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
1. Claims 1-7 are pending and under examination to the extent of the elected species of SEQ ID NOs.1-3.
Claim 8 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made with traverse in the reply filed on 05/18/2026.
Restrictions/Elections
2. Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-7, drawn to a method for improving density-tolerant breeding of maize, comprising: hybridizing an lg1 mutant strain with an LG1 wild-type strain to obtain an LG1/lgl heterozygous genotype strain, with traverse, in the reply filed on 08/25/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant further elects the species of SEQ ID NO:1.
In traversing the rejection, Applicant argues primarily that SEQ ID NOs:1, 2, and 3 are related as the genomic, cDNA, and CDS sequence of the recited LG1 gene, respectively (p. 02), and should not be considered patentably distinct sequences (p. 03). This argument is persuasive. SEQ ID NOs. 2-3 are rejoined with SEQ ID NO.1.
Claim 8 remains withdrawn. Though Applicant’s remarks provided clear rationale traversing the requirement to elect only one of SEQ ID NOs.1-3 for examination, Applicant’s response does not appear to traverse the requirement to elect either Group I (claims 1-7) or Group 2 (claim 8) for further examination. Furthermore, claim 8 is directed to a process with a mode of operation and effect that are distinct from the process of claims 1-7. Claims 1-7 require hybridizing maize plants to produce a heterozygous offspring while claim 8 requires genetically engineering a maize plant to produce a homozygous mutant plant.
The Office also notes that Applicant appears to be applying the standards for cases filed under and subject to the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 371 (p. 03). However, the instant case is filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a); see MPEP 201.I. Unity of Invention is not the standard for restriction practice for cased filed under and subject to the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 111(a); see MPEP 803.
Thus, the requirement is deemed proper and is made FINAL. However, method claims may be rejoined in accordance with In re Ochiai when allowability is indicated.
Priority
3. The instant Application is a continuation of International Application No. PCT/CN2024/074729 filed January 30, 2024. The Office acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s foreign priority document Application No. CN202310754927.3 filed June 26, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on September 30, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered to the extent of the English translations provided. A signed copy is attached.
Specification
5. The specification is objected to because of the following:
[0044] contains a typographical and/or error. It is suggested the recitation “high temperature known in that art” be amended to “high temperature known in the art.”
Figures 1 and 3 of the Drawings comprise nucleotide sequences that lack a corresponding sequence identifier in either the Drawings or the Brief Description of the Drawings disclosed in the specification. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.831(c), sequence identifiers for sequences (i.e., “SEQ ID NO:X” or the like) must appear either in the drawings or in the Brief Description of the Drawings. To correct this deficiency, it is suggested Applicant provide a substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3), and 1.125 wherein the required sequence identifiers (i.e., “SEQ ID NO:X” or the like) are inserted into the Brief Description of the Drawings. Alternatively, Applicant may provide amended drawings in accordance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) wherein the required sequence identifiers are inserted appropriately.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 2-3 are objected to because of the following:
Claim 2 contains a typographical and/or grammatical error; it is recommended the article “a” be inserted before “mutation” in ln. 2.
Dependent claims are included.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-7 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.
The scope of claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear what is encompassed by the recitation of “density-tolerant breeding”. Applicant has provided no definition for the term and the term is not standardized in the art. Similarly, the recitation of “excellent” density-tolerant characteristics is also indefinite. It is unclear if a certain degree of improvement is required for density-tolerant characteristics to be considered “excellent”. It is unclear how one would distinguish “excellent” characteristics from “great” characteristics.
The metes and bounds of claims 1 and 5-7 are indefinite because the recitation of “close planting” and “yield by close planting” are undefined. These are not art-recognized class or term, and Applicant has not provided a definition for the term.
The scope of claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear what gene is encompassed by the recitation of “lg1”. Though the claims limit the “wildtype LG1” gene to SEQ ID NO:1, sequences encoding SEQ ID NO:4, and sequences which hybridize and/or fully complement SEQ ID NO:1 or sequences encoding SEQ ID NO:4, neither the specification nor claims provide any definition for the acronym. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Office interprets the recitation of “lg1” and “LG1” to refer to mutant and wildtype alleles of the LIGULELESS1 gene. Applicant must clarify the intended recitation.
