DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-8 are pending.
Claims 1-8 are examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
The claim 1 recites a correlation between the presence or absence of peroxidase activity in a soybean plant (or soybean seed coat) and one or more polymorphisms, including polymorphisms corresponding to SEQ IN NO: 1-3. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional steps of “obtaining a sample of nucleic acids”, “detecting”, “polymorphisms identifying” and “determine the genotype”, merely involve data gathering and analysis that do not impose any meaningful limit on the judicial exception and do not effect a transformation or improve a technical field.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, including nucleic acid obtaining, marker detection, PCR-based detection, sequencing, oligonucleotide probe analysis, are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field and are applied in a generic manner to detect the recited polymorphisms.
The instantly pending claim is method claim. The judicial exception is an abstract idea, namely a mental process, including the correlation between a recited polymorphism locus (including polymorphisms corresponding to SEQ ID NO: 1-3) and the presence or absence of peroxidase activity in a soybean plant.
Claim 1 is drawn to methods of determining the genotype of a soybean plant, which apply this correlation by detecting one or more polymorphisms and determining whether the plant has the genotype associated with the presence or absence of peroxidase activity. This claim reads on mental processes, i. e., evaluating genotype information and selecting or characterizing the plant based on that information, which amounts to observation evaluation and judgement. The breadth of “obtaining a sample of nucleic acids”, “detecting”, and “identifying”, encompasses non-transformative data gathering and analysis of naturally occurring genetic information, coupled with prior knowledge of the correlation between the recited polymorphisms and the peroxidase activity. The claim does not require any transformation of the plant other than generic conventional breeding activity, treatment step, or technological improvement in genotyping or breeding, but instead begin with detecting naturally occurring polymorphisms and end with determining genotype. This breadth does not impose a meaningful limit on the claim scope, such that others are not precluded from using the underlying correlation.
As the steps of “obtaining a sample of nucleic acids” and “detecting” in claim 1 is very generally recited, the combination of these steps is reasonably interpreted as merely data gathering and analysis. Obtaining nucleic acids from a soybean plant and detecting polymorphisms using PCR, sequencing, probes, or other recited methods was well understood, routine, and conventional at the time of filing. There are no limitations in the claims that distinguish these steps from what is already routinely practiced. Furthermore, limiting the polymorphism to polymorphisms corresponding to SEQ ID NO: 1-3 does not change the steps to be performed. Detecting polymorphisms in plant genomic DNA and correlating such polymorphisms with a trait was routine as the time of filing.
For a claim direct to a judicial exception to be patent eligible, the claim must include additional elements sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application and to significantly more the exception itself, as set forth in MPEP § 2106 and MPEP § 2106.04(d). Here, the additional limitations of obtaining a sample of nucleic acids and detecting polymorphisms, are recited genetically and merely gather, analyze, and apply information about a naturally occurring genotype-phenotype correlation using routine and conventual techniques. These limitations do not reflect any technological improvement in genotyping, breeding, or plant product, do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
The claims 7-8 recites a “marker” comprising a polymorphism at a specified nucleotide position on soybean chromosome 9 relative to the Glycine max Williams82a2.75 reference genome. As such, the claims are directed to a naturally occurring DNA marker comprising naturally occurring genomic sequence variation, i.e., a product of nature. A naturally occurring
DNA segment is not patent eligible merely because it has been identified or isolated, and claims to nature-based products are evaluated for whether they possess markedly different characteristics from their naturally occurring counterparts.
The claimed marker is defined only by naturally occurring chromosomal position and naturally occurring polymorphism. The claims do not recite any structural modification, recombinant construction, primer, probe, label, synthetic sequence, or other feature that would render the claimed marker markedly different from what exists in nature. Thus, the claims recite a product of nature exception.
The additional phrase “for detecting peroxidase activity” does not render the claims patent eligible. That phrase merely states an intended use or purpose for the claimed marker and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Nor does it add any meaningful limitation that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The claims remain directed to the naturally occurring polymorphic DNA per se.
Accordingly, claims 7-8 are directed to a natural phenomenon , namely naturally occurring DNA marker comprising a naturally occurring polymorphism at a specified position in the soybean genome, and the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than that judicial exception.
