicking NAKAJIMA et al.’s success in turning V. labrascana leaves and hypocotyls red MPEP § 2143(I)(E).
Response to Applicant’s Remarks 19December2025:
Applicant replied to all obviousness rejections together, so please see the “Response to Applicant’s Remarks” section following the last of these obviousness rejections.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANG et al. (“Removal of a 10-kb Gret1 transposon from VvMybA1 of Vitis vinifera cv. Chardonnay” 06September2022 Horticulture Research 9:uhac201 (article 12 pages, supplemental figures 4 pages; 16 total pages; of record IDS 18November2024); in view of LI et al. (“CRISPR/Cas9-mediated VvPR4b editing decreases downy mildew resistance in grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)” 2020 Horticulture Research 7(149): 11 total pages; doi:10.1038/s41438-020-00371-4 of record Restriction Requirement dated 12December2024) and in view of NAKAJIMA et al. (“Targeted deletion of grape retrotransposon associated with fruit skin color via CRISPR/Cas9 in Vitis labrascana ‘Shine Muscat’” 08June2023 PLoS ONE 18(6): e0286698 (15 total pages); of record PTO-892 25February2025) as applied to claims 7-8 above AND in view of BERNABE-ORTS et al. (“Assessment of Cas12a-mediated gene editing efficiency in plants” 2019 Plant Biotechnology Journal 17:1971-1984 (14 total pages) of record Nonfinal dated 25February2025).
Please note that NAKAJIMA et al. was cited throughout the record within the “Conclusion” section. It is now added to this rejection because, as said elsewhere herein, it bolsters the Office’s argument that the claimed subject matter is obvious and NAKAJIMA et al. evidences that Applicant’s arguments are not being persuasive.
This claim recites the use of a particular Cas protein: Cas12a.
The teachings by YANG et al. and LI et al. are as stated above: YANG et al. teach using CRISPR/Cas9 to remove the Gret1 transposon (an at least 10-kb DNA fragment) from the promoter of the MybA1 gene in Vitis vinifera cv. Chardonnay (green grape) variety and, thereby, restore VvMybA1 function (as evidenced by leaf color assay showing a change from green to red).18 YANG et al. also explain that “[t]his leaf color change indicated that p4aNNRR3.1 would likely produce berry with red color since leaf coloring and berry coloring are highly correlated”.19 LI et al. demonstrate CRISPR/Cas gene editing of Vitis vinifera using one guide RNA.20
NAKAJIMA et al. teach removal of the Gret1 transposon from VvMybA1 in Vitis labrascana using CRISPR/Cas9 via a single guide RNA (“sgRNA”) technique.21 NAKAJIMA et al. teach five sgRNAs directed toward five different target sequences within the LTR22 and, ultimately, used “Gret#2”, “Gret#4”, and “Gret#5” for further experiments.23 NAKAJIMA et al. teach, what they call, “#67” plants from which Gret1 has been removed and demonstrate that those plants have red leaves and hypocotyls.24 [relevant to claims 34-35] The five sgRNAs taught by NAKAJIMA et al. are provided below (underline) with the elected gRNA sequence SEQ ID NO: 26 shown in double underline. This sequence is from GenBank AB111101.1 (cited of record) with the LTR bracketed by arrows (in the version of GenBank AB111101.1 of record, the LTR was shown in highlight with just SEQ ID NO: 26 shown in underline—the highlighting is removed here so that nucleotides are more visible and the sgRNA sequences of NAKAJIMA et al. are shown for completeness).
PNG
media_image1.png
377
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
None of YANG et al., LI et al., or NAKAJIMA et al. appear to teach use of a Cas12a protein.
Nonetheless, it was known before the filing of this application that both of Cas9 and Cas12a proteins may be successfully used for gene editing of plants (as is evidenced by BERNABE-ORTS et al.25). Absent evidence to the contrary from Applicant, use of a Cas12a protein (rather than Cas9) in the techniques taught by YANG et al. or NAKAJIMA et al. would been no more than: the obvious “simple substitution of one known element [Cas9 used by YANG et al. and NAKAJIMA et al.] for another [Cas12a] to obtain predictable results” MPEP § 2143(I)(B), “applying a known technique [Cas12a gene editing] to a known technique [Cas9 gene editing taught by YANG et al. and NAKAJIMA et al.] ready for improvement to yield predictable results” MPEP § 2143(I)(D), or at the very least “obvious to try” with the reasonable expectation of mimicking YANG et al.’s success in turning V. vinifera grape/fruit red or mimicking NAKAJIMA et al.’s success in turning V. labrascana leaves and hypocotyls red MPEP § 2143(I)(E).