The metes and bounds of claim 1 are indefinite because it is unclear what conditions are required for “stringent conditions.” Applicant defines "stringent hybridization condition" as “conditions of low ionic strength and high temperature known in that art”[0044]. However, Applicant has provided no definition or parameters for “low ionic strength” or “high temperature” despite descriptions of several exemplary ionic concentrations and temperatures[0044]. Because Applicant has provided no definition for either of these terms, the parameters defining “low ionic strength” are unclear; similarly, the parameters defining “high temperature” are unclear. Therefore, it is unclear how to distinguish “stringent” conditions from any other conditions. For the purpose of compact prosecution, a polynucleotide which can hybridize with SEQ ID NO:1 or which can hybridize with a polynucleotide encoding SEQ ID NO:4 under stringent conditions is interpreted to encompass any polynucleotide that hybridizes with SEQ ID NO:1 or a polynucleotide encoding SEQ ID NO:4 under any conditions.
Claim 2 is indefinite because the antecedent basis of “the gene” in ln. 3 is unclear. Claim 1 does not explicitly associate any gene with the “lg1 mutant strain.”
The scope of claims 2/3 is undefined. It is unclear if the clauses following “wherein” should be interpreted to be considered active method steps. The phrase “obtained by” implies an active step, however the recitation of “natural mutation” in claim 3 encompasses passive steps because a mutation that occurs naturally does not involve active input. The “mutation” recited in claim 2 encompasses the natural mutation recited in claim 3 and is, therefore, the “wherein” clause comprising said mutation is also indefinite.
The metes and bounds of claims 6-7 are indefinite because it is unclear if the “use” of the method of claim 1 is to be interpreted as a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. It is unclear if the claims are directed to a method and if the recitations following “method of claim 1” in claim 6 recite intended uses or active method steps. For the purpose of compact prosecution, “use of the method of claim 1” will be herein interpreted to comprise a process and/or method and claims 6-7 are interpreted to be directed to methods and/or processes comprising the method of claim 1. Applicant is required to clarify the intended recitations.
Dependent claims are included.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
9. 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.
10. Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th 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.
Regarding claim 2, mutations are substitutions, deletions, and/or additions of one or more nucleotides with the sequence of a gene. Therefore, claim 2 is simply reciting traits and/or features inherent to claim 1 and does not further limit the claim.
As discussed above, the recitation of “the use of the method of claim 1” renders claim 6 indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution claim 6 is interpreted to comprise a method comprising the method of claim 1, wherein the method of claim 6 results in a plant with a reduced leaf angle, widened leaf, reduced tassel branch number, reduced tassel branch angel, reduced empty stalk ratio, and an increased yield by close planting. Each of these features in required in the plant produced by the method of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 6 is simply restating features present in claim 1.
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 § 112(a)
11. 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.
Written Description
12. Claims 1-7 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.
Issue No. 1: Applicant has not described a sufficiently representative number of LG1 genes, and mutations thereof, as encompassed by the claim to reasonably convey possession of the claimed invention. In particular, options (b)-(d) of claim 1 encompass an extremely broad number of sequences as discussed below.
Issue No. 2: Applicant has not described a sufficiently representative number of maize lg1 loss-of-function mutations that produce an observable and/or dominant phenotype when present in heterozygous form in a sufficiently representative number of maize genetic backgrounds to reasonably convey possession of the claimed invention. That is to say, Applicant has not described a sufficiently representative number of dominant negative alleles of lg1 nor has Applicant describe a sufficiently representative number of maize genetic backgrounds in which the recited lg1 alleles produce the desired phenotype.
