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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group III, consisting of claims 1, 4-5 & 19-20, in the reply filed on 6 Aug 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 4-5 & 19-20 are under examination on the merits.
Claims 2-3, 6-18 & 21 are withdrawn as directed to non-elected subject matter.
Priority
Claims 1, 4-5 & 19-20 receive the U.S. effective filing date of 13 Oct 2023.
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 1, 4-5 & 19-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation ‘the DNA sequence modifying enzyme’ in line 2 of claim 1(ii)(b). It is unclear what DNA sequence modifying enzyme is being referenced since there is no prior introduction of a DNA sequence modifying enzyme in the claims.
As such, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Independent claims 1 & 20, from which all others depend, both recite the limitation of a vector comprising ‘a rescue transgene’. This is not a known category of gene(s) or annotated gene per se and appears to be a term coined by Applicant. Additionally, the claims do not indicate what features distinguish a rescue transgene or indicate an associated sequence to identify such rescue transgenes.
Referring to the specification for clarification as to what would distinguish the critical feature of ‘a rescue transgene’, or how one would ascertain the metes and bounds of the invention and identify such a gene to avoid unintentionally infringing, none is found.
Applicant refers extensively to the necessary ‘rescue transgene’ but does not define this term. The closest explanation provided is a functional description of what such a rescue transgene does although no structural description of how it does this is provided [Specification ¶.2, l.16-26, ¶.10, ¶.87]. Applicant states that rescue transgenes are ‘recoded copies’ of an essential gene that are not targeted by nucleases designed to cleave the non-recoded copy of the essential gene but does not indicate what key structural features are necessary to identify such ‘recoded’ essential genes. There is no description of key structural features or identifying motifs that would maintain their essential function while simultaneously evading endonuclease activity, only stating that the research literature provides general guidance on this topic [¶.6].
Broadest reasonable interpretation of such statements is that a rescue transgene could be any genetic sequence, having any structural form or modification, being defined merely by function. The critical identifying features which would provide such function, being some type of structural or sequence pattern that would provide protection from the activity endonucleases are not described. Absent such an explanation, it is entirely unclear how one would identify a ‘rescue transgene’ or differentiate it from various allelic forms of an essential gene not considered ‘rescue transgenes’.
Because one reading claims limiting to vectors or systems requiring ‘a rescue transgene’ would have no way of determining what identifies such a gene, claims 1, 4-5 & 19-20 as written are indefinite and rejected.
Independent claims 1 & 20, from which all others depend, both recite the limitation of a vector comprising ‘cargo sequences’. This is not a known category of gene(s) or annotated gene per se and appears to be a term coined by Applicant. Additionally, the claims do not indicate what features distinguish cargo sequences or indicate an associated sequence to identify them.
Referring to the specification for clarification as to what would distinguish the identifying feature(s) of ‘cargo sequences’, or how one would ascertain the metes and bounds of the invention and avoid unintentionally infringing, none is found.
Applicant refers extensively to ‘cargo genes’ in the specification but does not define this term. The closest explanation provided is a generic functional description [Specification, ¶.6, ¶.163]. Applicant appears to indicate that ‘cargo sequences’ or ‘cargo genes’ are genetic elements carried along in their system that do some thing or perform some function other than the functions performed by the component endonuclease or the ‘rescue transgene’.
Broadest reasonable interpretation is that cargo sequences could be any genetic sequence, having any structural form or modification, being defined merely as some type of gene or sequence associated with the claimed vector system. The critical structural features which would identify a ‘cargo sequence’, being some type of structural or sequence pattern that would reliably distinguish this component of Applicant’s system, are not described. Absent such an explanation, it is entirely unclear how one would identify a ‘cargo sequence’ from any polynucleotide sequence, of any form, because this merely appears to be a non-specific placeholder term for inclusion of some sequence that does some undefined thing in the claimed vectoring system.
Because one reading claims limiting to vectors or systems involving use of ‘cargo sequences’ would have no way of determining what constitutes such sequences, claims 1, 4-5 & 19-20 as written are indefinite and rejected.
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, 4-5 & 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims require the molecular component of ‘a rescue transgene’ sequence. This appears to be a term coined by Applicant, and the structure and/or identity of such sequences is not defined, as discussed above [see p.5].
