DETALIED 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election, with traverse, of Group I, claims 1-11, drawn to a nucleic acid, vector, and host cell containing the vector, which comprise of 15 different combinations of Agrobacterium virulence (vir) genes which alternately include Agrobacterium rhizogenes GALLS gene, in the reply filed on 03/ is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the basis that “Claims 12-16 of Group II and Claim 17 of Group Ill contain all of the claim elements of Claim 2 of Group I [and that] [t]here is no substantial additional burden to search for prior art for Group II and Group III over a prior art search for Group I” (see Applicant Remarks page 1).
Applicants’ arguments have been carefully considered but they are not persuasive. Briefly, Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. In the instant case the composition or product (group I) can be used in a materially different process, for example agroinfiltration for extra-chromosomal expression which would not involve the stable integration required by the invention of group II (part (c) of the method of claim 12). Inventions Ill and I are related as process of making and product made. In the instant case, the composition or product (group I) can be made by another and materially different process, for example the claimed nucleic acid can be made without virB1 (see for example claims 3-4), whereas invention Ill requires it.
The restriction is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/588,661, filed 10/06/2023.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-17 are pending in the application.
Claims 12-17 are withdrawn for being directed to non-elected inventions.
Claims 1-11 are pending and examined herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on is acknowledged and is being considered by the examiner.
The listing of references on pages 20-25 of the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1 should recite “encoding a refactored minimized set” instead of “encoding refactored minimized set”
Claims 2-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1 should recite “nucleic” instead of “nucleuc”
Claims 5-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1 should recite “further comprises” instead of “comprises” as applicant is adding unto existing components recited in claim 1.
Claim interpretation
Regarding claims 1-11, claim 1 recites “[a] nucleic acid encoding refactored minimized set of Agrobacterium virulence genes” where “refactored” and “ minimized” are not defined within the Specification. The Specification does recite that “[u]nless defined otherwise, all technical and scientific terms used herein have the same meaning as commonly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to which this invention belongs” (paragraph 0052). Temme (K. Temme, D. Zhao, & C.A. Voigt, Refactoring the nitrogen fixation gene cluster from Klebsiella oxytoca, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109 (18) 7085-7090, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1120788109 (2012)., published 04/16/2012, cited in IDS dated 01/01/2025) recites the following:
“In engineering, one approach to reduce the complexity of a system is to “refactor” it, a term borrowed from software development whereby the code underlying a program is rewritten to achieve some goal (e.g., stability) without changing functionality (17). This term was first applied to genetics to describe the top-down simplification of a phage genome by redesigning known genetic elements to be individually changeable by standard restriction digest (18). Here, we use it to refer to a comprehensive bottom-up process to systematically eliminate the native regulation of a gene cluster and replace it with synthetic genetic parts and circuits (Fig. 1). The end product is a version of the gene cluster whose DNA sequence has been rewritten, but it encodes the same function.”
Thus, “refactored” is broadly defined to at least include some replacement of native regulatory mechanisms and reduction of complexity measured by any relative measure, for example percent of similarity to wildtype (WT) or length of sequence. Refactoring, therefore, includes minimizing where “minimized” is broadly defined as reduced length of sequence compared to WT.
Regarding claims 2-8, “the nucleic acid of claim 1, wherein the refactored minimized set of Agrobacterium virulence genes comprises the following genes: virB1, virB2, virB3, virB4, virB5, virB6, virB7, virB8, virB9, virB10, virB11, virD4, and virD12, and virE12 or Agrobacterium rhizogenes GALLS gene” means that the refactored minimized set comprises:
(i)virB1, virB2, virB3, virB4, virB5, virB6, virB7, virB8, virB9, virB10, virB11, virD4, and virD12 and
(ii) either the virE12 or Agrobacterium rhizogenes GALLS gene.
Regarding claims 3-4, claim 3 depends from claim 2 and recites the negative limitation “the refactored minimized set of Agrobacterium virulence genes at least excludes: virA, virG, virB1, or virE12 genes” when virA and virG genes where not listed in claim 2. This would typically result in a rejection for a lack of antecedent basis. However, “vir genes in all laboratory strains of Agrobacterium [are] controlled using natural inducers, transduced by the master regulatory system VirA/G” such that virA and virG are well known Agrobacterium virulence genes (Specification paragraph 0053).