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 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 5, 7, and 8, the recitation of genomic locations by reference to “chromosome 9 of the Williams82a2.75 reference genome” renders the scope of the claims unclear because the metes and bounds of the claimed chromosomal interval and polymorphism position s are defined only by relative to an external reference framework rather by a fixed sequence or otherwise objectively bounded structure. The claims do not make clear how the recited coordinates are to be determined if the reference assembly, annotation, or positional numbering differs, is updated, or is interpreted differently across soybean genomic rescores. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention because the precise boundaries of the claimed interval or polymorphism depend on an external coordinate system that may vary, rather than on a claim-defined structural feature. For example, the Williams82a2.75 reference genome sequence has already undergone serval undated across different versions; please refer to the information below.
PNG
media_image1.png
920
1020
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 5, the recitation that “the chromosomal interval comprises detection of peroxidase activity” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what structural limitation is being required of the claimed chromosomal interval. A chromosomal interval is a genomic region, whereas “detection of peroxidase activity” constitutes an art, result, or intended use, rather than a structural characteristic of the interval itself. Because the claim language does not clearly set forth what the chromosomal interval must include in structural or otherwise objectively determinable terms, the metes and bounds of the claim are not reasonably certain.
Claim 5, the phrase “or equivalent thereof in other Glycine max lines” further renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what genomic region in another Glycine max line constitutes the claimed “equivalent”,. The claims provides no objective standard, such as specific sequence identity, syntenic relationship, flacking marker boundaries. Or other measurable criterion, by which one ordinary skill in the art could determine whether a genomic interval in another Glycine max line falls withing the scope of the claim.
Dependent claim 6 is included in this rejection because they do not include additional limitations to resolve the ambiguity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Scope of Enablement
Claims 1-8 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 claim(s) contains 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.
Specifically, the specification does not enable the full scope of the claimed invention for at least two reasons. First, the specification does not demonstrate that sequences recited as SEQ ID NO: 1-3, or any portion thereof, are themselves functionally correlated with the presence or absence of peroxidase activity, but instead reflects that only specific SNPs and/or indels within those sequences may be associated with the phenotype (SNP at the nucleotide position at about base pair 1,769,167 on chromosome 9 or an insertion or deletion relative to a reference soybean genome for Glycine max at nucleotide position at about base pair 1,770,838 on chromosome 9, wherein the reference genome is the Glycine max reference genome) (paragraph 0023), without identifying which particular polymorphisms are necessary and sufficient for reliable prediction. Second, the claimed markers and chromosomal intervals are defined broadly, including by reference to genomic coordinates and equivalents across Glycine max lines, which do not provide sufficient guidance to consistently identify and apply the claimed polymorphisms across different genome assemblies, genetic backgrounds, or breeding populations, thereby requiring undue experimentation to determine operability across the full scope of the claims.
An “analysis of whether a particular claim is supported by the disclosure in an application requires a determination of whether that disclosure, when filed, contained sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the claims as to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the claimed invention.” MPEP 2164.01. “A conclusion of lack of enablement means that. . . the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention [i.e. commensurate scope] without undue experimentation.” In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557,1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993); MPEP 2164.01.
In In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731,8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988), several factors implicated in determination of whether a disclosure satisfies the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue” are identified. These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731,737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). No single factor is independently determinative of enablement; rather “[I]t is improper to conclude that a disclosure is not enabling based on an analysis of only one of the above factors while ignoring one or more of the others.” MPEP 2164.01. Likewise, all factors may not be relevant to the enablement analysis of any individual claim.
Claims 1-8 broadly recite methods of determining the genotype of a soybean plant by detecting a plurality of polymorphisms corresponding to SEQ ID NO: 1-3, methods of producing soybean seed and plants based on detection of genetic markers associated with presence or absence of peroxidase activity, soybean plants comprising chromosomal intervals on chromosome 9 of the Williams82a2.75 reference genome or equivalent thereof in other Glycine max lines, and markers comprising polymorphisms at specified chromosomal positions. The scope of the claimed invention is therefore broad, as it encompasses use of the recited markers and intervals to determine genotype, predict or select for peroxidase activity, produce progeny therefrom, and define plants and markers across soybean germplasm generally.
