DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first-to-invent provisions.
Status
Claims 2, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, and 24 as amended on 10 January 2025 were examined and rejected in an Office action posted on 28 May 2026. Applicant responded on 17 June 2026 adding claims 43-48. Claims 2, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 43-48 are examined herein.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims, or as otherwise necessary, the inventorship should be amended in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(b) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. Any amendment of inventorship must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and by the fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Examiner’s Notes & Claim Interpretation
Citations to Applicant’s specification are abbreviated herein “Spec.”
Occasionally, “SIN” is used as an abbreviation “SEQ ID NO:” herein.
Applicant amended the claims to remove fragments of SEQ ID NO:322 and narrowed the scope of variants of SEQ ID NO:323. However, the claims still recite variants of SEQ ID NO:322. The claims, however, are reasonably interpreted as requiring the expression of a protein with the sequence of SEQ ID NO:323 or a variant thereof for a fully enabled/described scope (see below). SEQ ID NO: is 458 nucleotides in length. Adding a mere six nucleotides, obviously well within the 95% sequence identical scope, could markedly change the protein being expressed. Adding a start codon, ATG, and a stop codon anywhere downstream, could produce a vast range of fragments.
Withdrawal of Objections and Rejections
The objections to claims 22 and 24 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The rejections of claims 2, 6 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The rejection of claims 16, 23, and 46 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112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The rejection of claims 16, 23, and 46 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35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The rejection of claims 2, 19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 102 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The Double Patenting rejection of claims 2, 19, 21, and 22 (p. 13 et seq.) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
35 USC § 112(b)-Based Claim Rejections
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 43-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The above claims require an “increased” phenotype but without a comparative basis. But “increased” is a relative term.
This is a new rejection.
Especially in the case of an increased plant height, which could readily vary based on environment, articulating a bass for comparison is required.
35 USC § 112(a) based Claim Rejections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 2, 19, 21, 22, 24, 43-45; and 47-48 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The Federal Circuit held that a written description of an invention '"requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula [or] chemical name,' of the claimed subject matter sufficient to distinguish it from other materials." Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 1171, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).
The court also held "naming a type of material generally known to exist, in the absence of knowledge as to what that material consists of is not a description of that material." Id., 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. The court held that "[a] description of a genus of cDNAs may be achieved by means of a recitation of a representative number of cDNAs, defined by nucleotide sequence, falling within the scope of the genus or of a recitation of structural features common to members of the genus, which features constitute a substantial portion of the genus." Id., 119 F. 3d at 1569, 43 USPQ2d at 1406.
Claim 2 is drawn to a method of producing a plant. The method comprises growing a plant cell with an exogenous nucleic acid molecule which has a sequence at least 95% identical to SEO ID NO:322 or encoding a polypeptide with a sequence at least 95% identical to SEO ID NO:323. SEQ ID NO:322 encodes SEQ ID NO:323.
The claimed genus of polypeptides include all polypeptides at least 95% identical to SEQ ID NO:323.
As discussed above, however, since the claim still reads on a broad range of variants of the polynucleotide sequence, the claim also reads on a vast genus of fragments of SEQ ID NO:323. As well as frame-shift mutants.
Claims 16 and 46 require identity to SEQ ID NO:323.
Claim 19 is drawn to a plant cell with a biological molecule as in claim 2 where the plant cell will, if regenerated into a plant, produce a plant that have increased biomass, height, yield or panicle weight compared to a control plant.
Claim 21 reads on a transgenic plant; claim 22 lists various types of plant (e.g. rice); claim 23 requires 99% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:323. Claim 24 reads on a seed product.
Applicant provides Example 8 and Table 8.
Thus Applicant fails to provide results for sequence variants of either SEQ ID NO:322, SEQ ID NO:323, or more importantly, fragments of SEQ ID NO:323 or frame-shift variants of SEQ ID NO:323.
SEQ ID NO:323, for example, is 100 amino acids long. If the first approximately 95% residues were held constant, and the remaining 5 were varied, that would result in 520 different variants. However, that is only a small fraction of the number claimed because of the genus of encoded polypeptides encompassed by the variants of SEQ ID NO:322.
Thus, in contrast to the broad genera claimed, Applicant provides only the full-length sequences themselves.