Regarding claims 9-11, “the term ‘promoter’ refers to a polynucleotide sequence capable of driving transcription of a DNA sequence in a cell. Thus, promoters used in the polynucleotide constructs of the invention include cis- and trans-acting transcriptional control elements and regulatory sequences that are involved in regulating or modulating the timing and/or rate of transcription of a gene. For example,…an origin of replication” (Specification paragraph 0045).
Further regarding claims 9-11, “the term ‘operably linked’ refers to a functional relationship between two or more polynucleotide (e.g., DNA) segments. Typically, it refers to the functional relationship of a transcriptional regulatory sequence to a transcribed sequence. For example, a promoter or enhancer sequence is operably linked to a DNA or RNA sequence if it stimulates or modulates the transcription of the DNA or RNA sequence in an appropriate host cell” (paragraph 0048).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2-11 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. All dependent claims are included in these rejections unless they contain a limitation that overcomes the deficiencies of the parent claim from which they depend. Details are listed below.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2-8, claim 2 depends from claim 1 (i.e., a nucleic acid encoding refactored minimized set of Agrobacterium virulence genes) and recites “the refactored minimized set of Agrobacterium virulence genes comprises the following genes: virB1, virB2, virB3, virB4, virB5, virB6, virB7, virB8, virB9, virB10, virB11, virD4, and virD12, and virE12 or Agrobacterium rhizogenes GALLS gene.” The Specification recites “known functional nonregulatory vir gene clusters in A. fabrum GV3101: virB1-11, virC12, virD12, virD3, virD4, virD5, virE12, virE3, virF, virH1, virH2, and virK (Figure 2, Panel A)” in paragraph 0079. Figure 2, Panel A is described as “[t]he virulence gene cluster from pTiC58 [wherein] [k]nown non-regulatory vir genes are shown in red” (paragraph 0026). Figure 2 shows the inclusion of virB1, virB2, virB3, virB4, virB5, virB6, virB7, virB8, virB9, virB10, virB11, and virD4 as known regulatory vir genes. Figure 2 does not show virD12, and virE12 as known regulatory vir genes. Further, virD12 and virE12 are not standard terms in the art.
In the interest of compact prosecution, virD12 and virE12 are being given the following broadest reasonable interpretations:
virD12 refers to virD1 and virD2, and
virE12 refers to virE1 and virE2.
Claims 5-8 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because claim 5 depends from claim 2 and recites “the refactored minimized set of Agrobacterium virulence genes comprises virC12, virD5, or virE3.” Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and recites “the refactored minimized set of Agrobacterium virulence genes comprises virC12.” The Specification recites “known functional nonregulatory vir gene clusters in A .fabrum GV3101: virB1-11, virC12, virD12, virD3, virD4, virD5, virE12, virE3, virF, virH1, virH2, and virK (Figure 2, Panel A)” in paragraph 0079. Figure 2, Panel A is described as “[t]he virulence gene cluster from pTiC58 [wherein] [k]nown non-regulatory vir genes are shown in red” (paragraph 0026). Figure 2 shows the inclusion of virD5, and virE4 as known regulatory vir genes. However, it does not show virC12 as known regulatory vir genes. Further, virC12 is not a standard terms in the art.
In the interest of compact prosecution, virC12 is being given the broadest reasonable interpretations of referring to virC1 and virC2.
Regarding the rejection of claims 9-11, claim 9 depends from claim 1 (i.e., a nucleic acid encoding refactored minimized set of Agrobacterium virulence genes) and recites “the genes are operatively linked to one or more promoters.” It is unclear what phrase 'operably linked to one or more promoters' means in this context. One promoter per set? multiple promoters per set? one promoter per gene in the set? multiple promoters per gene? Or a mixture thereof? The boundary of the scope of the claimed invention is uncertain.
Claims 10-11 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because claim 10 depends from claim 9 and recites “the vector is capable of …stably residing in a host cell.” It is unclear what phrase 'stably residing in a host cell' means in this context. How long is the vector capable of stably residing in a host cell? A couple generations? A couple of weeks? or years? Also, under what conditions? The boundary of the scope of the claimed invention is uncertain.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
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.