However, the Specification has not provided the enabling guidance required for one of ordinary skill in the art to make and/or use the claimed invention across its full scope without undue experimentation.
The nature of the invention is the use of genetic polymorphisms as markers to characterize, predict, select, and breed for the presence or absence of peroxidase activity in soybean. The nature of the invention therefore requires one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to reliably determine whether the presence or absence of the claimed polymorphism, sequence, sequence portion or chromosomal interval predicts the claimed phenotype and can be used for the claimed breeding and plant-selection purposes across the full scope of the claims. However, the Specification does not provide sufficient guidance to support such determination across the full scope recited.
First, the Specification does not enable the use of the claimed markers across the full breadth of soybean germplasm. The disclosure appear to derive the claimed marker-trait association from a particular parental comparison, population, or genetic context (the identity of the parental lines is not provided, paragraphs 0092-0093), yet the claims are not limited to that parental source, that mapping population, or that particular genetic background. Instead, the claims extend broadly to soybean plants, seeds, chromosomal intervals, and markers generally. The Specification does not provide sufficient teaching showing that the claimed marker remain reliably associated with peroxidase presence or absence across diverse soybean germplasm (soybean materials used for marker validation were from BASF Discovery Breeding in Brazil, and the material were derived from 53 different crosses, paragraph 0092), across distinct linkage backgrounds, or in the fact of recombination. Thus, while the Specification may support the use of certain markers in the particular disclosed context, it does not enable their use across the full scope now claimed.
Second, the claims recites SEQ ID NO: 1-3, or markers corresponding thereto, but the phenotype correlation is not shown to reside in the full sequences themselves. Rather, the relevant correlation appears to dependent on specific SNPs and/or indels within those sequences. For example, the Specification suggests that polymorphism at specific position- such as nucleotide position 151 of SEQ ID NO:1, comprising an A/G variation within a 301 nucleotides sequence- may be associated with the phenotype. Similarly, SEQ ID NO: 2 and 3 are described as sequence containing specific insertion and deletion polymorphisms associated with marker (e.g., mGLY00092831). However, the claims are not limited to this specific polymorphic site. The Specification does not provide enabling guidance establishing that the full sequences of SEQ ID NO: 1-3, as opposed to the particular polymorphic site or sites therein, are themselves predictive of peroxidase activity. Nor does the Specification identify which specific nucleotide changes are necessary and sufficient for phenotype prediction, whether surrounding sequence context is required, or whether all recited polymorphisms within the claimed sequences are equally informative. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be required to determine through additional experimentation which particular nucleotide differences withing SEQ ID NO: 1-3 actually correlated with the phenotype and under what circumstances.
This deficiency is especially pronounced
in claim 6, which recites “any one or more of SEQ IN NO: 1-3 or any portion thereof”. The Specification does not enable the full scope of “any portion thereof” because it does not teach which portions retain predictive value, which portions include the relevant SNP or indel, or which portions would be sufficient to confer or detect the claimed association with peroxidase activity. As claimed, the scope encompasses fragments that may omit the relevant polymorphic site entirely and therefore would not function as markers for the claimed phenotype. The Specification does not provide sufficient guidance to distinguish operative from inoperative embodiments within this broad genus.
The breeding claims likewise are not enabled commensurate with their scope. Claim 2 broadly recites isolating nucleic acid, detecting a marker associated with peroxidase activity, selecting a first soybean plant based on the marker, crossing with a second soybean plant lacking the marker, producing seed, and selecting progeny having the phenotype and marker. Claim 3 further recites backcrossing, and claim 4 is drawn to a soybean plant produced thereby. However, the Specification does not provide sufficient enabling guidance showing that the claimed markers can be used reliably to perform these selection and breeding steps across the full scope of soybean germplasm. In the absence of sufficient teaching that the claimed markers are consistently predictive across different genetic backgrounds, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to confidently practice the recited selection and breeding methods without further extensive validation and experimentation.