Response to Applicant’s Remarks 19December2025:
Applicant replied to all obviousness rejections together, so please see the “Response to Applicant’s Remarks” section following the last of these obviousness rejections.
Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANG et al. (“Removal of a 10-kb Gret1 transposon from VvMybA1 of Vitis vinifera cv. Chardonnay” 06September2022 Horticulture Research 9:uhac201 (article 12 pages, supplemental figures 4 pages; 16 total pages; of record IDS 18November2024); in view of LI et al. (“CRISPR/Cas9-mediated VvPR4b editing decreases downy mildew resistance in grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)” 2020 Horticulture Research 7(149): 11 total pages; doi:10.1038/s41438-020-00371-4 of record Restriction Requirement dated 12December2024); and in view of NAKAJIMA et al. (“Targeted deletion of grape retrotransposon associated with fruit skin color via CRISPR/Cas9 in Vitis labrascana ‘Shine Muscat’” 08June2023 PLoS ONE 18(6): e0286698 (15 total pages); of record PTO-892 25February2025) as applied to claim 7 above AND in view of FERRARA et al. (“Ripeness Prediction in Table Grape Cultivars by Using a Portable NIR Device” 2022 Horticulturae 8(613): doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8070613, 18 total pages of record Nonfinal dated 25February2025).
Please note that NAKAJIMA et al. was cited throughout the record within the “Conclusion” section. It is now added to this rejection because, as said elsewhere herein, it bolsters the Office’s argument that the claimed subject matter is obvious and NAKAJIMA et al. evidences that Applicant’s arguments are not being persuasive.
This claim recites the use of a particular Vitis cell: SUGRA35.
The teachings by YANG et al. and LI et al. are as stated above: YANG et al. teach using CRISPR/Cas9 to remove the Gret1 transposon (an at least 10-kb DNA fragment) from the promoter of the MybA1 gene in Vitis vinifera cv. Chardonnay (green grape) variety and, thereby, restore VvMybA1 function (as evidenced by leaf color assay showing a change from green to red).26 YANG et al. also explain that “[t]his leaf color change indicated that p4aNNRR3.1 would likely produce berry with red color since leaf coloring and berry coloring are highly correlated”.27 LI et al. demonstrate CRISPR/Cas gene editing of Vitis vinifera using one guide RNA.28
NAKAJIMA et al. teach removal of the Gret1 transposon from VvMybA1 in Vitis labrascana using CRISPR/Cas9 via a single guide RNA (“sgRNA”) technique.29 NAKAJIMA et al. teach five sgRNAs directed toward five different target sequences within the LTR30 and, ultimately, used “Gret#2”, “Gret#4”, and “Gret#5” for further experiments.31 NAKAJIMA et al. teach, what they call, “#67” plants from which Gret1 has been removed and demonstrate that those plants have red leaves and hypocotyls.32 [relevant to claims 34-35] The five sgRNAs taught by NAKAJIMA et al. are provided below (underline) with the elected gRNA sequence SEQ ID NO: 26 shown in double underline. This sequence is from GenBank AB111101.1 (cited of record) with the LTR bracketed by arrows (in the version of GenBank AB111101.1 of record, the LTR was shown in highlight with just SEQ ID NO: 26 shown in underline—the highlighting is removed here so that nucleotides are more visible and the sgRNA sequences of NAKAJIMA et al. are shown for completeness).
PNG
media_image1.png
377
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
None of YANG et al., LI et al., or NAKAJIMA et al. appear to teach use of a SUGRA35 cell.
Nonetheless, SUGRA35 (also called “Autumncrisp”) was a previously known table grape cultivar with green-yellowish skin (as is evidenced by FERRARA et al.33). Absent evidence to the contrary from Applicant, a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed (a “POSA”) would have found it (at the very least) “obvious to try” substituting the Chardonnay green grape variety used by YANG et al. for the known SUGRA35/Autumncrisp green grape variety and with the reasonable expectation of mimicking YANG et al.’s success in turning V. vinifera grape/fruit red MPEP § 2143(I)(E).
Response to Applicant’s Remarks 19December2025:
Applicant replied to all obviousness rejections together, so the following likewise applies to all obviousness rejections citing the reference being discussed or otherwise to which the argument may be applied. As noted by Applicant, within the Advisory Action dated 01October2025 all obviousness rejections of record were maintained. As said herein above, the claims are not amended with the filing of the RCE 19December2025 and are only changed with respect to adding claims 34-35. Also noted above, NAKAJIMA et al. is added to these rejections, but has been of record since the nonfinal office action 25February2025.