Claims 3-4 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. All dependent claims are included in these rejections unless they contain a limitation that overcomes the deficiencies of the parent claim from which they depend. Details are listed below.
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and recites “the refactored minimized set of Agrobacterium virulence genes at least excludes: virA, virG, virB1, or virE12 genes.” Claim 4, which depends from claim 3, recites “the refactored minimized set of Agrobacterium virulence genes at least excludes: virA, virG, and virB1 genes.” The exclusions of virB1 or virE12 contradict the limitations of claim 2. Dependent claims must incorporate the limitations of parent claims. See MPEP 2173.05(f) and MPEP § 608.01(n), subsection III.
Applicant may cancel the claims amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Altpeter (Fredy Altpeter, et al., Advancing Crop Transformation in the Era of Genome Editing, The Plant Cell, Volume 28, Issue 7, July 2016, Pages 1510–1520, https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.16.00196, published 07/22/2016). The claim is listed below for reference within this document.
Claim 1. A nucleic acid encoding refactored minimized set of Agrobacterium virulence genes.
Concerned with advancing crop transformation, Altpeter teaches the following on page 1517, column 1: “The transformation components in the bacterium could be further streamlined to enable more precise engineering. Breakthroughs in synthetic biology make it possible to produce predictable functions from quantitatively characterized components and to refactor complex natural gene circuits into simpler designs that can then be optimized with desired parameters that are computationally selected (Smanski et al., 2014; cited reference not included herein). These approaches applied to Escherichia coli plasmids and the nitrogen fixation gene cluster from Klebsiella oxytoca, among others, provide a roadmap to engineer a synthetic plant transformation platform (Temme et al., 2012; Smanski et al., 2014; ; cited references not included herein). For example, we should be able to refactor the Agrobacterium Ti-plasmid [i.e., nucleic acid encoding refactored minimized set of Agrobacterium virulence genes] to have virulence and other functions that are temporally and quantitatively tuned for plant transformation, rather than for natural pathogenesis. To make the genetic components of a Ti-plasmid predictable, a detailed quantitative understanding of each component's transfer function is needed, not for pathogenesis, but for how these components contribute to plant transformation function.”
Accordingly, Altpeter anticipates the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2-3 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altpeter in view of Anand (Anand, A., et al., 2019. Novel Ternary Vectors for Efficient Sorghum Transformation. Methods Mol Biol. 2019;1931:185-196. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-9039-9_13. PMID: 30652291., published 01/19/2019, cited in IDS dated 01/08/2025 ).
Concerned with advancing crop transformation, Altpeter teaches the following on page 1517, column 1: “The transformation components in the bacterium could be further streamlined to enable more precise engineering. Breakthroughs in synthetic biology make it possible to produce predictable functions from quantitatively characterized components and to refactor complex natural gene circuits into simpler designs that can then be optimized with desired parameters that are computationally selected (Smanski et al., 2014). These approaches applied to Escherichia coli plasmids and the nitrogen fixation gene cluster from Klebsiella oxytoca, among others, provide a roadmap to engineer a synthetic plant transformation platform (Temme et al., 2012; Smanski et al., 2014). For example, we should be able to refactor the Agrobacterium Ti-plasmid [(i.e., nucleic acid encoding refactored minimized set of Agrobacterium virulence genes] to have virulence and other functions that are temporally and quantitatively tuned for plant transformation, rather than for natural pathogenesis. To make the genetic components of a Ti-plasmid predictable, a detailed quantitative understanding of each component's transfer function is needed, not for pathogenesis, but for how these components contribute to plant transformation function.”
Altpeter teaches that “[p]articular combinations of Agrobacterium vir genes and bacterial chromosomal backgrounds influence virulence on different plant species”, adding that “[f]uture studies should include rigorous analysis of combinations of these factors to generate Agrobacterium strains with a broader host range” (pages 1514-1515, bridging paragraph).
Altpeter does not explicitly teach the inclusion of virB1, virB2, virB3, virB4, virB5, virB6, virB7, virB8, virB9, virB10, virB11, virD4, and virD12, and virE12 in a refactored set of Agrobacterium virulence genes.