The Specification also does not enable the full breadth of claim 5, which recites a soybean plant having in its genome a chromosomal interval defined by specified base-pair coordinates on chromosome 9 of the Willams82a2.75 reference genome, “or equivalent thereof in other Glycine max lines”. The disclosure does not provide sufficient teaching regarding how one of ordinary skill in the art would identify the correspond “equivalent” interval in other soybean lines, particularly where sequence assemblies, structural variation, haplotypes, or coordinate systems may differ. Nor does the Specification teach that such equivalent intervals in other lines would maintain the same claimed association with peroxidase activity across the full scope. Thus, the claims encompass embodiments requiring additional mapping and validation work not enable by the present disclosure.
Similarly, claims 7 and 8 recites markers comprising polymorphisms at specified nucleotide positions on chromosome 9 relative to the Williams82a2.75 reference genome. However, the Specification does not establish that the mere presence of a polymorphism at the recited position, without more, is sufficient to detect peroxidase activity across the full scope of the claims. The disclosure does not provide sufficient enabling guidance establishing the predictive reliability, linkage stability, or reproducibility of the recited markers across soybean populations generally. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be required to determine through further experimentation whether the recited positions in fact sufficiently predictive in different genetic backgrounds and under different breeding contexts.
The state of the art further supports the conclusion that undue experimentation would be required. Marker-assisted selection based on polymorphisms requires a reproducible and sufficiently characterized relationship between the marker and the underlying genetic determinant of the trait Collard (Bertrand CY Collard et.al., Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (2007) 363(1491):557–572) (page 557, 2. OVERVIEW OF DNA MARKERS, QTL MAPPING, AND MARKER-ASSISTED SELECTION, Figure 1). Here, the Specification does not disclose sufficient information regarding linkage stability, recombination distance, transferability across germplasm, or consistent predictive performance across populations. In the absence of such guidance, the skilled artisan would be required to perform extensive validation studies to determine which marker, sequence potions, intervals, or positional polymorphisms actually function for the claimed purpose and in which contexts.
Additionally, the breadth of the claims is substantial, the amount of direction and guidance in the Specification is limited to particular disclosed embodiment, the predictability of marker-trait associations across diver germplasm is limited, and the amount of experimentation required to identify operative embodiment across the full claim scope would be extensive. Thus, the quantity of experimentation necessary to practice the full scope of the claims would be undue.
Therefore, while the Specification may enable the use of certain specific polymorphisms in certain particular experimental or breeding contexts, it does not enable the full breadth of claim 1-8, which encompasses use of SEQ ID NOs: 1-3, portions thereof, specified chromosomal intervals and equivalents thereof, and positional polymorphisms to determine genotype, detect peroxidase activity, select plants, breeding progeny, and define soybean plants and markers generally.
Accordingly, in light of the breadth of the claims, the limited guidance provided in the Specification, and the unpredictability of marker-trait associations across the full scope claimed, the Superfetation does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and/or use the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 Gizem (Mark Gizem, The Plant Journal (1997) 12(5), 991-998).
Claim 1 recites a method of determining the genotype of a soybean plant, wherein said method comprises obtaining a sample of nucleic acids from the soybean plant and detecting in the nucleic acids, a plurality of polymorphisms, wherein said plurality of polymorphisms correspond to the nucleotide polymorphisms identified in any one or more of SEQ ID NOs: 1-3.
Gizem discloses a method of determining the genotype of a soybean plant by obtaining soybean nucleic acid and detecting a polymorphism in the soybean seed coat peroxidase locus. Specifically, Gizem discloses isolation of soybean genomic DNA, PCR amplification using primers derived from the soybean seed coat peroxidase sequence, and detection of polymorphisms that distinguish EpEp and epep genotypes (page 994, left column paragraph 1-2). Gizem further discloses that the recessive ep allele contains an 87 bp deletion at the 5’end of the structural gene, encompassing the translation start codon, and that this polymorphism co-segregates with seed coat peroxidase activity (page 994. Left column and right column).