One reading Applicant’s disclosure and wanting to make use of their two-component system would need to understand how to engineer or make a molecular construct comprising ‘a rescue transgene’, as this is a critical component of the two-part system and is functionally responsible for the ability of the engineered gene or multi-gene cassette to spread in a population (i.e. it prevents lethal effects of the other component endonuclease).
Applicant describes, at length, how one would construct the first component of their system which is the site-specific endonuclease resulting in lethality or death of individuals infected with the proposed transmissible ‘addictive gene’ [Specification, ¶.56, ¶.58, ¶.125-153, ¶.281-282]. While they indicate that the natural spread of their engineered lethal gene in the population could be slowed or prevented by rescue transgenes having some type of structural element protecting them from the transmissible, lethal engineered gene, they do not describe how to make such protective structure that is generally applicable to different organisms.
One reading the specification would not understand, absent their own experimentation, how to make or use a rescue transgene that would predictably prevent the action of the transmissible, lethal gene(s) because Applicant does not indicate what features are required to prevent action of their transgenic endonuclease or toxin (i.e. lethality factor).
Provided only a general description of function for ‘rescue transgenes’ without indication of what structural features would reliably and broadly confer the claimed function of said genes, one skilled in the art would not reasonably or predictably be able to make or use such functional constructs absent undue experimentation.
Because the specification fails to fully describe how to make or use the critical component of ‘a rescue transgene’ required of the claimed invention, and thus fails to enable its use by others, all claims are rejected.
Claims 1, 4-5 & 19-20 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 claims contain 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.
While claim 1 is written broadly to encompass any and all organisms, claims are being interpreted as drawn to any and all plants, as a more specific sub-category of ‘any and all organisms’ relevant to the instant application, to more concisely illustrate reasons for rejection.
Regarding any and all plants; Claim 1 recites a method applied to ‘an organism’ and claim 20 recites ‘a plant’. Applicant does not limit their claims to any particular plant, and thus their claims are broadly drawn to a method which function in any and all plants.
Referring to the specification, Applicant describes the construction and use of their two-component genetic system in Arabidopsis, which requires a highly specific inter-specific construct in which the transformed Arabidopsis thaliana depends on a recoded rescue gene from A. lyrata [¶.281-285]. Applicant does not describe making or using their system in any other examples of other plant species.
It is unclear how such a system would work in other plants considering it appears to require use of genes from multiple related plant species, and there is no indication which secondary species would be used in the instance of any given plant to replicate the results seen when utilizing recoded A. lyrata rescue sequences in A. thaliana.
While Arabidopsis is acknowledged as a well-known model for plant research, provision of a single exemplary species does provide sufficient description of the very broadly claimed genus (i.e. any and all plants). The disclosure does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed method which would function in any plant other than Arabidopsis.
Regarding spread of the introduced gene in naturally reproducing populations; Claim 1 includes the limitation that the method is introduced to an environment wherein progeny carrying Applicant’s vector increase in frequency relative to wild-type individuals. Applicant is therefore claiming to have invented a method, or system, that would predictably increase allelic frequency in a population when a progeny (singular) comprising the vector is introduced into an environment. The act of ‘introducing to an environment’ indicates such a system should self-propagate and increase allelic frequency absent directed or controlled mating interventions by humans beyond introduction of the initial carrier progeny.
However, Applicant does not describe the spread or increase in frequency of progeny plants carrying such a vector when introduced to a population of wild-type individuals under natural reproductive conditions, or absent direct human intervention and forced mating. Applicant does not use any biological models to demonstrate such effects under natural reproductive conditions and limits their description to (a) manual experimental cross-pollination of a model plant (i.e. Arabidopsis) in a stringently controlled environment and (b) a prophetic or hypothetical example, based on computer simulations.
Regarding demonstration of gene propagation in a model plant; Applicant uses a transgenic form of Arabidopsis which is a naturally a self-pollinating (autogamous) plant.
To demonstrate gene transfer in a natural plant population, Applicant describes series of artificial backcrosses using said Arabidopsis; first between the initial vector carrier (i.e. T2) and wild-type plants to generate an F1 hybrid and a subsequent T4 generation (i.e. a BC1 population) for observation of Mendelian ratios. This is followed by a further outcross of selected T4 carriers to wild type to generate a T5 generation (i.e. a BC2 population) for demonstrating vector stability over multiple generations. It is notable Applicant manually outcrossed all plants, which is not reflective of Arabidopsis reproduction or gene transfer in natural settings where the plant generally pollinates itself. That is, no outcrossing or pre-selection of individuals would have occurred under natural reproductive (i.e. gene transmission) conditions, absent Applicant’s manual intervention [¶.292].