However, Anand, also in the field of advancing crop transformation, teaches an accessory plasmid, pPHP71539, depicted in Anand’s Fig. 2b as including virB1, virB2, virB3, virB4, virB5, virB6, virB7, virB8, virB9, virB10, virB11, virD4, virD12, and virE12 (i.e., comprises the following genes: virB1, virB2, virB3, virB4, virB5, virB6, virB7, virB8, virB9, virB10, virB11, virD4, and virD12, and virE12) (page 187; page 189, last paragraph; see snippet of Anand’s Fig. 2c below).
PNG
media_image1.png
206
342
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Anand also teaches that “Plasmid pPHP71539…is based on plasmid pPHP70298,” “an improved version of the super-binary pSB1 [where] the improved features include fixing functionality in some of the virulence genes, replacing the large size replicon (RK2 ORI) with a smaller replicon (pVS1), removing unnecessary DNA sequences (noncore DNA elements between operons), and excluding the T-DNA region [such that] pPHP70298 is only half the size (18.7 kb) of the original pSB1 plasmid (36.9 kb).” (i.e., A nucleic acid encoding refactored minimized set of Agrobacterium virulence genes)(page 190, first two full paragraphs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the claimed invention to combine the refactoring, combining and analyzing of various combinations suggestions of Altpeter with the set of combinations of Agrobacterium virulence genes teachings Anand, arriving upon the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do this in order to enhance plant transformation efficiency with reasonable expectation of success because Anand recites that the “system[, which includes the various combinations in the accessory plasmids,] resulted in improved transformation efficiencies in…crops” (page 194, third full paragraph).
Regarding claims 5-8, which depend from claim 2, Anand’s pPHP71539 plasmid is depicted as comprising virC12, virD5 and virE3 (c.f., the limitations of claims 5-8) (see snippet of Anand’s Fig. 2c above).
PNG
media_image1.png
206
342
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Anand also teaches an accessory plasmid, pPHP70298 (18.7 kb), depicted in Anand’s Fig. 2b as excluding virE12 (i.e., at least excludes virE12) (page 187; page 189, last paragraph; see snippet of Anand’s Fig. 2b below).
Regarding claim 9, which depends from claim 1, Anand teaches “replacing the large size replicon (RK2 ORI) with a smaller replicon (pVS1)” (i.e., the genes are operatively linked to one promoter)(page 190, first two full paragraphs).
Regarding claim 10, which depends from claim 9, Anand teaches that “[pPHP70298 and pPHP71539] were found to be stably maintained in multiple bacterial backgrounds including different Agrobacterium strains” (i.e., the vector is capable of stably integrating into a chromosome of a host cell or stably residing in a host cell)(page 190, first two full paragraphs).
Regarding claim 11, which depends from claim 10, Anand teaches that “[a] ternary vector was assembled by first mobilizing the accessory plasmid, such as pPHP71539, into an Agrobacterium auxotrophic (LBA4404 Thy-) strain and selected on media containing 25 mg/1 gentamicin” (i.e., A host cell comprising the vector of claim 10)(page 190, last paragraph).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altpeter in view of Anand as applied in the claims above, in further view of Turk (Turk, S.C., et al., 1993. The virA promoter is a host-range determinant in Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Molecular microbiology, 7(5), pp.719-724., published 1993, cited in IDS dated 01/01/2025), Schuster (Schuster, L.A. et al., 2021. A plasmid toolbox for controlled gene expression across the Proteobacteria. Nucleic Acids Research, 49(12), pp.7189-7202., published 2021, cited in IDS dated 01/01/2025), and Berger (Berger BR, Christie PJ. Genetic complementation analysis of the Agrobacterium tumefaciens virB operon: virB2 through virB11 are essential virulence genes. J Bacteriol. 1994 Jun;176(12):3646-60. doi: 10.1128/jb.176.12.3646-3660.1994. PMID: 8206843; PMCID: PMC205554., published 1994).