Gizem also discloses the soybean seed coat peroxidase cDNA sequence in Figure 1 (page 992) and the 87 bp deletion in the ep allele in Figure 4 (page 993) (only a portion of the 17kb genomic sequence is disclosed). As shown by the alignment of record, SEQ ID NO: 2 matches the prior-art soybean peroxidase sequence over the aligned region, and the claimed 87 bp deletion corresponds exactly to the 87 bp deletion disclosed by Gizem in the ep allele (alignment below). Thus, Gizem discloses obtaining a sample of nucleic acids from a soybean plant and detecting in the nucleic acids the claimed polymorphism for determine genotype, as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, claim 1 is anticipated by Gizem.
PNG
media_image2.png
866
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
427
551
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (cDNA)][AltContent: textbox (SEQ ID 2)][AltContent: textbox (+79)][AltContent: textbox (-10)][AltContent: textbox (289)][AltContent: textbox (203)]
PNG
media_image4.png
779
1641
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Gizem (1997) in view of Rosso (M Luciana Rosso et. a., International Journal of Molecular Sciences (2021) 6;22(5):2675 pp1-16).
Claim 2 recites a method of producing a soybean seed from a plant that has the presence or absence of peroxidase activity as compared to a control plant, wherein the method comprises:
a. Isolating a nucleic acid from a soybean plant;
b. Detecting in the nucleic acid, the presence of a genetic marker that is associated with the presence or absence of peroxidase activity, wherein said genetic marker is selected from any one or more of SEQ ID NOs: 1-3;
c. Selecting a first soybean plant based on the presence of the marker associated with improved said activity;
d. Crossing a second soybean plant with said first soybean plant, wherein the second soybean plant does not comprise in its genome the marker associated with said activity;
e. Producing seed from said crossing; and
f. Selecting a soybean plant grown from said seed that has the presence or absence of peroxidase activity and comprises the genetic marker associated with said activity.
For the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1 above. Gizem teaches detecting a soybean polymorphism at the Ep locus, namely an 87 bp deletion in the recessive ep allele, by PCR analysis of soybean genomic DNA, wherein the detected polymorphism distinguishes genotypes associated with seed coat peroxidase activity.
Gizem does not expressly teach selecting a first soybean plant based on the detected marker, crossing with a second soybean plant lacking the marker, producing seed, and selecting progeny comprising the marker and the associated trait.
Rosso teaches the use of soybean molecular markers linked to a trait in marker-assisted selection, including genotyping soybean breeding populations and selecting plants based on marker information for use in breeding programs(page 1, Abstract; page 12, paragraph 2-5; page 13, paragraph 1 and table 8; page 11, paragraph 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the polymorphism at the known soybean Ep locus taught by Gizem in marker-assisted breeding method as taught by Rosso, including selecting plants based on the detected marker, crossing elected plants, producing seed, and selecting progeny having the desired marker and corresponding phenotype, because Rosso teaches that soybean breeders routinely use molecular markers to guide selection in breeding populations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Gizem establishes the correlation between the polymorphism and the peroxidase phenotype, and Rosso teaches routine application of such markers in soybean breeding. Accordingly, claim 2 would have been obvious over Gizem in view of Rosso.
Claim 3 recites the method of claim 2, further comprising the step of backcrossing the plants produced from step (f).
Rosso teaches backcrossing in practical applications (page 11, paragraph 1). Backcrossing is a conventional breeding step used in marker-assisted selection to introgress a desired trait into soybean background. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further backcross the selected progeny obtained using the marker-assisted method of Gizem in view of Rosso. Claim 3 is obvious over Gizem and Rosso.
Claim 4 recites a soybean plant produced by the method of claim 3, wherein the plant comprises the genetic marker associated with peroxidase activity.
Gizem teaches the peroxidase-associated Ep polymorphism and Rosso teaches use of soybean trait-linked markers in breeding populations, it would have been obvious to obtain a soybean plant comprising the selected marker associated with peroxidase activity as the product of the obvious method. Accordingly, claim 4 would have been obvious over Gizem in view of Rosso.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANXIN SHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amjad A Abraham can be reached at (571)272-7058. 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.
/YANXIN SHEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1663
/WEIHUA FAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663
Prosecution Insights