Applicant’s crossing methodology mimics the routine artificial backcrossing of a qualitative gene into a recurrent parent background. They systematically screen progeny as donor carriers and select them for use in the backcross. Applicant does not state the phenotype or genetic constitution of the BC1F2 generation that would have naturally resulted from self-pollination of the T4 generation, or the resulting T5 generation if T4 plants were not pre-screened prior to backcrossing to wild type (i.e. absent artificial population enrichment for vector carriers). Applicant does not describe resultant ratios when all progeny, absent pre-selective screening of carriers to be used in manual crossing, contribute gametes to the observed frequencies in progeny populations.
This indicates the transgenic construct is stable over at least two backcross generations but does not describe how the frequency of the construct in a plant population would change or increase in frequency relative to wild type individuals as claimed, absent pre-screening to select gamete donors or manually enrich the population for favorable qualitative alleles [¶.292].
It is also notable that even under strictly controlled environmental conditions designed to minimize variables alterning transmission of genes and skew them from ideal model conditions, Applicant observes that their vector is not evenly transmitted and there are clear inherent maternal or paternal effects in plants that may reasonably prevent such a method from working properly under their model assumptions [¶.293-295].
Regarding demonstration of gene propagation in ‘natural populations’; Applicant only provides description of multi-generational examples of how such genes would behave or be transmitted in real-world biological context based on computer simulation (i.e. user-defined hypothetical models).
Applicant’s model assumes a panmictic population with non-overlapping generations of dioecious individuals. It is generally known by plant breeders and geneticists that many plants, including Arabidopsis which is the plant model used by Applicant, are self-pollinated or are hermaphroditic and may have complex self-incompatibility systems. It is also generally known that plants can be perennial, persisting in reproductive capacity for years if not decades, and exist in complex ecosystems with overlapping generations and in which mutualistic associations with animal and plant pollinators impact survival and/or speciation. It is also generally known that dioecious plants, particularly in applied agricultural contexts, tend to be the exception rather than the rule. The core assumptions of the model used appear to ignore these factors in the two simulations put forth as supportive evidence of rapid population modification and suppression in plants broadly [¶.301-302].
Further, Applicant indicates they did not explore gene transmission in scenarios where pollen limitation may occur [¶.300]. This is highly relevant to survival and gene transmission among plants in natural contexts, as it is well established that environmental conditions are variable year-to-year and drought during flowering periods can lead to drastic reductions in pollen production or viability (i.e. floral abortion and grain or seed production failures during drought years) [See p.1, col.1, ¶.2—col.2, ¶1 in Descamps, Environmental and Experimental Botany 182 (2021) 104297; Pub. 19 Oct 2020]. It is also generally recognized by plant biologists that in natural ecosystems pollen is a food source for insects and animals and thus can be limited or selectively vectored by animal feeding or the action of pollinator insects [id].
In addition to the parameters mentioned above, Applicant indicates that their model used assumption of equal likelihood contribution from either maternal or paternal parents and a low-density growth rate was assumed [¶.299]. It is not clear how Applicant arrived at these assumptions as appropriate for any and all plants, and no examples are put forth in which they vary these parameters to account for different potential reproductive characteristics or growth rates of different plant species, which are being claimed broadly. Applicant did not model dynamics of their method in plant species which are self-pollinated or clonal and would also reasonably be considered as potentially skewing population contributions of engineered gametes.
Furthermore, the assumption of equal likelihood contribution from either maternal or paternal parent appears to conflict with data from their in planta tests of Arabidopsis. Applicant’s experimental evidence show transmission of their vector system clearly is skewed by maternal effects in plants [[¶.293-295]. This effect of maternal parents on gene frequency in populations would be particularly relevant in perennial plants where a single seed mother may persist for years, or decades, in the case of woody species.