Further, the art teaches that minor changes to the amino acid sequence of a protein can change of eliminate activity.
Rhoads et al. which describes that mutation of Cys-128 to Ala in an alternative oxidase caused a pronounced overall increase in enzyme activity relative to the wild-type in the presence or absence of pyruvate (page 30753 Figure 3), whereas mutation of Cys-78 to Ala in the same Arabidopsis alternative oxidase resulted in a minimally active enzyme that showed no response to added pyruvate. Rhoads et al. (1998) J Biol Chem 273(46):30750-56, 30753 Fig. 3.
Furthermore, Guo et al. describes that while proteins are fairly tolerant to mutations resulting in single amino acid changes, increasing the number of substitutions additively increases the probability that the protein will be inactivated. Guo et al. (2004) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:9205-10, 9209, rt. col., para. 2. Thus, according to Guo et al., changing up to 19 amino acids in the relatively short SEQ ID NO:77 has a high likelihood of inactivating the protein. Minor changes might alter the activity of the protein when expressed transgenically.
In addition to polypeptide variants, the claims read on polynucleotide variants producing a vast genus of polypeptide variants.
These variant polynucleotide sequences include variants that include a premature stop codon or a frame-shift mutation inserted near the 5' end of the coding sequence. A premature stop codon might produce a protein that is markedly shorter. But a frame-shift mutant could produce an unrecognizable protein variant relative the recited amino acid sequences. Further the genera would encompass internal deletions of the encoded amino acid sequence. Still further, the permitted changes could be confined to the first base of a codon as opposed to the wobble base and thus a small number of nucleotide changes could substantially change the amino acid sequence of the polypeptide.
Therefore one skilled in the art would not be able to envision the claimed genus of polypeptides that are either fragments of the claimed SEQ ID NO:323 or the polypeptides produced by variants of SEQ ID NO:322 that would be active in the instant invention.
Hence Applicant fails to satisfy the written description requirement because Applicant fails to describe a representative number of species of sequences related to SEQ ID NO:322 or more importantly SEQ ID NO:323. Applicant also fails to describe the structural elements of this polypeptide and its encoding polynucleotide that are necessary and/or sufficient for activity in the instant invention. Therefore Applicant has not demonstrated to one skilled in the art possession of the broad genus of claimed polypeptides and variants. The specification fails to provide an adequate written description to support the breadth of the claims, and thus one of skill in the art would not believe Applicant to be in possession of the invention as broadly as claimed at the time of filing.
Dependent claims are included in the rejections because none provide limitations obviating these rejections.
Applicant’s Argument & Response
Applicant traverses the rejection beginning on page 5.
Applicant points out homolog teachings beginning on pages 6-7 of the Response as well as conserved domains (top of p. 7). On the bottom of page 7 and continuing on to page 8 Applicant discusses protein variants but on the level of single amino acid changes. This argument is not applicable to fragments of SEQ ID NO:323 or frame-shift polypeptides variants possibly encoded by variants of SEQ ID NO:322.
Applicant’s argument is persuasive as regard the current claimed genus of polypeptide sequence percentage variants, but not with regard to polynucleotide variants which include fragments of SEQ ID NO:323 as well as frame-shift variants.
Claims 2, 19, 21, 22, 24, 43-45; and 47-48 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.
The Federal Circuit in In re Wands lists eight considerations for determining whether or not undue experimentation would be necessary to practice an invention. In re Wands, 858 F2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). These factors are: the quantity of experimentation necessary, the amount of direction or guidance presented, the presence or absence of working examples of the invention, the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the relative skill of those in the art, the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and the breadth of the claims. Id.
Biotechnology is generally held to be an unpredictable art. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488,496, 20 U.S.P.Q.2d 1438, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
The scope of the claims is discussed above and that discussion is incorporated by reference here.
The scope of the claims is discussed above and that discussion is incorporated by reference here.
Claim 2, for example, incorporates nucleotide sequences that start with SEQ ID NO:322 and the claim includes polypeptide sequence variants; but it also includes fragments of SEQ ID NO:323 and frame shift mutants of SEQ ID NO:323 because the claim includes variants of SEQ ID NO:322.
The scope of the protein fragments and frame-shift variants is truly vast. Given the size of the claimed genera, extensive guidance would be required. Such guidance is not provided.