The claims all require hybridizing a lg1 mutant strain with an LG1 wild-type strain to produce a heterozygous LG1/lg1 heterozygous genotype strain wherein the heterozygous strain has improved characteristics when compared to either homozygous strain. As stated above in the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the recitations of “LG1” and “lg1” are indefinite. Though the Office interprets said recitations to refer to the LIGULELESS1 gene, the sequences encompassed by the claim are extremely broad. Option (b) of claim 1 encompasses any and all polynucleotides encoding the amino acid sequence shown in SEQ ID NO:4. Due to redundancy in the genetic code and codon degeneracy, option (b) encompasses an extremely large and broad number of sequences. Regarding option (c) of claim 1, said option encompasses polynucleotides which can hybridize with the polynucleotide sequence shown in SEQ ID NO:1 or any polynucleotide sequence encoding the amino acid sequence shown in SEQ ID NO:4. Due to the indefiniteness of the recitation of sequences that hybridize with the polynucleotides of SEQ ID NO:1 or the polynucleotide encoding SEQ ID NO:4, the claim encompasses any LIGULELESS1 gene sequence that can hybridize to aforementioned sequences under any conditions. Accordingly, option (c) encompasses an even broader genus of sequences than options (a) and (b) together. Option (d) further expands the scope of the sequences encompassed by claim 1 by encompassing sequences having as little as 90% sequence identity to any of the sequences encompassed by options (a), (b), or (c); sequences encompassing as little as 90% identity to option (a) alone encompass hundreds of thousands of sequences even if only considering nucleotide deletions. Option (e) expands the scope of the encompassed sequences even further by encompassing sequences that complement the sequences encompassed by any of options (a) to (d). Accordingly, the LG1 wildtype plant and lg1 mutant, as recited, encompass any polynucleotide sequence that encode, complement, or hybridize to any sequence encoding a gene annotated as “LG1”. Thus, the scope of claim 1 is extremely broad and must be accessed for adequate written description.
The specification describes the generation of a single lg1 loss-of-function mutant in the maize B73 genetic background wherein the mutation comprises a complete deletion of the LG1 gene coding sequence; and wherein the ligule and auricle of the homozygous lg1 loss-of-function mutant are completely deleted and the mutant plant has a reduced leaf angle with erect and narrow leaves, a reduced tassel branch number, and a smaller spike (Figures 1-2)[0065],[0067]. Applicant describes the subsequent crossing of the homozygous lg1 deletion mutant with a wildtype maize plant comprising functional LG1 to generate heterozygous LG1/lg1 maize plants[0068]. The specification further discloses that when planted under a density of 4500 plant/mu, the heterozygous plant retains an auricle and ligule but has a smaller leaf angle and tassel branch number than the wildtype plants[0068]. Applicant discloses the generation of homozygous lg1 loss-of-function mutants in the PH6WC, PH4CV, and Jing724 inbred maize lines[0070]. The specification discloses one PH4CV mutation line comprising a substitution wherein positions 743-764 of SEQ ID NO:1/2 or 229-250 of SEQ ID NO:3 was replaced by SEQ ID NO:7 (Figure 3)[0070]. The specification discloses two PH6WC mutation lines comprising mutations comprising a single nucleotide deletion at position 836 of SEQ ID NO:1/2 or at 322 of SEQ ID NO:3 or a deletion of positions 766-835 of SEQ ID NO:1/2 or positions 252-321 of SEQ ID NO:3[0070]. The specification discloses a single Jing724 mutant line wherein positions 766-835 of SEQ ID NO:1/2 are replaced with 5’-GGA-3’[0070]. The specification indicates that growing the mutant lines at a density of 3000, 6000, or 9000 plants/mu revealed that heterozygous plants in the B73, PH4CV, and PH6WC backgrounds, and hybrids thereof, have normal auricles and ligules while displaying reduced leaf angles and tassel branch numbers (Figures 4-7). The specification further indicates that stalk development and yield are not significantly impacted in the hybrid plants in the B73, PH4CV, and PH6WC backgrounds (Figures 8-10)[0071-0074]. The specification also indicates similar results for the mutant plants in the Jin724 background[0075].