The one highly plant-specific reproductive feature included in the described model was polyandry, and on this point Applicant’s simulation indicates the vector system would not reliably work to increase gene frequency [¶.301]. Applicant acknowledges that polyandry is relevant in plants [¶.300] and also admits that in the presence of polyandry their model shows gene drive is slowed and the engineered vector can fail to spread [¶.301]. This contradicts claim to a method which reliably drives increased vector frequency in a plant population.
Applicant generally indicates this can possibly be overcome by initially introducing more genetically modified plants. However, they do not limit the claimed invention to one which requires a defined level of introduction rate to arrive at the claimed effect, nor indicate what would constitute such a required threshold introduction size to make or use the invention reliably. If there is a required threshold introduction rate to predictably make or use the claimed method, this needs to be stated explicitly.
Taking these factors into consideration, Applicant’s simulations do not appear to have fully described representative plant-specific reproductive characteristics relevant to describing or indicating possession of the claimed invention. This would include, but not be limited to, situations involving autogamy, self-incompatibility mechanisms among hermaphroditic species, differences in gene flow and ability to tolerate lethal alleles between out-crossing versus self-pollinated plant species, polyploidy, effects of vegetative or clonal reproduction on gamete contributions, cyclic flowering (i.e. mast years), or impact of reproduction or pollen shed over extended time frames in the case of long-lived perennials (i.e. trees which can live centuries). Synthetic gene drive in plants requires consideration of species-specific reproductive biology and ecology; several of these aspects and their relevance to gene drive systems are summarized and reviewed elsewhere [See p.2, ¶2; p.3, ¶.2 in Hay, (2025) PLoS Biol 23(4):e3003148; Pub. 15 Apr 2025, and, p.5, col.2,¶.1 in Barrett].
Given claim to a broad genus of invention and providing such limited representative species as example, there is not sufficient biological or simulated evidence from Applicant reasonably describing that their engineered transmissible, lethal genes or the corresponding protective transgenes would spread or change in frequency in any and all wild or cultivated plant populations.
As such, the subject matter is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the broadly claimed invention or that the invention as currently claimed would predictably work in any and all plants.
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, 4 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Oberhofer [Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116 (13) 6250-6259; Published 13 Feb 2019].
Claim 1 is drawn to a method of gene spread in a population comprising introduction of a vector containing (a) a rescue transgene, (b) a gene encoding a second DNA-modifying enzyme and promoter, (c) one or more guide RNA (gRNA) gene(s), and (d) one or more cargo sequences.
Oberhofer teaches all of these elements. They describe a two-gene system for spreading an engineered DNA vector in a population [p.6251, col.1, ¶.2—col.2, ¶.2]. They describe that such a system comprises a vector [p.6252, Figure 1(a)] which has a rescue transgene [id] linked to a second gene [id]. They describe that there is a promoter which drives the second gene [p.6253, col.1, ¶.1, l.6-12] and that the second gene is a Cas9 DNA sequence modifying enzyme [p.6252, Figure 1(a); p.6253, col.1, ¶.1, l.6]. They describe that there is a second promoter linked to guide RNA sequences [p.6253, col.1, ¶.1, l.5-6] which target an endogenous essential gene [p.6253, col.1, ¶.1, l.1-4]. They describe that the vector optionally comprises a cargo sequence [p.6252, Figure 1(a); p.6256, col.1, ¶.2].
Oberhofer teaches expressing the DNA sequence modifying enzyme of the vector construct gives rise to a germline that renders the essential gene non-functional [p.6253, col.1, ¶.2—p.6254, col.1, ¶.1; Fig.3]. Oberhofer teaches generating an altered gamete containing such a vector wherein the essential gene rendered non-functional is rescued by the rescue transgene [id].
Oberhofer teaches the introduction of a progeny carrying the vector and altered gamete(s) into an environment wherein individuals carrying the rescue transgene increase in frequency relative to wild type individuals [p.6255, col.1, ¶4—p.6256, col.1, ¶.1].
(i.e. gene encoding a DNA-modifying enzyme, and, gRNA gene), a cargo sequence, and an antidote (i.e. rescue transgene) [p.6252, Figure 1]. They describe the use of U6 polymerase III promoter to express the gRNAs and nanos regulatory sequences to drive expression of the toxin [p.6252, col.2, ¶.2—p.6253, col.1, ¶.1].
Claim 4 introduces the limitation of applying the proposed method in diploid organisms with haploid gametes.