The discussion of protein variants from the prior art (Rhoads et al. and Guo et al.) is also incorporated here.
The scope of the protein variants, for example, is truly vast. Given the size of the claimed genera, extensive guidance would be required. Such guidance is not provided.
One of skill in the art, after reading the specification, would be uncertain as to both how to make and how to use the invention as broadly as claimed. One of skill in the art would find it difficult to predict which of the myriad of possibilities would provide a functional and useful invention and which would not without undue experimentation.
Given the claim breadth regarding variant sequences and fragments, combined with the unpredictability in the art, and lack of guidance as discussed above, undue experimentation is required to practice Applicant's invention. Therefore one skilled in the art would be forced to make and test numerous nucleic acids encoding polypeptides related to the ones used in the instant working example with no guidance as to which ones could be used in the instant invention and to what benefit. Thus Applicant's claimed invention would require undue trial and error experimentation with no reasonable expectation of success.
Dependent claims are included in the rejections because none provide limitations obviating these rejections. Claims 16 and 23 are only included because, although the claims read on any change in biomass, Applicant only describes an increase in rice biomass. Other than that they would not be included because they require the full length of SEQ ID NO:77.
Applicant’s Argument & Response
Applicant traverses the rejection beginning on page 8.
Applicant first points out the narrowing of the scope to 95% sequence identical. Applicant then draws attention to Example 9. Applicant draws attention to the results in Exxample 8/ Table 8.
The discussion bridging pages 10 and 11 deals with polypeptide variants.
Discussing minor sequence variants is not persuasive when applied to the full scope of claimed fragments and frame-shift variants.
As above, Applicant’s argument is persuasive as regard the current claimed genus of polypeptide sequence percentage variants (95% identical to SEQ ID NO:323), but not persuasive with regard to polynucleotide variants which include fragments of SEQ ID NO:323 as well as frame shift variants produced by variants of SEQ ID NO:322.
35 USC § 103-based Claim Rejections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, and 24 and 43-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over La Rosa et al.; U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2004/0031072 A1
in view of Apuya et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0070899 A1. The inventors of this latter publication are Nestor Apuya, Steven Craig Bobzin and Joon-Hyun Park. None are inventors in the instant application.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
As seen in the first alignment below, instant SEQ ID NO:323 is identical to SEQ ID NO:149486 of La Rosa et al. La Rosa et al. claim 2’s teaches a nucleotide construct encoding this amino acid sequence. Claim 3 reaches using the transgenic expression of a protein in a plant to improve yield in the plant. E.g. parts (m) through (t) (also lignin in part (j)). An increase in yield would be valuable to an ordinary artisan.
Thus it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create a transgenic plant expressing the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO:323. Applicant amended claim 2 to not only select for increased biomass but also increased yield or increased panicle weight. It would have been obvious to select such a transgenic plant for one of more of increased yield, biomass, plant height, and/or panicle weight.
Emphasizing this point, LaRosa et al. provides teachings regarding the importance of improving yield in paragraphs 0038-0050.
Given the level of skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Creating a transgenic plant expressing an exogenous gene / polypeptide was routine. Also routine was selecting a plant for increased yield as well as the other yield-related attributes.
Further, as seen in the alignment below, SEQ ID NO:323 is identical to Apuya et al.’s SEQ ID NO:725. Apuya et al. teaches that SEQ ID NO:725 is a homolog of SEQ ID NO:707 where SEQ ID NO:707 is identified as Ceres Clone 331755. Para. 0083. SEQ ID NO:725 is referenced as Ceres Clone 638126. In the instant specification, SEQ ID NO:323 is also referenced as Ceres Clone 638126. Para. 0043.
Therefore claims 2, 16, 19, 21 and 46 are obvious.
Claims 23 and 24 are obvious because they encompass seeds, which are obvious in view of a plant, and further La Rosa et al. discusses seeds in paragraphs 0048-50. Claim 47 is also obvious. Progeny are also obvious in view of seed, and further see La Rosa et al.’s paragraph 0081; thus claim 48 is obvious.
La Rosa et al. teaches a variety of plants, as in claim 22, in paragraph 0021 and thus claim 22 is obvious.