The state of the art is well-developed with regard to the structure of LIGULELESS1 (LG1) gene and its function in leaf development, and therefore planting density, in maize, rice, and other crops (Li et al., Plant Biotechnology Journal. 2017; 15: 1566–1576 (U)). Li teaches that maize liguleless mutants fail to develop auricles and ligules and that the LG1 locus is strongly associated with the upper leaf angle and that mutants lacking LG1 fail to develop auricles and ligules (p. 1567, left column, first full paragraph; Figure 2; Tables 1-3). Li further discloses LG1 as a dominant gene, which suggests two mutant alleles are required for the loss-of-function phenotype to display (p. 1568, “Zygosity of induced mutations”). The art (Thuy et al., Vietnam Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2016; 14(4): 568–578 (V)) also teaches that the severity of the impact of lg1 loss-of-function mutations depends upon the genetic background comprising said mutation. For example, Thuy discloses distinct leaf angles among various inbred maize lines comprising various lg1 mutations (Abstract; Table 1; Table 3). Three of the disclosed inbred lines (E2, E7, and E8) had leaf angles ranging from 30°-35°, while the remainder of the examined line had leaf angles <30° (Abstract; Table 3). However, Thuy does not provide any rationale explaining the distinct phenotypes among the lg1 mutant plants and it is unclear how the different alleles interact with factors present in the different maize genetic backgrounds. Therefore, the state of the art teaches that lg1 loss-of-function alleles are recessive alleles that cause distinct mutant phenotypes among distinct maize genetic backgrounds homozygous for lg1 loss-of-function alleles. However, two recent patent documents, Zhao et al. (CN-108476970-A, published 09/04/2018 (N); see English translation, p. 01, “Background technique”, second paragraph; see excerpt below) and Xie et al. (CN-106868036-A, published 06/20/2017 (O); see English translation, Abstract, “Molecular detection of mutation types”) indicate that heterozygous maize plants comprising a mutant allele of lg1 can be used to produce plants with leaf development and leaf angle traits intermediate between those seen in wildtype plants and lg1 homozygous mutants (see rejections below under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103).
However, neither Applicant nor the art does disclose or describe features or structures universal to lg1 loss-of-function alleles or that would confer a lg1 loss-of-function phenotype to a plant comprising a functional wildtype copy LG1 allele.
MPEP § 2163 states that the written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by 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 claimed genus. A “representative number of species” means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. See, e.g., AbbVie Deutschland GMBH v. Janssen Biotech, 759 F.3d 1285, 111 USPQ2d 1780 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Applicant’s disclosure of one lg1 allele in PH4CV, two alleles in PH6WC, and one allele in Jin724 is not a sufficient number of species to represent all possible dominant negative mutations in LG1 and Applicant has not described sufficient characteristics for one of ordinary skill in the art to identify said structures in undisclosed LG1 sequences encompassed by the claims. Therefore, since only a few species are provided to represent these genera, the claims encompassing the same clearly fail the written description requirement. Accordingly, there is lack of adequate written description to inform a skilled artisan that Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claims 2-7 do not sufficiently limit the scope of LG1 sequences and lg1 mutations encompassed by the claims. Accordingly, claims 2-7 also lack adequate written description.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
13. 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.
14. Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a natural process without significantly more.
In Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., --U.S.--(June 13, 2013), the Supreme Court decided that a naturally-occurring nucleic acid or fragment thereof, whether isolated or not, is not patent-eligible. Therefore, naturally-occurring products, including proteins, are not patent-eligible. Similarly, naturally-occurring processes are not patent-eligible.
The claims recite a method for improving density-tolerant breeding of maize comprising hybridizing a lg1 mutant strain with an LG1 wildtype strain. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because ln. 2 of claim 3 indicates that the recited lg1 mutant alleles may be obtained from natural mutation. If the recited lg1 mutant allele is naturally-occurring, as in ln. 2 of claim 3, then heterozygous hybrids comprising a single copy of the mutant allele and a single copy of the wildtype allele would naturally arise due to gene segregation during reproduction.
Though claims 1 and 6 comprise additional recitations beyond the hybridization of the maize strains, the additional recitations do not modify the process of hybridization. The additional recitations in claims 1 and 6 simply describe the features inherent to the recited hybrid plant.
Though claims 5 and 7 comprise additional recitations beyond the hybridization of the maize strains, the additional recitations do not modify the process of hybridization. The additional recitations in claims 5 and 7 simply describe the features inherent to the plant that are observed when the plant is planted as recited in claim 1. However, the Office notes that the process of claim 1 does not require the hybrid maize to be planted; the recitations regarding planting only describe traits present in the plants when planted under specific conditions.
15. Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter and is not supported by either a specific and substantial asserted utility or a well-established utility.
The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims recite a “use” of the method of claim 1 as opposed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP 2106.