Altpeter teaches that “[p]henolic compounds secreted by wounded plants are perceived by the Agrobacterium VirA/VirG two-component sensing system, resulting in induction of virulence (vir) genes” (page 1515, figure 4 caption). Late on page 1517, Altpeter then teaches “[refactoring] the Agrobacterium Ti-plasmid to have virulence and other functions that are temporally and quantitatively tuned for plant transformation, rather than for natural pathogenesis” (column 1). VirA and VirG are components of the Agrobacterium VirA/VirG two-component sensing system which is tuned for natural pathogenesis. This can be understood as replacing the VirA/VirG two-component sensing system.
Altpeter also teaches that “Future studies should include rigorous analysis of combinations of these factors to generate Agrobacterium strains with a broader host range”(page 1515).
Altpeter does not explicitly teach excluding virA, virG and virB1 genes from a refactored set of Agrobacterium virulence genes.
Anand teaches that “ternary vectors harboring a plasmid containing a constitutive virG mutant (virGN54D) have been described that efficiently transfer T-DNA in multiple dicot plant species” (page 188, col 2, first paragraph). Thus, Anand teaches a plasmid with a virG mutant (i.e., a plasmid with nonfunctional virG), which is interpreted to read on the instant claim limitation of "does not include virG".
Turk teaches that the “virA promoter is a host-range determinant” (title) and that . A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to generate Agrobacterium strains with a broader host range (as taught by Altpeter), would consider the exclusion of virA.
Schuster teaches “a plasmid toolbox for controlled gene expression across the Proteobacteria” (title) including agrobacterium (page 7193, Table 1). A person of ordinary skill in the art looking to advance crop transformation by refactoring and optimizing Agrobacterium virulence gene regulation for transformation (as taught by Altpeter) would find it advantageous to utilize a modular, characterized system like that of Schuster. Exchanging the natural, plant-signaled VirA/VirG system for a designed, inducible system from the Schuster toolbox allows for specific tuning of gene expression.
Berger teaches that “virB1 is an accessory virulence determinant and virB2 through virB11 are absolutely essential for the A. tumefaciens infection process” (abstract). It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to refactor Agrobacterium strains (as taught by Altpeter)to exclude virB1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine and modify the generation of Agrobacterium strains with a broader host range and refactoring of the Agrobacterium Ti-plasmid teachings of Altpeter, virA host-range determinant teaching of Turk, Schuster’s plasmid toolbox, and nonessential virB1 teachings of Berger to exclude virA, virG, and virB1 genes from a set of Agrobacterium virulence genes arriving upon the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success in order to expand host range, to refactor the Agrobacterium Ti-plasmid by removing unessential genes, removing genes that limit host range, and to establish a controlled gene expression system.
References Cited but not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Raman (Raman, V., et al., 2022. Agrobacterium expressing a type Ill secretion system delivers Pseudomonas effectors into plant cells to enhance transformation. Nature communications, 13(1 ), p.2581., published 2022, cited in IDS dated 01/01/2025) teaches Agrobacterium without type IV secretion systems (T4SS) in favor of T3SS because “T3SS translocate[es] proteins and T4SS translocat[es] both proteins and T-DNA” (page 2, col 2, last full paragraph). V also teaches that “Recently, direct delivery of proteins using Agrobacterium's T4SS is getting attention, particularly in the field of DNA-free genome editing” and presents T3SS as an alternative ( ;page 10, col 2). virB1 is a component of the agrobacterium T4SS.
Thompson (Thompson MG, Moore WM, Hummel NFC, Pearson AN, Barnum CR, Scheller HV, Shih PM. Agrobacterium tumefaciens: A Bacterium Primed for Synthetic Biology. Biodes Res. 2020 May 26;2020:8189219. doi: 10.34133/2020/8189219. PMID: 37849895; PMCID: PMC10530663., Published 2020) is also in the field of synthetic biology and teaches that “the [Agrobacterium] virulence plasmid would be able to be entirely synthetically refactored (Figure 1(b))” and that “vir genes can be precisely expressed to achieve desired titers of key virulence genes [d]epending on the desired transformation outcome and host plant” (page 11, col 1. Las full paragraph; figure 1 caption).
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YVETTE B TAMUKONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1040. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 730-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bratislav Stankovic can be reached at (571) 270-0305. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YVETTE BIH TAMUKONG/ Examiner, Art Unit 1662
/BRATISLAV STANKOVIC/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Units 1661 & 1662
Prosecution Insights