Oberhofer teaches use of their system in fruit flies, which are diploid and have haploid gametes [p.6252, col.2, ¶.2—p.6253, col.1, ¶.1].
Claim 19 introduces the limitation that the DNA sequence modifying enzyme is selected from a group of gene-editing enzymes and nucleases, including any Cas-9 related RNA-guided nucleases.
Oberhofer teaches use of their system with a DNA sequence modifying enzyme that is a Cas9/gRNA-based toxin [p.6252, Figure 1].
Because Oberhofer previously disclosed all limitations of claims 1, 4 & 19 these are clearly anticipated by prior art and rejected.
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.
Claims 5 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberhofer [Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116 (13) 6250-6259; Pub. 13 Feb 2019], in view of Barrett [2019 Proc. R. Soc. B 286: 20191515.; Pub. 6 Sep 2019].
Oberhofer teaches the construction and use of gene drive systems comprising vectors having a two-component DNA-toxin and rescue transgene structure, and their use with cargo sequences, in fruit flies as described above [See 102 rejection p.14-15].
Oberhofer does not teach their method as applied to plants, or for control of plant populations.
Barrett teaches use of gene drives in plants [p.1, col.1, ¶.2—p.2, col.1, ¶.1] specifically directed to their use in population control of weeds or other undesirable individuals [p.2, col.1, ¶.2]. They teach that nuclease-based drives using Cas-9 based toxicity factors can be used to this effect [p.4, col.2, ¶.4].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at a method of controlling a population of unwanted individuals via gene drive, as taught by Oberhofer, applied in plants, as outlined by Barrett. Use of gene drive systems, including the exact two-component vector system claimed, was known from Oberhofer’s teachings. It would be obvious to apply such a system to diploid plants, as the potential benefits of being able to sterilize or reduce populations of herbicide-resistant or invasive plants would be clear to one working in agriculture or plant breeding.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings to obtain the described benefit of a plant-killing gene drive system. Use of gene drive to reduce population was known to be an effective way to introduce non-chemical, self-propagating genetic mechanisms of population control, outlined by Oberhofer.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to apply the known method of gene drive using the two-component system (i.e. ClvR system) in plants because this would provide a non-chemical, alternative system for weed control. The need for a solution to herbicide-resistant weeds that have resulted from overuse of GMO-herbicide resistant crops is a generally recognized problem in food production. A non-chemical control method targeting such herbicide-resistant weeds, or invasive plants, would have clear economic benefit in potentially correcting this issue [Barrett, p.2, col.1, ¶.2].
Additionally, application of such system to plant models may allow testing in native ecosystems and otherwise facilitate deployment and commercialization of research findings that would be hampered by regulatory or ethical concerns in animal or mammalian applications, or generate concerns regarding release of engineered microbes into the environment (i.e. ‘organisms’ of claim 1).
Finding a biological system in which it would be easier or more publicly acceptable to deploy a new, experimental and self-replicating genetic engineering technology in would be of interest to a researcher concerned about delays associated with deployment in specific target organisms. It would be easier for a researcher to make the case that such experimental technology could be deployed in plants in order to provide proof-of-concept for broader application in other, non-plant organisms at a later date. This is a strong motivating factor for researchers concerned with commercialization of their basic research.
Regarding claim 5; this includes the limitations of the two-component vector system for population control originally outlined by Oberhofer as discussed above [see p.16] with the additional limitation that such a system is used in plants. The additional limitation of being deployed in plants is met by Barrett [p.1, col.1, ¶.2—p.2, col.1, ¶.1].
Regarding claim 20; this independent claim essentially recites all limitations of claim 1, but is drawn to plant (i.e. product) rather than a method. The limitations of the vector system comprising such a plant are met by Oberhofer, as discussed above [see p.16]. The limitation of such a system being deployed in and thus generating a plant carrying such a vector is met by Barrett who specifically describes use of such systems in plants, for control of undesirable populations [p.1, col.1, ¶.2—p.2, col.1, ¶.1 & p.2, col.1, ¶.2].
Because such a method and its deployment in plants had been clearly described by prior art at the time of Applicant’s filing, claims 5 & 20 are rejected.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH R WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3911. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 9:30 - 5:30 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, 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.
/KEITH R. WILLIAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 1663
/Amjad Abraham/SPE, Art Unit 1663
Prosecution Insights