As stated above in the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), it is unclear if the “use” of the method of claim 1 is to be interpreted as a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Therefore, the claims are not clearly directed to statutory subject matter. Therefore, the claims also lack any specific and substantial asserted utility or a well-established utility.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
16. 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.
17. Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al. (CN-108476970-A, published 09/04/2018 (N)) as evidenced by Ware (Maize Genome Sequencing Project. 2016 (W)).
Regarding claim 1, Zhao discloses a method for improving density-tolerant breeding of maize, comprising: hybridizing an lg1 mutant strain with an LG1 wild-type strain to obtain an LG1/lgl heterozygous genotype strain, wherein compared with the LGI wild-type strain, the heterozygous genotype strain has a reduced leaf angle (see English translation, p. 01, “Background technique”, second paragraph; see excerpt below). As disclosed by Ware, SEQ ID NO:4 comprises the maize LIGULELESS1 protein sequence. Because the maize LIGULELESS1 protein sequence is inherent to maize and the claims encompass any polynucleotide sequence encoding said protein, including the naturally-occurring maize LG1 gene, as well as any polynucleotide sequences which hybridize and/or fully complement to said sequences, Zhao’s disclosure of a maize LG1 gene anticipates this claim limitation. Because claims 2 and 6 do not further limit claim 1, they are also anticipated by Zhao.
PNG
media_image1.png
279
1124
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Zhao is silent with regard to how the lg1 mutations were obtained. However, said mutations were inherently either naturally-occurring, induced by chemical mutagenesis, induced by physical mutagenesis, or induced by gene editing technology. Applicant provides no definition for “naturally-occurring.” Accordingly, a naturally-occurring mutation also includes those induced by inoculation with agrobacterium since such a process occurs naturally. Accordingly, Zhao anticipates, and/or renders obvious this claim limitation.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 does not recite an active method step because even though claim 1 recites “close planting”, claim 1 does not actually require planting. Claim 5 merely recites a feature of the plant produced by the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 does not alter the method of claim 1. Features of a plant anticipated by Zhao are also anticipated by Zhao. Furthermore, the recitation of close planting is indefinite. Accordingly, claim 5 is anticipated by the teachings of Zhao.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
18. 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.
19. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (CN-108476970-A, published 09/04/2018 (N)) as evidenced by Ware (Maize Genome Sequencing Project. 2016 (W)) in view of Xie (CN-106868036-A, published 06/20/2017 (O)).
Regarding claim 4, Zhao is silent with regard to the structure of the lg1 mutation.
However, Xie discloses a method for creating a compact maize germplasm with Cas9-based site-directed mutagenesis of an LG1 protein sequence (see SEQ ID NO:1) identical to instant SEQ ID NO:4 and suggests that hybrids of the lg1 loss-of-function mutants have potential for increased yield in field tests (see English translation, p. 02).
The combination of Zhao and Xie renders unpatentable a method wherein the genomic mutant has nucleotide sequence selected from one of the sequences in groups (a)-(e) of claim 4.
The level of ordinary skill in the art is high as evidenced by both Zhao and Xie. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Zhao by the teachings of Xie to produce a heterozygous lg1 mutant plant with a reduced leaf angle in comparison to a wildtype plant. One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Zhao and Xie because both Zhao and Xie teach methods directed towards manipulating the expression and/or activity of the maize LG1 gene to impact the development and angle of leaves to promote growth under high density in field conditions. The design and utilization of CRISPR/Cas gene editing constructs is routine for one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, Xie’s disclosure that such editing can produce alleles suitable for producing hybrids with beneficial traits provides sufficient motivation to use a CRISPR/Cas gene editing construct to produce lg1 alleles for producing hybrids as described by Zhao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to combine the teachings of Zhao and Xie given their shared goals, gene targets, and the global economic incentive of improving growth of maize crops in fields. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success and without any surprising or unexpected results.
Conclusion
20. No claim is allowed.
Examiner’s Contact Information
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEQUANTARIUS J SPEED whose telephone number is (703)756-4779. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9AM-5PM ET.
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.
/DEQUANTARIUS JAVON SPEED/Junior Examiner, Art Unit 1663
/MATTHEW R KEOGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663