It stands to reason that a plant selected for increased height will, indeed have increased height. Also, a plant selected for increased yield will, indeed have increased yield. Similarly for panicle weight. Thus claims 43, 44 and 45 are obvious.
Additionally, it is well known that plant height correlates with increased yield in, at least, maize. Tittonell et al. (2005) Agric Ecosys Environ 105:213-20, abstract.
Thus electing for increased height can reasonably result in a plant with increased yield.
Additionally, since a panicle is a plant part, it also stands to reason that a larger plant has increased panicle weight. Also, a correlation between panicle weight and yield is known in the art. E.g., Jun et al. (2006) Agric Sci China 5(12):911-18.
Applicant’s Argument & Response
Applicant’s argument begins on page 11. In the first paragraph of page 12, Applicant urges that La Rosa et al. provides no teachings to single out its SEQ ID NO:149486 as associated with biomass increase. However, that argument pertains to the previous version of the claims. Now the claims require increased yield. As seen above La Rosa et al. provides ample teachings about the importance of increased yield to an artisan.
In the second paragraph, Applicant turns to Apuya et al. and urges that the publication does not single out the highly identical sequence. Again, Applicant focuses the argument on increased biomass and not the other parameters that now can be selected.
However, it would have been obvious for an ordinary artisan to select a transgenic plant for increased yield. Again, La Rosa et al. provides extensive teachings to that end.
Even turning to biomass, Applicant’s BACKGROUND section, which summarizes the state of the prior art, focuses on the importance to the art of obtaining plants with increased biomass.
Further, Applicant does not explain how a plant with increased lignin would not also have an increase in the broader term biomass.
Regarding the number of sequences taught by La Rosa et al. and Apuya et al., the Federal Circuit in the In re Gleave decision considered the issue as to whether a claim that individually lists hundreds of sequences is prior art with regard to a subsequent patent application that singles out a particular sequence. In re Gleave, 560 F3d 1331, 90 USPQ2d 1235, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The party arguing against the validity of the reference as prior art, Gleave, presented the same arguments that Appellant presents – merely listing numerous sequences somehow does not individually teach each sequence. Id. The Federal Circuit, however, held that a claim listing individually sequences still fully describes each individual sequence. Id., p. 1241. Even though the prior art listed hundreds of individual sequences, it still reads on each individual embodiment. Id., p. 1240.
Although Rosa et al. and Apuya et al. admittedly teaches thousands of sequences, they still specifically and distinctly teach individual sequence.
Further, they both teach their version of the same sequence as being claimed. Surely that provides additional emphasis on the claimed sequence.
The MPEP confirms the above approach: "[a] reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments.” MPEP § 2123 (citing to Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)). Section 2123 continues that "[t]he prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed . . ." MPEP § 2123 (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
Thus creating, growing and selecting, for example, a plant where SEQ ID NO:323 was exppressed was routine in the art and present no technical hurdles that would bar a reasonable expectation of success. Appellant’s specification presents no teachings as to any additional step that was performed or is required. Appellant’s approach merely agrees with the teachings of Rosa et al. and Apuya et al. to create a transgenic plant exppressing SEQ ID NO:323 and then growing and selecting the plant for increased yield, height or biomass.
In the second full paragraph of page 13, Applicant cites to two Federal Circuit decisions and alleges that the Office action lacks an evidentiary basis to select a plant for increased – but again, Applicant focuses exclusively on biomass. The claims are now much broader than that and the Office action DOES provide evidentiary basis for selecting for increased yield. Further, Applicant’s BACKGROUND section teaches the value of increased biomass in the prior art.
Thus Applicant’s argument was fully considered but is not persuasive.