(1) Applicant asserts that amending YANG et al. to use one guide RNA (as in LI et al.) would “improperly alter[] YANG’s disclosure well beyond what a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably presume.”(Remarks at pages 7-8)
This remains unpersuasive in view of the prior art and the knowledge of a POSA. Being able to use one guide RNA (single guide RNA or “sgRNA”) in the method of YANG et al. is evidenced by NAKAJIMA et al. (who did use sgRNAs to remove Gret1). In view of LI et al. and NAKAJIMA et al., a POSA would not reasonably believe that the discussed modification of YANG et al. would “render [YANG et al.] inoperable for its intended purpose”.
(2) Applicant asserts that the rejection, as applied to claims that require a specific gRNA sequence, is improper because the Office (according to Applicant) has only offered conclusory statements and not the required articulated reasoning with rational underpinning (Remarks at page 8). Applicant maintains that the possible target sites (i.e., gRNA sequences directed toward those target sites) remains so large that arriving at SEQ ID NO: 26 would be undue.
This remains unpersuasive. Again, the gRNA sequence SEQ ID NO: 26 at issue here is targeted to a 25-nucleotide-long site within the Gret1 LTR. The Gret1 LTR is a known, and small sequence that has been targeted by the prior art (YANG et al. and NAKAJIMA et al.)—see the sequence screenshot herein above which has been of record within the GenBank file since the nonfinal dated 25February2025 and marked-up to show both the LTR as well as SEQ ID NO: 26 therein. Furthermore, there are known guidelines within the art for a person choosing a gRNA sequence (factors such as g/c content and size, for example) which would make the design and selection of SEQ ID NO: 26 one of a finite and reasonable number of possible options for targeting the LTR for Gret1 deletion using CRISPR/Cas.
PNG
media_image1.png
377
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rebecca STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-0070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30-4:30.
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 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.
/REBECCA STEPHENS/Examiner, Art Unit 1663
/MATTHEW R KEOGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663
1 YANG et al. at the Abstract; pages 1, 3-4, 6, 8; and Supplemental Figure 4.
2 ¶15 on page 4 of the specification.
3 YANG et al. at the left column on page 3.
4 See Part D on page 8 of the Remarks dated 27May2025.
5 LI et al. at the lower right column on page 2.
6 NAKAJIMA et al. at Abstract at page 1, and the “Methods and Materials” section at page 4.
7 NAKAJIMA et al. at Fig 1. part (b) on page 3.
8 NAKAJIMA et al. at page 5.
9 NAKAJIMA et al. at Fig. 2 part (d) on page 6.
10 YANG et al. at the Abstract; pages 1, 3-4, 6, 8; and Supplemental Figure 4.
11 YANG et al. at the left column on page 3.
12 LI et al. at the lower right column on page 2.
13 NAKAJIMA et al. at Abstract at page 1, and the “Methods and Materials” section at page 4.
14 NAKAJIMA et al. at Fig 1. part (b) on page 3.
15 NAKAJIMA et al. at page 5.
16 NAKAJIMA et al. at Fig. 2 part (d) on page 6.
17 See YANG et al. at the Abstract, page 1, and Figure 1 on page 3 and discussions thereof.
18 YANG et al. at the Abstract; pages 1, 3-4, 6, 8; and Supplemental Figure 4.
19 YANG et al. at the left column on page 3.
20 LI et al. at the lower right column on page 2.
21 NAKAJIMA et al. at Abstract at page 1, and the “Methods and Materials” section at page 4.
22 NAKAJIMA et al. at Fig 1. part (b) on page 3.
23 NAKAJIMA et al. at page 5.
24 NAKAJIMA et al. at Fig. 2 part (d) on page 6.
25 See the Abstract on page 1971 (last line).
26 YANG et al. at the Abstract; pages 1, 3-4, 6, 8; and Supplemental Figure 4.
27 YANG et al. at the left column on page 3.
28 LI et al. at the lower right column on page 2.
29 NAKAJIMA et al. at Abstract at page 1, and the “Methods and Materials” section at page 4.
30 NAKAJIMA et al. at Fig 1. part (b) on page 3.
31 NAKAJIMA et al. at page 5.
32 NAKAJIMA et al. at Fig. 2 part (d) on page 6.
33 Page 4.