APPLICANT: La Rosa Thomas J
US-10-424-599-149486 dupe
Sequence 149486, US/10424599
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: La Rosa Thomas J
APPLICANT: Kovalic David K
APPLICANT: Zhou Yihua
APPLICANT: Cao Yongwei
TITLE OF INVENTION: Soy Nucleic Acid Molecules and Other Molecules Associated With
TITLE OF INVENTION: Plants and Uses Thereof for Plant Improvement
FILE REFERENCE: 38-21(53223)B
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/10/424,599
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2003-04-28
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 285684
SEQ ID NO 149486
LENGTH: 100
TYPE: PRT
ORGANISM: Glycine max
FEATURE:
OTHER INFORMATION: Clone ID: PAT_MRT3847_106008C.1.pep
Query Match 97.1%; Score 500; Length 100;
Best Local Similarity 97.0%;
Matches 97; Conservative 2; Mismatches 1; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 MASSSLSKQKASDSSWTPKQNKLFEKALAKYDKDTPDRWQNVAKAVGGKSADEVKRHYEI 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||:|||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 MASSSLSKQKASDSSWTPKQNKLFEKALAKYDKDTPERWQNVAKAVGGKSADEVKRHYEI 60
Qy 61 LLEDLRHIESGHVPLPKYKSTGSSTNVEEEERLLKYLKLN 100
||||||||||| |||||||||||||||:||||||||||||
Db 61 LLEDLRHIESGRVPLPKYKSTGSSTNVDEEERLLKYLKLN 100
CC PA (APUY/) APUYA N.
AWL26465
(NOTE: this sequence has 10 duplicates in the database searched.
See complete list at the end of this report)
ID AWL26465 standard; protein; 100 AA.
XX
AC AWL26465;
XX
DT 19-JAN-2012 (revised)
DT 28-MAY-2009 (first entry)
XX
DE Plant cell incorporated exogenous DNA coding protein SEQ ID:725.
XX
KW lignin; gene regulation; plant; ds; genetic engineering.
XX
OS Glycine max.
XX
CC PN US2009070899-A1.
XX
CC PD 12-MAR-2009.
XX
CC PF 29-OCT-2007; 2007US-00980276.
XX
PR 27-OCT-2006; 2006US-0854825P.
XX
CC PA (APUY/) APUYA N.
CC PA (BOBZ/) BOBZIN S C.
CC PA (PARK/) PARK J.
XX
CC PI Apuya N, Bobzin SC, Park J;
XX
DR WPI; 2009-F93803/21.
DR PC:NCBI; gi356544482.
XX
CC PT Producing a plant comprises growing a plant cell comprising an exogenous
CC PT nucleic acid comprising a regulatory region operably linked to a
CC PT nucleotide sequence encoding a polypeptide.
XX
CC PS Claim 2; SEQ ID NO 725; 408pp; English. there are over 2,000
XX
CC The present invention relates to a method of producing a plant comprises
CC growing a plant cell comprising an exogenous nucleic acid comprising a
CC regulatory region operably linked to a nucleotide sequence encoding a
CC polypeptide, where the Hidden Markov Model (HMM) bit score of the amino
CC acid sequence of the polypeptide is greater than 20, the HMM based on the
CC amino acid sequences given in the specification, and where a tissue of a
CC plant produced from the plant cell has a difference in the level of
CC lignin as compared to the corresponding level in tissue of a control
CC plant that does not comprise the nucleic acid. The methods are useful for
CC producing a plant; expressing a sequence of interest in a plant cell; and
CC modulating the level of lignin in a plant. It is also useful for
CC modulating lignin accumulation; modulating expression of nucleic acid
CC sequences of interest including both endogenous and exogenous nucleic
CC acid sequences; and identifying regulatory protein and regulatory region
CC pairs. The regulatory region is preferably SEQ ID NO: 1909-1918 and it is
CC not associated with the polypeptide. The present sequence represents a
CC plant cell incorporated exogenous DNA coding protein used in the
CC modulating level of lignin content in the plant.
CC
CC Revised record issued on 15-JAN-2012 : Enhanced with precomputed
CC information from BOND.
XX
SQ Sequence 100 AA;
Query Match 100.0%; Score 515; Length 100;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 100; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 MASSSLSKQKASDSSWTPKQNKLFEKALAKYDKDTPDRWQNVAKAVGGKSADEVKRHYEI 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 MASSSLSKQKASDSSWTPKQNKLFEKALAKYDKDTPDRWQNVAKAVGGKSADEVKRHYEI 60
Qy 61 LLEDLRHIESGHVPLPKYKSTGSSTNVEEEERLLKYLKLN 100
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 LLEDLRHIESGHVPLPKYKSTGSSTNVEEEERLLKYLKLN 100
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL T BOGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-2805. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800 to 1830 Mtn.
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 at 571-270-0708. 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.
/RUSSELL T BOGGS/Examiner, Art Unit 1663
Prosecution Insights